[gshanky]

Originally Posted by vina

Well it generates protons (hydrogen ion) as an intermediate - it is promptly consumed within the cell - and next to impossible to generate H2 in any form.

Trains run on several MW (that's right) e.g. :

Indian locomotive class WDM-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - 2MW loco from 60s

Indian locomotive class WAG-9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - latest Indian locos @ 5MW

Locomotives in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a full list - latest locos are over 5MW


Also TGVs and other fast trains the word over run at several tens of MW.




The Fuel cell in question may be useful for static power generation for homes etc. as a backup supply or for supplying to relatively remote areas

Here is an article from business week - Bloom Energy Shifts Power via Fuel Cells - BusinessWeek

and some excerpts here

While working as a director of the Space Technologies Laboratory at the University of Arizona, the company's Indian-born co-founder and chief executive, K.R. Sridhar, was asked by NASA to come up with a way to make life sustainable on Mars. His lab's initial project was a device that would use solar power and Martian water to drive a reactor cell that generated oxygen to breathe and hydrogen to power vehicles.

The project set Sridhar thinking. If he reversed the reaction—feeding oxygen and fuel (hydrogen) into the cell to generate electricity—he could change the way people generated and consumed energy. He developed the first of his so-called Bloom boxes to do just that, but took it a step further by making the process reversible. That way, when hooked up to a renewable power source such as a wind turbine or solar panel, the refrigerator-size unit makes and stores hydrogen and oxygen. And at night or when the wind dies down, it changes direction and uses the stored gases to make electricity.

[vina]

Originally Posted by gshanky

Here is an article from business week - Bloom Energy Shifts Power via Fuel Cells - BusinessWeek

and some excerpts here

Generic newsprint is pretty bad when it comes to science. Business newsprint is worse.

Ever wondered why they all have to tell how an "inventor" got an inspiration somewhere is a fairytale way? Because the inventor is bullshitting them and they are bullshitting the readers.

Don't read too much into some news stories - even as an energy storage method hydrogen is bad.


EDIT: On the second page the article you can see the evidence of crappy reporting:

"What is known is that the company's fuel cell technology is different from hydrogen fuel cells, which have been around for decades. For starters, Bloom's system relies primarily on oxygen rather than hydrogen. And instead of requiring expensive precious metals, the fuel cell is built from a cheap ceramic material, sand. That should allow it to be more easily mass-produced, helping cut costs and widen its potential market."

First Oxygen can not replace any fuel at all, let alone Hydrogen. Second Intel's microprocessors also start out as sand - I'm not sure anybody would call them cheap. It's not the starting material that costs, it is all the rest of the stuff you do.

Also this: "At high temperatures, a hydrocarbon fuel—ethanol, biodiesel, methane, or natural gas—on one side of the cell attracts oxygen ions from the other. As the ions are pulled through the solid core, the resulting electrochemical reaction creates electricity. Though the technology consumes hydrocarbons, Sridhar says, it doesn't involve carbon-releasing combustion, so it emits only about half the greenhouse gases of conventional energy sources."

The last line in bold should tell you that the guy is either an idiot hired by NASA by mistake (and then encouraged to be inspired and start his own - in the process leaving NASA's project) or is trying to make fools out of media in an attempt the generate buzz which will then help him find bozos with cash to keep his company running - now that the green energy fever is not even 10% of what it was 3 yrs ago.

[RS_DEL]

Originally Posted by vina

Generic newsprint is pretty bad when it comes to science. Business newsprint is worse.

- now that the green energy fever is not even 10% of what it was 3 yrs ago.

You are absolutely right when it comes to the quality of intelligence available with the hacks especially in the business press. It is not for nothing that the most widely watched business channel on the box is called Can Never Be Correct amongst old timers in the markets.

I will defer to your scientific knowledge and take your description of the stated scientific rationale as nonsense. If it is the case as you state it to be, then either it is some PE/VC types who are being targeted or it is going to be a bucket shop operation on the OTC markets. Most likely the latter as the PE/VC types do have access to scientific consultants and would know they are being handed BS.

