This comment interested me so I did a little morning time research. You are right in stating that this technology has been out there for a long time. One of the major down falls of conventional SOFC's are that they require a high operating temperature. The efficiency of SOFC's limitations lie in the material they use because of the high operating temperatures. The bloom box claims to have solved this problem with a fairly cost effective solution for what materials to use (melted sand = glass?). They were always made from ceramic before, I don't know what improvements glass have over ceramics. I don't know if their claims are all true. Too early to tell since it was just "released".

That all being said, I don't understand what the hoopla is about, either. You'd still need to bring some sort of natural gas to each "bloom box". Let's say tomorrow, we took out all the power plants and replaced every home and business with one of these devices. Let's say they operate at 70% efficiency (10% more than traditional SOFC's), would this be more energy efficient than a power plant. Would it cost us any less natural resources to run our planet? Those questions are a little more difficult to find out. Gotta do some more research on power plants. Somebody with a degree have any insight?>> ^joedirt:
You guys are total suckers and idiots.
This is like ancient technology. It is just a solid oxide fuel cell.
The only thing interesting is that they have existing fuel cell installs at eBay and google.
This won't be cheap or better. All it does is capture the big green energy investors and also it uses tax rebates in places like California to let rich people subsidize their electricity.

You guys are total suckers and idiots.

This is like ancient technology. It is just a solid oxide fuel cell.

The only thing interesting is that they have existing fuel cell installs at eBay and google.

This won't be cheap or better. All it does is capture the big green energy investors and also it uses tax rebates in places like California to let rich people subsidize their electricity.

Well, the decay of power is one thing that makes the current grid bad. There are others, I'm sure, but I can't name any. The point is, though, that this solution won't necessarily come from the power company. It'll come from consumers who will see this as a way to reduce their energy costs, with a one-time investment that will pay for itself over time.

Once they have power generating capabilities in their own home, and they see they can make as much as they need and then some, the next logical step is to try to sell the excess back to the grid. There are ways of doing that today with solar and wind, but they usually require installing an expensive replacement to your current electricity counter (the exact name of the device escapes me at the moment .

The power companies themselves might see this as a more economic way of producing power than building a nuclear power plant, or a coal one. Distributing these in neighborhoods across a city lets you avoid massive blackouts by one power plant going down, like what happened in New York a while back, increasing the survivability of the grid as a whole. I'm in IT, so we're always thinking about Single Points of Failure in a network

The battery ownership approach reduces the price of the car, because you don't need to buy a battery with the car. Electric cars and plug-in hybrids cost as much as they do because of the battery, not because the car is infused with gold. Buying just a car and a subscription for monthly "eMiles", to use Agassi's term, gives you the benefits of the electric car without the cost of buying a battery. Batteries also decay over time, meaning buying the battery with the car (like in the Chevy Volt) would either require replacing the battery every few years, or driving less and less on the pure electric mode.

The smart grid is necessary. It will save money, it will give power companies options they never had before in terms of power management, and it will let end users generate power and reduce their bills by installing green energy producing equipment on and in their homes. It's the only thing that will let us move away from coal burning plants, nuclear plants and the rest of the deal-with-the-devil type of power generation we have today.

I'm sort of enjoying this too... It's not often that I get a chance to actually discuss this topic and articulate my point of view. Keep it going!
>> ^Stormsinger:
This is getting interesting now. I'd rate this discussion quite a bit higher than the video.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the decay during transmission was estimated at 7.2% back in 1995 (and unlikely to have gotten worse). That's a lot better than when I had expected, and doesn't supply much reason to convert to a new technology.
I've heard a bit about the battery ownership approach (undoubtedly from one of the sifted vids), and that may well offer a solution for the first two issues. It doesn't strike me as helping price, though. We'll see.
I'm far less enthusiastic about using car batteries for grid storage. That sort of aggregated solution has been proposed in other areas. The ones I'm familiar with were mainly IT-related, like using local hard-drives in a company's workstations to store backups. So far, I haven't heard of one example that didn't have serious issues. Admittedly, electricity is fungible, while data is not. But I still think control and coordination is likely to make it unfeasible. Think about the start of rush hour...all those cars that were making up a shortage get pulled off the grid in a very short time. That sort of scenario would make temporary shortages even worse, not better.
It probably -can- be done. I'm less sure it can be done efficiently and in a cost-effective manner. My own prediction is that the approach won't account for more than a miniscule fraction of storage. I'd put my money on non-battery storage, either gravitational or thermal.

