Indian scientist invents bloom box for electricity production
in [Physics]
|
From: jimp on 22 Feb 2010 18:39 JohnF <john(a)please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote: > In sci.physics jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics habshi(a)anony.net wrote: >>> video >>> http://www.wtsp.com/news/mostpop/story.aspx?storyid=125809&provider=top >>> >>> http://www.wtsp.com/news/mostpop/story.aspx?storyid=125809&provider=top >>> >>> One reason the companies have signed up is that in California 20 >>> percent of the cost is subsidized by the state, and there's a 30 >>> percent federal tax break because it's a "green" technology. In other >>> words: the price is cut in half. >> >> In other words: Half the price shows up in your tax bill. > > So what? All the price for fusion test reactors like > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER > shows up in taxes. If it eventually leads to new energy > technology, it's well worth the price. This looks like > a similar situation. No, it doesn't. There is a difference between underwritting research and commercial operations. In any case, that wasn't the point. The main point is that things funded by tax money still come out of your pocket. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: jimp on 22 Feb 2010 19:22 In sci.physics habshi(a)anony.net wrote: > OK so it turns natural gas into electricity, you still have to store > the gas . Natural gas comes from the gas pipe in civilized countries. And there is already something that converts natural gas to electricity called the gas turbine from which the electricity comes out as AC eliminating the need for an inverter. This thing is only going to be economically viable in first world regions if the total cost, including fuel, over the usefull life is less than that of a gas turbine, which is a big IF. There might be a niche market in places like California where electric rates are tiered, i.e. you pay a fortune for air conditioning in the summer, yet gas rates are dirt cheap because no one is using any. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Benj on 23 Feb 2010 04:38 On Feb 23, 4:09 am, "Cwatters" <colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > From what I can tell it's "just" a fuel cell. No doubt people like Google > are interested so they can run it off biofuel. Right. Electricity from food. Burning food for energy has already begun to work out real well.
From: JohnF on 23 Feb 2010 07:41 In sci.physics Cwatters <colin.wattersNOSPAM(a)turnersoaknospam.plus.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> http://www.wtsp.com/news/mostpop/story.aspx?storyid=125809&provider=top >>>> >>>> http://www.wtsp.com/news/mostpop/story.aspx?storyid=125809&provider=top > > From what I can tell it's "just" a fuel cell. No doubt people like Google > are interested so they can run it off biofuel. Yeah, the 60 Minutes segment made it clear that's exactly what it is. No "magic" claimed. But, like I said in earlier post, the guy hawking it was too much showman, which made his story that much harder to swallow. For example, Diane Sawyer mentioned various fuels and asked if the cell could run off them. He answered "yes" to everything she mentioned. Amazing enough. Then she also naively asked, "Can it run off solar?". I expected to hear an explanation about how that question's "not even wrong", but he just said "yes" again. That was a bit troubling to my ear. I dismissed most of that misdirection as keeping the technology proprietary, maybe until all patents are airtight. But it was also discussed that this device was first developed for NASA as an oxygen generator for Mars missions. The fuel cell just reverse cycles that same device. But if NASA funded the original development, how can the device be privately patented? There do seem to be lots of unanswered questions surrounding this device, at least unanswered modulo what I saw, but the underlying technology seems plausible, if as yet too undisclosed for enough comfort. -- John Forkosh ( mailto: j(a)f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )
From: Tim Heise on 23 Feb 2010 09:41
"Benj" <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message news:e45cd254-6fc8-4f91-ba72-ee76d9590a58(a)g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... On Feb 23, 4:09 am, "Cwatters" <colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > From what I can tell it's "just" a fuel cell. No doubt people like Google > are interested so they can run it off biofuel. Right. Electricity from food. Burning food for energy has already begun to work out real well. Prime fuel can be junk food, that nasty stuff making our kids obese. Junk-food-to-energy can keep our kids thin and help get us off foreign oil. // tbh |