"The Bloom Box is intended to replace the grid..."

I can guess that there might be a lot of people out there invested in current energy technology that would be unhappy about this succeeding....

This report is from 2010. Any news since?

Actually, at the end she says; "since our report first aired in Feb 2010." Which would suggest that this is an update.
PS; Love the inventors enthusiasm. For him, and indeed all concerned, I hope it is a huge success because maybe we can then rip down the awful blight - and sheer waste of space and money - that are wind turbines.

Here's a first hunt from nanalyze...
http://www.nanalyze.com/2014/03/will-bloom-energy-ipo-in-2014/

Likes been said time and again and as many a hopeful maverick has experienced before, the major hurdles are gas and oil and electrical concerns whose interest and prime motivation is business as usual and being the only show on planet. All these concerns have to do is send out a few lawyers, private thugs with Halliburton silver attaches filled with threats and cash and the shit disappears, as well as the inventor sometimes...

A few random factoids from the wikipedia page to cut through the fluff of this piece:
* On 24 February 2010, Sridhar claimed that his devices were making electricity for 8–10 cents/kWh...
* Bloom claims a conversion efficiency of around 50%.
* Sridhar said the boxes have a 10 year life span, although that could include replacing the cells during that period.
* ...the break-even period for the device comes to over 8 years, based on published performance numbers.
* ...the total lifetime of these systems would need to exceed 15 – 20 years to make an argument for a viable long-term...

Great.. but they still use fossil fuels. 50% as much is awesome, but that might just be enough to keep the petroleum companies in control of the world for a few years longer.
...and I'm guessing that the claim they can use "solar" as fuel, means that they can use solar produced hydrogen, like any other fuel cell (not that this is neccesarilly a bad thing.. just not new).

I don't see windmills as a blight or waste of space. The Bloom Boxes look great and I'm glad that they work well, but they still need a fuel. Windmills do not.

I suggest you look at the figures with regard to return for investment, regarding turbines. You will, no doubt, see the frivolous waste.

at 7:20 mark you can see what the final thing looks like..it's not that just tiny cube. It's a pretty large, house-boiler-sized unit..

A friend of mind put a windmill up on his property with a solar array and is completely off grid now. No more power bills.

To date I've seen no such data to make me feel that windmills are a waste or frivolous. Feel free to provide some figures and links.

Wind turbines to provide the comparable megawatts for millions of homes ARE a frivolous waste. The huge amounts needed for wasteful, programmed, energy-addicted peeps IS a huge logistical clusterfuck of resources there, notarobot.

Your example of one family with a turbine and a solar array is fine and all (the upfront cost for such a setup is a shitload of funds and the upkeep of his dual set-up is probably a complete bitch of a money-pit to maintain) but were talking efficiency for the masses here.. Your 'research' should be based upon something besides what seems more of an emotionally passionate ideal moreso than anything practical for the many.

Personally, I think this virgin-trail-run Bloom box bullshit is simply another snake-oil scam. Much more work need be done to ever make them practical. What really should done in the realm of a practical kind of "reality" (otherwise known as a construct...reality that is) is to revive anti-trust/monopoly laws to hobble the robber-baron's once again...

Go listen some Bucky Fuller perhaps and try to awaken from the pipe-dream of monkey-business-as-usual instead of towing some lazy cop-out nouveau-hippy green-party line??

Here in the UK land owners are paid huge amounts to position turbines on their land. They are paid whether the turbines are providing electricity or not. Now here's the killer; the wind has been so strong lately that, guess what, the turbines had to be switched off, but the land owners are still paid! Seriously, you couldn't make it up.
As for your friend? I'm happy for him but, as chingalera points out, an example of one family - considering the cost, building regulations etc, does not mean all would be able to benefit.

Yeah mate, didn't mean to be so rude or cruel (....yes I did) but shit that seems great on paper tends to get left-leaning idealist government-trusters a bit too much wood. A10anis points-out the hypocrisy of the greenies in government, whose real friends are people with money who want to ass-rape the planet out of her global warming and still turn bucks between their friends.

Anything governments or regulators say about greening-up the planet is a fucking lie designed to keep their pockets bulging with cash and everyone else in the dark while eating off dirt floors.