To be fair, nuclear's supports are at -least- an order of magnitude higher than those given to the "green" energies. Ever notice that no insurance company would insure a reactor, unless their liability was capped? The Feds capped the insurance company's liability at $500M back in the '70s...I wonder if that's ever been updated for today's markets. The core problem with nuclear power is that the cost in both dollars and lives of mistakes/catastrophes/disasters, no matter -what- causes them, is incredibly high. And since humans both design and run them, and they exist in the real world, such disasters -will- happen eventually. When they do, hundreds of billions will be spent cleaning up, and tens or hundreds of thousands will suffer and/or die...most of whom will be never be attributed to the accident (the cause of cancer is hard to pinpoint, but aggregate totals make the story clear).

Even assuming that we manage a level of superiority in engineering that we've never managed before, the rest of the universe is still out there. Do you really think any nuke we build will be unbreached in a massive earthquake? No Joe Stack will ever fly a plane into one? No Homer Simpson will ever be employed in one?

The cost is simply too high for the risks.

>> ^RedSky:
Double standards galore.
You can't talk about nuclear energy incurring taxpayer liabilities, giving preferential treatment and distorting capital markets without conceding the fact that when you're funding other green energy jobs like wind power, geothermal and tide you're doing the exact same thing.

Double standards galore.

You can't talk about nuclear energy incurring taxpayer liabilities, giving preferential treatment and distorting capital markets without conceding the fact that when you're funding other green energy jobs like wind power, geothermal and tide you're doing the exact same thing.

If what's needed are tighter emission standards among other regulations, then say that, rather than blanketly dismissing it as a possible alternative.

Part of the reason that nuclear energy has had patchy financing in the past is that governmental positions have constantly changed at the whims of those in power. The threat of tighter regulations and a general lack of consistency has created uncertainty.

To me, this stance on energy, and the left's positions on free trade stand out as the two most hypocritical positions of the left.

Curse me for saying this, but I agree with both Arnold and Palin (have mercy on my soul). Promoting development in green energy is great for the economy, the enviroment, and the day we run out of oil. But taxing the crap out of CO2 is not good for alot of countries, as it doesn't remove oil dependancy, only makes it more expensive. Add that to our current economic crisis and it's gonna hurt!

I vote nuclear!

Who benefits from a continued disbelief in anthropogenic climate change?

It would be more accurate to say, "Who benefits from the usage of inexpensive, efficient fuel?" The answer - of course - is everybody. Fossil fuels are the most efficient fuels we have right now. If 'low carbon' alternatives were feasible then it would be worth pursuing them. But at this point in time there is no other energy that can possibly replace fossil fuels. Except one. Nuclear.

For transportation there is no substitute. Electric cars are LESS efficient energy-wise than fossil fuel (FF) cars. It takes more fossil fuels to generate the electricity to charge up a battery than compared to just using gasoline. The only 'benefit' (if you can call it that) is that your pollution is coming out a smokestack instead of your tailpipe. It is a cheat - a ruse - a choice for ignorant suckers. The only way electric cars can reduce pollution is if they use a clean electrical source to charge.

So - can we swap over to 'clean' electical plants? Heck no. Solar doesn't operate at peak hours, and requires massive infrastructures to support - not to mention it needs 75% operating capacity in redundant FOSSIL fuel generation to deal with demand anyway. Same with wind. The only way to make it work is to replace all our coal plants with nuclear ones. Why aren't we talking about that? Because the 'green' movement doesn't like nuclear either.

You can't wish on a star and make green energy feasible. The hard reality is that the technology just isn't there yet, and that the green movement itself is standing in the way of the ONLY viable energy we have (clean coal & nuclear). Even the most promising 'alternative' energy options are still well over 30 years away from any sort of commercial, large scale viability that has any hope of even coming close to fossil fuels. That's just reality.

Now - are you (and your children) ready to pay 2,500+ a month for your electric bill? That's what it is going to cost you to use 'green' energy instead of coal. All so you can - what? Feel better about yourself? The planet isn't being destroyed except in the minds of the Flavor-aid drinkers.

tell that to the banks, auto industry, agricultural industry, defense sector, pharmaceutical industry

Not helping your case. Government involvement has insulated these industries from the market, established unfair practices, weakened industry, and left them unable to compete in a competitive market. All govenment has done is establish a protectionsism racket that has artificially inflated costs and limited competition. Government has done these industries no favors. Every single one you mention I could go on at length in regards to how they have been severely damaged by government subsidies. Lather/rinse/repeating by establishing a false economy of 'green' energy is insipid.

he's actually bashing government money shuffle boondoggles in the vid itself

No the one I watched. He's proposing that we establish a faux industry. He wants car companies to stop making cars (which people actually pay real money for) and start making wind turbines & solar panels instead. This swap would have to be subsidized because no one is buying wind or solar because they are still too expensive and inefficient. It would be an economy entirely based on government subsudies. Now I'm 100% sure that idiots like Van Jones are excited by that prospect. Any American with two brain cells and a spine should be horrified by it.