This reminds me of EEstor. A company that claimed they had developed capacitors rather supercapacitors/ultracapacitors that could in one charge power an EV across continental U.S. This company signed a couple of high profile agreements that generated good press coverage. A couple of financial offerings later it is nowhere to be found.Even their website is not existing anymore. Was the technology so revolutionary that it was suppressed by the oil lobby or was it a scam? Most likely the latter till there is evidence otherwise.

[vina]

Originally Posted by RS_DEL

You are absolutely right when it comes to the quality of intelligence available with the hacks especially in the business press. It is not for nothing that the most widely watched business channel on the box is called Can Never Be Correct amongst old timers in the markets.

I will defer to your scientific knowledge and take your description of the stated scientific rationale as nonsense. If it is the case as you state it to be, then either it is some PE/VC types who are being targeted or it is going to be a bucket shop operation on the OTC markets. Most likely the latter as the PE/VC types do have access to scientific consultants and would know they are being handed BS.

This reminds me of EEstor. A company that claimed they had developed capacitors rather supercapacitors/ultracapacitors that could in one charge power an EV across continental U.S. This company signed a couple of high profile agreements that generated good press coverage. A couple of financial offerings later it is nowhere to be found.Even their website is not existing anymore. Was the technology so revolutionary that it was suppressed by the oil lobby or was it a scam? Most likely the latter till there is evidence otherwise.

I didn't know CNBC had such an accurate reputation. What I do know is that several smart-alecs who would bore you with free advice and show off their market knowledge in family gatherings actually trade the recommendations on CNBC, NDTV Profit and their likes - they tend to make their reputations in sustained bull markets and nobody asks them how much they lose when tide inevitably turns.


On the scientific front you do not have to defer to anybody - that is bad science. Assuming you studied chemistry till at least 10th grade - any hydrocarbon (methane for example) when taken in a given quantity (say 1gram) and fully reacted with O2 (either via outright burning or via "controlled relatively low temperature oxidation" - no different from burning chemically speaking) will generate same amount of CO2 - simply because the hydrocarbon is the one that supplies the C in both cases and 1g of a given hydrocarbon will supply the same amount of C no matter how you oxidise the fuel.

Given that CO2 is the chief greenhouse gas present in hydrocarbon combustion (CO is another - but very little of that is generated) you get about the same amount no matter how you burn the hydrocarbon.

So basically what our friend the "technologist founder" is saying is that he will somehow destroy half the carbon - and since matter can neither be created nor destroyed (nor transformed into other elements, except in a nuclear reaction) he is talking absolute rubbish.

[gshanky]

Originally Posted by vina

Generic newsprint is pretty bad when it comes to science. Business newsprint is worse.

Ever wondered why they all have to tell how an "inventor" got an inspiration somewhere is a fairytale way? Because the inventor is bullshitting them and they are bullshitting the readers.

Don't read too much into some news stories - even as an energy storage method hydrogen is bad.


EDIT: On the second page the article you can see the evidence of crappy reporting:

"What is known is that the company's fuel cell technology is different from hydrogen fuel cells, which have been around for decades. For starters, Bloom's system relies primarily on oxygen rather than hydrogen. And instead of requiring expensive precious metals, the fuel cell is built from a cheap ceramic material, sand. That should allow it to be more easily mass-produced, helping cut costs and widen its potential market."

First Oxygen can not replace any fuel at all, let alone Hydrogen. Second Intel's microprocessors also start out as sand - I'm not sure anybody would call them cheap. It's not the starting material that costs, it is all the rest of the stuff you do.

Also this: "At high temperatures, a hydrocarbon fuel—ethanol, biodiesel, methane, or natural gas—on one side of the cell attracts oxygen ions from the other. As the ions are pulled through the solid core, the resulting electrochemical reaction creates electricity. Though the technology consumes hydrocarbons, Sridhar says, it doesn't involve carbon-releasing combustion, so it emits only about half the greenhouse gases of conventional energy sources."

The last line in bold should tell you that the guy is either an idiot hired by NASA by mistake (and then encouraged to be inspired and start his own - in the process leaving NASA's project) or is trying to make fools out of media in an attempt the generate buzz which will then help him find bozos with cash to keep his company running - now that the green energy fever is not even 10% of what it was 3 yrs ago.