I have also never seen this 'data' about how windmills are frivolous, and I've looked. All I can ever find are individuals that have no personal knowledge of the systems making unfounded claims. Certainly there are instances of poorly planned 'windfarms' that, because of lack/over abundance of wind don't work properly, or because of regulation and electric company resistance are cost prohibitive. Personal/home units (where they can be erected, and have proper wind conditions) can be great, especially for off grid living. It magnifies the possibilities of a solar system because it generates when the sun isn't out (like when there's a storm) using the same battery system and inverter/converter system the solar uses, so there's little added cost. If you got into solar early enough, the rebates available made the systems a great deal (in some cases, nearly free after the rebate). My system, which cost me a ton of cash, has paid for itself in under 8 years (if you don't consider that electricity rates have gone up considerably since I bought it, if you do count that it was closer to a 6.5 years for full payback, with a minimum 20+ year system lifespan) thanks to rebates and tax breaks...and the systems are far cheaper today than when I bought mine. I've also not lost hundreds (or thousands) of dollars worth of food due to numerous week long power outages, like my neighbors have.
I often consider adding a smallish wind turbine so I have more generation power, especially needed when the power goes out during a storm, which is exactly when a turbine could shine. My issue is jackhole neighbors that would likely not give 'permission' to erect the mast, or would complain about the turbine noise (reasonably or not).
So, in my semi-educated opinion, turbines CAN be a great solution when done right, and can also be economical, especially when compared to the electric company. Of course you can find instances of poor planning making them poor performers, but that's not the norm.

I don't get your point. You seem upset that land owners are being paid for rent if, at any time, the turbine isn't making money. The land owners aren't paid for the generation, they're paid for the land...and the land is still being used....so what do you mean?
I think I answered your (and Ching's) second point about cost/benefit above. You are correct that not ALL can benefit, that doesn't mean that no one can. That's the same BS line of thinking that convinced so many to not get solar when it was nearly FREE, and now they're paying ever rising exorbitant electric bills instead. All I can say is I'm glad I didn't buy the BS, and bought a solar system instead. It's saved me a bunch of money at this point, and I have 12+ more years before any serious expected maintenance.

I thought my point was clear. obviously not, so let me try to simplify. Landowners are being paid tax payers money (which we can ill afford) for turbines that are not paying for their investment, are not efficient, and have to be turned off in high winds. Not to mention that they are also ugly, noisy, and are harming wild life (birds and bats are being disorientated by the turbulence and flying into them.)
As for your rather rude comment on "BS thinking," regarding solar energy? Well, I wasn't aware we were discussing that.

Please show proof, URL?
This is the exact same line that people against solar tried to sell us 10 years ago...it was BS then, so I'm guessing it's the same today.

Lets see....How much taxpayer money, exactly, per KWH or per turbine (specify size in KWH and type), is being "wasted"? From your certitude I assume you must have a number. If you don't know that number, you can't possibly know if the money is 'wasted' or if it was a great deal for the amount of energy produced, and I'll believe you are simply stating opinion, not fact.

Over what time period are turbines "not paying for their investment"? Are you claiming that, over the full expected lifespan of an average turbine it costs more than making the same amount of electricity with coal? Or Natural gas? Do you include the cost of climate change in that calculation? Didn't think so.

What type of turbine are you talking about...or are you unaware that there are dozens of different designs, some which are not ugly, noisy, or harming any wildlife at all?

The rather rude BS thinking about solar energy is the same kind of rude BS thinking you are displaying, making claims that all turbines suck and should be abolished (paraphrasing you) without any science or math to back you up. On the other hand, just slight investigation shows at least some of your claims are outright wrong. It was about the BS, not the solar energy...understand now?

That doesn't mean that there are not some instances of the problems you describe, but most of them are problems from well over 10 years ago that have been solved. Just painting regular 3 prop turbines with ultraviolet paint reduces bird and bat strikes considerably...making a turbine that doesn't have props worked even better, and they work better at low and high speed wind.

You do know that the government pays the same kind of people to have electric lines on their property, and phone lines, and road ways, train lines, etc...whether they're being used or not, right? They're paying for the use of the land. This is not a new process in any way, or one used only for turbines by a long shot.

The facts back me up my friend. Turbines, were they not seen by the tree hugging, green peace brigade, as "ecologically" sound, would decry them for the same reason sane people do. They are a short term, knee jerk solution to a problem that will, ultimately, be solved by more scientific measures.
I'm done, and am mow off to solve the worlds energy crisis with wind energy..)