I'm going to address some of this in no particular order

"You are essentially saying people are too irresponsible and stupid to live with freedom and self-reliance

That's exactly what I'm saying. I feel like our current system isn't ideal but it's much better than nothing. I would rather people participate in the regulatory process than plan their own retirement. And to ^GeeSussFreeK, No I'm not trying to spin it in any particular direction (like a magician, 'Watch THIS hand while THAT hand gives you retirement'). I feel like there is a genuine need for social security because I honestly believe people on the whole are irresponsible. And should those individuals be made to suffer? Probably, but I feel strongly that the other responsible people in their lives who have to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives should have less of a burden (this is one of many sundries).

--------------------------
"Private charity happens all the time."

A heavy handed tactless comment on my part. Yes of course I realize private charities like the Red Cross and others like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. exist. Yes, as my two critics above mentioned, an array of fantastic private charities exist already despite government welfare. But notwithstanding both private and government programs, there are herds of families that find themselves starving, homeless or otherwise destitute. Why you want to do away with government welfare is beyond my current understanding of poverty in America.

--------------------------
"Cutting taxes by 50% is not nearly enough."

This is the one point I think there is some wiggle room on. I absolutely agree that military spending is often superfluous and I mean that in an egregious way. If anything though, I think the funds the government has need to be redirected instead of cut. Start investing in things like education, public transportation systems and green energy instead of spending millions on bombs and jets that don't work.

*long

Ah ... well actually it's probably under if you don't count the ad at the end, sorry if that's what you intended.

It's an interesting argument but my understanding was that derivatives, particularly credit default swaps as part of the whole economic crisis, were more simply mispriced on the assumption of rising house prices and that risk was low on the basis of negative correlations between assets. Speculation in that market certainly could be argued to have increased volatility but it wasn't the cause of the housing bubble.

One benefit of cap and trade not mentioned is it encourages an efficient cut in carbon emissions. If producer A can more efficiently cut carbon emissions and switch to green energy than producer B, then A can cut his emissions by a greater amount than necessary and then auction off his additional emission allowances to B. In so doing while emissions levels have been reduced by the same amount, the impact on profit margins has been minimised. That wouldn't be possible though with a straight tax.

The nub of Banshee's comments are correct. There does not currently exist any form of energy that can replace fossil. The manufacturing, industrial, business, and residential power demands far outstrip 'green' energy's ability to supply power. Even a massive multi-pronged approach using geothermal, wind, tide, solar, methane farms, et al would barely make a dent. If we want to get off coal, we need to move to nuclear. There is no other viable option.

That doesn't even touch the massive expense of green energy. Green energy is not cheap by any stretch. It is actually the MOST expensive energy that exists. In acerage, material, maintainance, production cost, and distribution - green energy is on the order of 5-10 times more expensive than coal depending on which kind you are talking about. So unless you are prepared to quadruple your electic bill, you better pray that coal doesn't go anywhere or that the enviro-nazis untwist thier panties a few notches with nuclear.

Barak Obama said he wasn't going to raise taxes on the middle/lower class. Yet is stated desire to put the coal industry out of business would put an 'energy tax' on all Americans to the tune of several thousand dollars a year.

Wow I'll go get my 9 year old to poorly rehearse some green energy wind generator BS and instantly transform him into a "Green Energy Prodigy"

Arguing that free markets need to account for decent labour standards, pay sufficient regard to environmental degradation and society in general is like arguing against science because it doesn't invoke a purpose to life or a sense of morality. Free market capitalism by itself is insufficient, you'd find hardly anyone sane-minded who would argue against that. By all means it needs to allow for various types of intervention such as collective worker representation through unions and environmental protection laws among others to curb negative externalities while promoting any positive ones that may arise.