I am not sure what we are discussing here. I just wanted to highlight the potential of using the bloom fuel cell's ability to create and store hydrogen for applications in automobiles. Again at the current state the bloom cell is big and not applicable for Cars right now. But may be if they are successful in reducing the size in the future it could be useful.

However you are painting the guy as a snake oil merchant. My knowledge in chemistry does not go the level of understanding the the process involved in reducing the CO2 output. So at this point it is your word against bloom's "secret" technology. So, imo jury is still out - as in I can hope this could work in the future and you could straightaway dismiss the concept as hogwash. Let's see what comes out in the near future. I guess we both are not going anywhere.

[vina]

Originally Posted by gshanky

...

However you are painting the guy as a snake oil merchant. My knowledge in chemistry does not go the level of understanding the the process involved in reducing the CO2 output. So at this point it is your word against bloom's "secret" technology. So, imo jury is still out - as in I can hope this could work in the future and you could straightaway dismiss the concept as hogwash. Let's see what comes out in the near future. I guess we both are not going anywhere.

It's not my word against his, it is his word against high school chemistry. If you do that he is indeed a snake oil merchant.

In green energy there is no dearth of these guys - plenty of people are interested in Sciency stuff without wanting to take even basic effort to understand what is going on.


Fundamentally, without subsidies they are all dead. Even with subsidies this particular company is not really doing green energy (assuming their technology works in the first place) - they are doing non-combustion energy generation from pretty conventional fuels.

[gshanky]

Originally Posted by vina

It's not my word against his, it is his word against high school chemistry. If you do that he is indeed a snake oil merchant.

In green energy there is no dearth of these guys - plenty of people are interested in Sciency stuff without wanting to take even basic effort to understand what is going on.


Fundamentally, without subsidies they are all dead. Even with subsidies this particular company is not really doing green energy (assuming their technology works in the first place) - they are doing non-combustion energy generation from pretty conventional fuels.

I don't think every innovation in chemistry could be explained through high school chemistry, especially Indian high school chemistry.

Moreover (some parts of) this particular technology is currently secret. And they do have patent(s). So I would not call them a snake oil merchant yet.

[vina]

Originally Posted by gshanky

I don't think every innovation in chemistry could be explained through high school chemistry, especially Indian high school chemistry.
....

What is the difference between Chemistry and "Indian chemistry"?

High school chemistry is not sufficient to prove anything - but it is more than sufficient to disprove claims.

For example primary school maths may not be much help if you are trying to figure out trajectory of a planet, but it is more than enough to tell you that a "scientist" is a fraud if he is publically claiming 2+2=5



EDIT: BTW, if you are interested in more tech stories on green energy, here is a site which has relatively little bullshit:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech

[gshanky]

Originally Posted by vina

What is the difference between Chemistry and "Indian chemistry"?

High school chemistry is not sufficient to prove anything - but it is more than sufficient to disprove claims.

For example primary school maths may not be much help if you are trying to figure out trajectory of a planet, but it is more than enough to tell you that a "scientist" is a fraud if he is publically claiming 2+2=5

I am sure it is a bit more complicated than proving 2+2=5. .

Even so

0 x(2+2) = 0 x (5)

Haha. Didn't mean to convert this into a joke. But my opinion holds that you are jumping the gun here.

[vina]

Originally Posted by gshanky

I am sure it is a bit more complicated than proving 2+2=5. .

Even so

0 x(2+2) = 0 x (5)

Haha. Didn't mean to convert this into a joke. But my opinion holds that you are jumping the gun here.

Well you still have one more step to go (division by 0) in the process

BTW - don't assume that all I know is high school chemistry. I'm not a software guy - I do know stuff.

Fuel Cells News & Articles - IEEE Spectrum is where you'll get far better fuel cell news.

[gshanky]

Originally Posted by vina

Well you still have one more step to go (division by 0) in the process

BTW - don't assume that all I know is high school chemistry. I'm not a software guy - I do know stuff.

