SIXTY MINUTES: Bloom Box, Projected As Cost Effective Fuel Cell
in [Basics]
|
Prev: Be ready to be killed, or take action to stop the global suicide. Scandal at CERN.
Next: OPERATIONS AND SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 12-E JACOBS Test Bank and solution manual
From: J. Clarke on 23 Feb 2010 12:57 On 2/23/2010 9:38 AM, Robert Cohen wrote: > On Feb 22, 9:58 pm, John Stafford<n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: >> Glaring shortcoming of the video - "Carbon Footprint" :) >> >> For all we know it is sucking up oxygen and spewing out CO2 like friggin >> crazy. >> >> Nothing is for nothing. > > re: speculation about harmful carbon compound(s) > > Sophisticated hype: but: > > The experienced venture capitalist, plus Google, Fedex, Ebay, etal > aren't going to be > conned and ridiculed knowingly at their country club lemonade socials > > At least, we hope they're not kidding themselves > > I am cynical& agnostic too > > May the by-products be made harmless by the relevant reigning god and > goddess > > Granted, secretive "ink" does sound like blue sky fantasy and/ or it > catalyzes a > lovely "fool cell cancer" If it consumes any fossil fuel and makes energy and doesn't emit CO2 then it works by magic. If they can make cheap methane-air cells then they're going to laugh all the way to the bank, but they'll still be emitting CO2.
From: George Herold on 23 Feb 2010 16:27 On Feb 23, 12:35 pm, pamela <bicycleguy...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > George Herold wrote: > > On Feb 22, 11:03 pm, pamela <bicycleguy...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> George Herold wrote: > >>> On Feb 22, 8:15 pm, John Larkin > >>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:01:17 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill > >>>> <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> This looks like a real working solution to the cheap, clean energy > >>>>>>>>>> conundra challenge > >>>> It's almost certainly not real, and not working. > >>>> This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so. > >>>> John > >>>> This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so. > >>> Yeah, mostly from Bret Cahill, If we stop responding will he go > >>> away? > >>> George H. > >> You keep proving that you can't stop yourselves from responding. > >> Somehow, for some reason, somebody will evidently almost always be > >> inprired to respo0nd, and then somebody else, and then you are > >> speculating on BloomBoxes or whatever else there is --- because it is at > >> least conversation. > > >> Evidently, without someone like Brett, conversation is quite limited. > > >> Just look at the long periods of no conversations, punctuated by loads > >> of conversations when Cahill stirs up the dust. > > >> Without leadership, no matter what quality, there isn't much technical > >> conversation. > > >> At least, that is what I SEE just from the postings.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Yup I agree, I've been trying to start a few...but. > > > So what are you designing/building/testing these days Pamela? > > > George H. > > Good cheap shot at looking for credentials or demeaning the poster. > > I retired from the technology rat race nearly 10 years ago, and haven't > missed much of it at all. > > I design and build backpacking equipment and test it sometimes for trips > lasting a month or two. Excellent, I use to backpack/ bicycle-camp all the time. Since the wife and kids arrived that has dropped off significantly. (Though now that the kids are 8 and 10 we might take it up again.) I partially compensate for this by living 'out in the sticks'. I love taking the dogs for a walk down by the creek every night after work. I build/design and test physics 'toys' here. http://www.teachspin.com/ Not much designing at the moment. I'm finishing up the building of Noise Fundamentals. (Which has taken longer than it should.) Lots of stuff to test. I've got a table full of Diode Laser controllers and the electronic bits for Modern Interferometery waiting outside my door. " I retired from the technology rat race nearly 10 years ago, and haven't > missed much of it at all." Did you make a bundle on the dot-com boom and then leave, or was it just time to retire? I'm not sure I'll ever want to retire. I really enjoy building instruments and hope I can always find someone who will pay me for it. George H.
From: Michael Coburn on 23 Feb 2010 16:38 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:57:16 -0500, J. Clarke wrote: > On 2/23/2010 9:38 AM, Robert Cohen wrote: >> On Feb 22, 9:58 pm, John Stafford<n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: >>> Glaring shortcoming of the video - "Carbon Footprint" :) >>> >>> For all we know it is sucking up oxygen and spewing out CO2 like >>> friggin crazy. >>> >>> Nothing is for nothing. >> >> re: speculation about harmful carbon compound(s) >> >> Sophisticated hype: but: >> >> The experienced venture capitalist, plus Google, Fedex, Ebay, etal >> aren't going to be >> conned and ridiculed knowingly at their country club lemonade socials >> >> At least, we hope they're not kidding themselves >> >> I am cynical& agnostic too >> >> May the by-products be made harmless by the relevant reigning god and >> goddess >> >> Granted, secretive "ink" does sound like blue sky fantasy and/ or it >> catalyzes a >> lovely "fool cell cancer" > > If it consumes any fossil fuel and makes energy and doesn't emit CO2 > then it works by magic. > > If they can make cheap methane-air cells then they're going to laugh all > the way to the bank, but they'll still be emitting CO2. If the process is 50% more efficient than gas powered electrical power generation then there is a large reduction in emitted carbon. You are making the perfect the enemy of the good. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
From: John Larkin on 23 Feb 2010 17:42 On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:21:58 -0600, John Stafford <nhoj(a)droffats.ten> wrote: >In article <7va6o5l3bedaop27gdmeaedusvgd5jok6m(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so. > >That is true. What worries me is that we have no idea what the Bloombox >means in terms of emissions. It's not like it just eats up oxygen and >drips out... This is a typically idiotic response: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/190058/why_im_bullish_on_bloom_energy.html "The units themselves still require some sort of fuel--such as natural gas, oxygen, or solar energy--and that could be a limiting factor in many installations." John
From: Bob Eld on 23 Feb 2010 21:47
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:hm153h02him(a)news5.newsguy.com... > On 2/23/2010 9:38 AM, Robert Cohen wrote: > > On Feb 22, 9:58 pm, John Stafford<n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > >> Glaring shortcoming of the video - "Carbon Footprint" :) > >> > >> For all we know it is sucking up oxygen and spewing out CO2 like friggin > >> crazy. > >> > >> Nothing is for nothing. > > > > re: speculation about harmful carbon compound(s) > > > > Sophisticated hype: but: > > > > The experienced venture capitalist, plus Google, Fedex, Ebay, etal > > aren't going to be > > conned and ridiculed knowingly at their country club lemonade socials > > > > At least, we hope they're not kidding themselves > > > > I am cynical& agnostic too > > > > May the by-products be made harmless by the relevant reigning god and > > goddess > > > > Granted, secretive "ink" does sound like blue sky fantasy and/ or it > > catalyzes a > > lovely "fool cell cancer" > > If it consumes any fossil fuel and makes energy and doesn't emit CO2 > then it works by magic. > > If they can make cheap methane-air cells then they're going to laugh all > the way to the bank, but they'll still be emitting CO2. For sure. But if they really have something, expect a biggy like GE to buy them up to gain the technology. Of course, cost of production remains to be seen. We need more information. |