Where Is My Bloom Energy Server?

[MarkE]

Yes, at this time the Bloom Energy is only for the government and corporate elitists!  Below is a quote as found on the residential contact request form on Bloomenergy's website.  I guess I missed the fact that the Bloom Box current power output is far more than the individual home needs and is best suited for large commercial and industrial scale applications.

for the sort of thing that they are trying to develop, it actually makes a lot more sense to start with a smaller number of big machines than thousands upon thousands of smaller machines.  One recall could kill them ala A123's problem with a single welding machine.  SOX/SOFCs have been studied for many decades.  They are simple in principle, but very complex in practice.

[gravityblock]

I guess I missed the fact that the Bloom Box current power output is far more than the individual home needs and is best suited for large commercial and industrial scale applications.

However, according to KR Sridhar in this interview, the Bloom Box is scale-able.  KR even shows the small size of the fuel cell required for a home (see the interview and snapshot below).  So, how does this mean the current power output of the Bloom Box is far more than the needs of an individual home, while only being suited best for large commercial and industrial scale applications?  This reinforces the idea of the Bloom Box is only intended for the elitists.

Gravock

[allcanadian]

I always liked this technology because it offers a new perspective. Note the last picture, on the left we have fuel and air and intuitively we think we should burn it which is the most absurd thing we could possibly do. Next we have the fuel cell stack consisting of the anode, electrolyte and cathode and this intuitively reminds us of a battery. If you think about it the fuel/air stack is not unlike a flow battery where the moving electrolyte is recharged externally and in this case the fuel/air reactions simply recharges the electrolyte. This battery/stack then moves electrons to power an electrical load as we see on the right.


What is not generally apparent is what we already know in a sense. The fuel and air, chemistry, is not actually chemistry because on the most fundamental level the reaction is solely electrodynamic. The stack produces a electrodynamic reaction to separate the charges from the molecules and the charges flow down the conductor to the load. It is far removed from the archaic burning of fuel with air to produce heat and closer to what we already know... all matter contains energy.


In the future I see no reason why we could not use engineered catalysts, nano-materials, to strip charges from literally any material at which point the archaic term "fuel" is no longer needed. Many terms will become obsolete as we come to understand that fundamentally the only forces at work here on the most fundamental level are Electro-Magnetic in nature. We do not need chemistry or thermodynamics and they are a very poor and confusing way to describe what is actually happening.


On the most fundamental level we have particles and fields and motion. That is all there is and that is all we need to describe everything and the sooner we discard these archaic notions of fuel and chemistry and thermodynamics the better off we will be.




AC

[gravityblock]

I always liked this technology because it offers a new perspective. Note the last picture, on the left we have fuel and air and intuitively we think we should burn it which is the most absurd thing we could possibly do. Next we have the fuel cell stack consisting of the anode, electrolyte and cathode and this intuitively reminds us of a battery. If you think about it the fuel/air stack is not unlike a flow battery where the moving electrolyte is recharged externally and in this case the fuel/air reactions simply recharges the electrolyte. This battery/stack then moves electrons to power an electrical load as we see on the right.

What is not generally apparent is what we already know in a sense. The fuel and air, chemistry, is not actually chemistry because on the most fundamental level the reaction is solely electrodynamic. The stack produces a electrodynamic reaction to separate the charges from the molecules and the charges flow down the conductor to the load. It is far removed from the archaic burning of fuel with air to produce heat and closer to what we already know... all matter contains energy.

In the future I see no reason why we could not use engineered catalysts, nano-materials, to strip charges from literally any material at which point the archaic term "fuel" is no longer needed. Many terms will become obsolete as we come to understand that fundamentally the only forces at work here on the most fundamental level are Electro-Magnetic in nature. We do not need chemistry or thermodynamics and they are a very poor and confusing way to describe what is actually happening.

On the most fundamental level we have particles and fields and motion. That is all there is and that is all we need to describe everything and the sooner we discard these archaic notions of fuel and chemistry and thermodynamics the better off we will be.

AC

Good post, and I would like to add to it!

Ultra rays, or gamma rays, on passing close to helium nuclei, will bring about a deformation of space and give birth to electrons until their wave energy is expended. Thus, when gamma rays pass through an acid solution saturated with helium nuclei, the electrons will gyrate around the nuclei, but the acid will prevent them from joining up with the nuclei, and they are then collected on plates at the bottom of the apparatus. This provides an inexhaustible supply of energy which requires nothing more than a little acid solution and some helium nuclei.


Gravock

[gravityblock]

for the sort of thing that they are trying to develop, it actually makes a lot more sense to start with a smaller number of big machines than thousands upon thousands of smaller machines.  One recall could kill them ala A123's problem with a single welding machine.  SOX/SOFCs have been studied for many decades.  They are simple in principle, but very complex in practice.

MarkE, watch the videos in the OP.  He says, the bloom box isn't too get rid of the grid, but to replace it by having utility companies sell the energy to it's customers.  Delmarva, PG&E, and Washington Gas are already using bloomenergy servers.  So, how is this not going to get rid of the grid, if they have plans to put the boxes in the back yard of individual homes and small businesses, etc?


Gravock