Fuel Cells News & Articles - IEEE Spectrum is where you'll get far better fuel cell news.

I meant no disrespect to you. Will checkout the link for sure.

[dot]

On this interesting Bloom Energy topic, I would agree that the technology seems to improve a conventional combustion process. Is there an energy profit? -how much energy is being spent to make the gadget and bring NG to the box vs how much energy is getting generated. I am not sure without data. The article in Business Week seems to be talking completely different things when compared to the information in the company website. Either the company website is not updated or it is better to ignore the article.

Further, this technology does not seem to be applicable to automobiles in the current form.

[gshanky]

Originally Posted by dot

On this interesting Bloom Energy topic, I would agree that the technology seems to improve a conventional combustion process. Is there an energy profit? -how much energy is being spent to make the gadget and bring NG to the box vs how much energy is getting generated. I am not sure without data. The article in Business Week seems to be talking completely different things when compared to the information in the company website. Either the company website is not updated or it is better to ignore the article.

Further, this technology does not seem to be applicable to automobiles in the current form.

Bloom energy's website has a data sheet - Bloom Energy | Be The Solution | Data Sheet

Moreover, here is another article referred from the one vina sent me - How Bloom Energy's mini, green power plant works

Here are some excerpts

Friedrich "Fritz" Prinz, a fuel cell expert at Stanford University, said there's no reason to doubt that the Bloom Box works as Bloom Energy's Sridhar claims.

"The solid oxide fuel cell technology they're pursuing is one of the most attractive fuel cell technologies there is," said Prinz, who was not involved in the Bloom Box's development.

Based on the 60 Minutes segment, Prinz said, the design of the Bloom Box appears to be fairly standard and that there was nothing obviously revolutionary about it.

"They didn't reveal any new physics or any new principles, but I don't think they need to do that," Prinz added.

"They just need to take understood and recognized principles in material science and thermodynamics and implement them, and it looks like they've done that successfully.

"Whether they've done it economically, I don't know."

While most experts seem to agree that the current Bloom Box appears to be a fairly standard solid oxide fuel cell system, Bloom Energy has filed patents in recent years that hint at a possible killer feature that could set its future devices apart from the competition, Greentech Media's Kanellos said.

The patents describe a process for taking the runoff of the main electricity generation—carbon dioxide and water—and using it to produce oxygen and a "methane-like fuel," he said.

This would essentially reverse the chemical reaction in the Bloom Box—a possibility Sridhar hinted at on 60 Minutes.

That new fuel and oxidant could be automatically run through the Bloom Box to generate even more electricity—and less waste.

The big Bloom Energy Servers already in use don't currently do this, but if such a reverse-reaction is possible—and it's not clear that it is—then "it would be huge," Kanellos said.

"If they can do that, they're in a class by themselves," he said. "If they can't do that, then they just have a really nice fuel cell ... but it may not be so tremendously [different] to set them apart."

The above article seems to have been written in feb. 2010. I am not sure what has changed so far. The bottom line is that I think this is one of the technologies that has some promise.

Yes, this technology is not applicable for vehicles at the current form and shape. But the alluded concept of generating hydrogen and storing for future use/consumption is something that interests me for use in fuel cell vehicles of the future.

[vina]

Originally Posted by dot

On this interesting Bloom Energy topic, I would agree that the technology seems to improve a conventional combustion process. Is there an energy profit? -how much energy is being spent to make the gadget and bring NG to the box vs how much energy is getting generated. I am not sure without data. The article in Business Week seems to be talking completely different things when compared to the information in the company website. Either the company website is not updated or it is better to ignore the article.

Further, this technology does not seem to be applicable to automobiles in the current form.

Originally Posted by gshanky

Bloom energy's website has a data sheet - Bloom Energy | Be The Solution | Data Sheet

Moreover, here is another article referred from the one vina sent me - How Bloom Energy's mini, green power plant works

Here are some excerpts




The above article seems to have been written in feb. 2010. I am not sure what has changed so far. The bottom line is that I think this is one of the technologies that has some promise.

Yes, this technology is not applicable for vehicles at the current form and shape. But the alluded concept of generating hydrogen and storing for future use/consumption is something that interests me for use in fuel cell vehicles of the future.