Hardly anyone would genuinely argue that a free market can operate without exception. To say that it has not existed over the past few decades though or that is has had entirely pejorative effects is just not true. A lowering of protectionist policies has massively benefited developing countries particularly in eastern Asia, raising living standards and numerous people out of poverty, spurred by consistently high growth. This has in turn lowered costs of production for consumers in developing countries and fostered additional competition and innovation.

Of course there is always an incentive to game the system and chase rent seeking over innovation. In some cases there are quasi-valid arguments for various types of assistance. Whether it be infant-industry arguments or a state's desire to personally engineer an emergent industry such as Obama's intention to make the US a global leader in green energy development, or to facilitate a slow dismantling of an industry that would had otherwise caused mass repercussions had it been allowed to fall simultaneously on it's own. I would pin more blame on the state of campaign finance contributions and how industry groups can wield such extraordinary influence over the policies over supposedly democratically elected representatives. A lack of transparency, which will hopefully be remedied will also allow greater public oversight over wasteful intervention should also hopefully illuminate any wasteful and unsubstantiated subsidisation.

Just the same as existing green energy installations work, it runs the meter backwards.

Ha. I love this, people follow Misean view of economics without realizing that at it's cores it is against all statism and democracy as a whole. How would you like to be ruled over corporations and business interests?

You make an assumption here that is false. Businesses get the ruling over us when they are able to enforce the rule of law over us. When we are free to choose what we want when we want it, the consumer is in power.

On the other end of the spectrum, the labor side (means of production). There will always be a fight between the business owners and the workers. When there are many workers, the companies will be able to force lower wages, and vice versa, that is just the way it goes. I think one of the modern success stories of free markets and interesting self regulatory bodies that emerge are the labor unions. They were able to strike out their claims more effectively and nimbly than any government regulation.

When the power is in the hands of the people, they have to recognize that their dollar is indeed power, and where they choose to invest it directly affects the world around them. It is a world where much more thought and responsibility has to be taken into account.

I realized that capitalism possess no soul and could not work unless we were all robots and did not care about the welfare of others.

Business is all about providing solutions for people directly. You aim is for consumer satisfaction. Who are these "others" to which your refer? If a company charges a fair market price for its product, it can pay its workers well, and his family can prosper as well, the consumer also gets his product at a reasonable price. It is the happy medium. It is when the government interferes with this that the unfairness is introduced. When we are forced to pay twice what a hair cut is worth because we need to make sure the barber is placed in a position in society that we wish to make the new minimum, you undermine the consumers right to evaluate what things are worth, and thus undermine the entire price structure. Things will begin to break down and inflation will result, lowering the buying power of everyone and thus returning this man to the same status of which you wished to lower him out of, and over-complicating things by placing a moral agenda on economics that all don't hold to.

The key to good governance and national economy is the mixture of both
This is dialectic reasoning to think you can mix to things that are fundamentally opposed to each other. Trying to merge two opposites is not wisdom. This is the idea of having your cake and eating it too. You can not have the powers of the market work if they are stifled in other areas. There ends up with a bubble of something eventually, and the market will always find that and exploit it until it bursts. The resent housing bubble is the greatest explained of poor government regulation. the The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 caused the housing bubble by not alowing banks to use their normal risk evaluation models when considering blacks and other minorities for loans. The result was the sub prime mess of today; enterprising capitalist's found a way to exploit poor government controls for economic redistribution of wealth and manged to make the poor, more poor, and the rich more rich...which is usually now much government "level the playing field" laws go.

I was assured a full....
You were assured something, but where they something you even wanted? Where they something you asked for? The main problem with this whole idea is the massive waste that goes on, communism is extremely ineffective. It provides things to those that provide nothing. It provides things to those who do not want those things. It essentially is the most unfair system one could make when trying to make something effective and efficient. This is why Soviets could launch objects into space, but could not provide soap or women's pantyhose to its people, there is no real model for determining the value of things OTHER than peoples demand for them. There is no government system you could make until after you have a pricing model for them, it hasn't been shown to be possible without massive inflation or more widespread enforcement of market strategies.

Central planning nearly always results in tyranny of the most extreme kind. Once the power is centralized, the ability to abuse that power becomes irrefutable as far as history is concerned. The idea of the philosopher king (or planners)lacks the merit or the understanding of human nature. People are greedy. To place the power of all our lives in the hands of the few only begs for the worst kinds of tragedy that the world have known. More over, the few that we ask to do it are no wiser on those things than ourselves. Do you think that the hundreds of people on capital hill know what the best course of action is on green energy? Do their one or 2 advisers? No they don't. The only thing they can do, is force it. Even if it isn't the most wise course of action.