Fuel cells also combust the fuel - except at lower temperatures. For an internal combustion engine the efficiency if limited by that of carnot cycle. For a fuel cell on the other hand the efficiency is limited by Gibbs free energy.

Engines these days, especially the larger ones found in power plants (multi-stage turbines etc.) achieve close to carnot efficiency. Fuel cells are nowhere near their theoretical peaks but even then they are more efficient.


Fuel cells have other advantages though - they produce almost no noise (except that of fans used for cooling and pumps for moving fluids) guarantee almost complete combustion (no catcon to clean up the dirty exhaust)


Coming to Bloom energy - the company has been making noises for several years now. Quite a few high tech companies have their systems on campuses (it isn't clear whether these companies paid for the systems) to generate back up power for some time now.

Economic viability at this stage is only extrapolated using assumptions about mass production - they may not come to pass.


what @gshanky is excited about is the claim to be able to generate hydrogen - that claim is NOT under verification at the client companies at the moment and is probably not feasible. But even if it were, generating hydrogen is just the first step, storage and later use are complicated too.

A better cause for excitement would be ability to use the cell for powering up colonies in places where natural gas is available - unfortunately that is a problem too in India - natural gas is presently in short supply.

[vina]

Originally Posted by dot

On this interesting Bloom Energy topic, I would agree that the technology seems to improve a conventional combustion process. Is there an energy profit? -how much energy is being spent to make the gadget and bring NG to the box vs how much energy is getting generated. I am not sure without data. The article in Business Week seems to be talking completely different things when compared to the information in the company website. Either the company website is not updated or it is better to ignore the article.

Further, this technology does not seem to be applicable to automobiles in the current form.

Originally Posted by gshanky

Bloom energy's website has a data sheet - Bloom Energy | Be The Solution | Data Sheet

Moreover, here is another article referred from the one vina sent me - How Bloom Energy's mini, green power plant works

Here are some excerpts




The above article seems to have been written in feb. 2010. I am not sure what has changed so far. The bottom line is that I think this is one of the technologies that has some promise.

Yes, this technology is not applicable for vehicles at the current form and shape. But the alluded concept of generating hydrogen and storing for future use/consumption is something that interests me for use in fuel cell vehicles of the future.

Fuel cells also combust the fuel - except at lower temperatures. For an internal combustion engine the efficiency if limited by that of carnot cycle. For a fuel cell on the other hand the efficiency is limited by Gibbs free energy.

Engines these days, especially the larger ones found in power plants (multi-stage turbines etc.) achieve close to carnot efficiency. Fuel cells are nowhere near their theoretical peaks but even then they are more efficient.


Fuel cells have other advantages though - they produce almost no noise (except that of fans used for cooling and pumps for moving fluids) guarantee almost complete combustion (no catcon to clean up the dirty exhaust)


Coming to Bloom energy - the company has been making noises for several years now. Quite a few high tech companies have their systems on campuses (it isn't clear whether these companies paid for the systems) to generate back up power for some time now.

Economic viability at this stage is only extrapolated using assumptions about mass production - they may not come to pass.


what @gshanky is excited about is the claim to be able to generate hydrogen - that claim is NOT under verification at the client companies at the moment and is probably not feasible. But even if it were, generating hydrogen is just the first step, storage and later use are complicated too.

A better cause for excitement would be ability to use the cell for powering up colonies in places where natural gas is available - unfortunately that is a problem too in India - natural gas is presently in short supply.


In future however natural gas may be available too.




By the way some food for thought if you are interested:

Fossil fuels are called such because general consensus has been that these were formed from metamorphosis of dead planktons over millennia.

However years ago a Russian scientist gave a theory that petroleum and natural gas were actually formed by reaction of carbonates with water deep under the earth (under the tremendous pressure and heat).

There has been evidence in support of the first theory - plankton fossils are found with oil, and coal is almost always fossilised trees.

However some people are thinking whether the second could be correct too - the point is if it really is true then petroleum may be available in more quantities than thought. This is far fetched but if anyone is interested worth a read.