Breitbart.tv

I’ll take one.

Incredible

Sounds great, I’ll take one too. But sounds like the skeptic had a hard on for GE.

.

I’ve got a better system. It uses 35 baking powder submarines and a used KFC chicken bucket full of water.

I can put four of these on your lawn for less than 50 thousand.

The “REAL” test for Obama and what he says about clean energy is if he promotes this product or destroys it b/c he is in bed with big energy.

But what about the sand he is taking from the beaches? Wouldn’t that cause some beach erosion and endanger a creature or 2.. This man should be stopped before hermit crabs start to disappear.

Is anyone so naive as to believe that this will be produced?
Think how many companies and employees will go under.
You think 10% is bad? This would even go so far as the miners extracting copper for wire not to mention salespeople selling different materials to supply power plants and construction of same. This goes from top to bottom in employment.
Ship it to Warehouse 13.
Too good for the likes of the human race as it now stands. We’d go belly up. Just like Vegas. You need to diversify before taking an entire segment out of the equation. New types of jobs and industry or lots of welfare checks.

CARBON NUETRAL when al gore was preaching ocean levels rising he bought a 4 million dollar, ocean front home, SF, Ca, USA!

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
http://www.infidelsparadise.com/?p=18840

briany February 22nd, 2010 – 10:15 am It won’t be just Obama. Can you imagine our overloads letting us off the grid? Think about what that would mean to taxes they collect. They already can’t honor the unionized government employee pension plans.

It’s just one more perpetual energy hoax. He’s spent way too much time watching StarTrek and seeing StarGate’s ZPM at work.
These things come out every 10 years or so. Once even the IEEE and other “experts” were taken in by a machine that made energy out of nothing. Of course it was a hoax.

We just recovered from years of “scientists” “proving” that there was global warming. This guy is a fraud until really proven otherwise. I would guess that it’s either a stock scheme or someone taking money from Obama’s green energy slush fund and getting rich on the taxpayers’ back.

Consider the news source – - CBS – that says a lot.

I would like to hear what real scientists (if any can be found) say about this thing.
They are supposedly going public this Wednesday. Hmm hmm hmm.
Perhaps it uses Raelian or other alien technology from Area 51?

soon they will be taxing the sunlight !!!

Dave, Tn, right on.
Can you imagine the cost of ANYTHING if fed/state/local taxes were eliminated? Everything would be cheap. If your tax-paying a$$ is off the grid, then the government will find another way to tax you. If I was a government liberal drone and needed to drum up taxes to make up for lost revenue from people abandoning the grid, I would do a cap ‘n tax scheme. Hey, carbon is a by product of this thing!

His fuel cell requires fuel to power itself. Fossil, solar or other… How much fossil fuel does it require? A teaspoon or what? That part was totally lost.

I watched this last night. (I believe in keeping an eye on my enemy bahahaha ) If he could get the cost down to $3000 a unit it would be great. I consider myself a pretty good judge of character. This guy seemed more like the inventive heroes we used to cheer for growing up than the frauds from the al-gorebull warming terrorist crowd of today, just my 2 cents. If it’s for real it’s a “green” I could get behind. I think big gubment, big union overlards and gubment bedbugs like GE will kill it some how.

I’m a physicist, MIT 1965. We used hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells on Apollo – the technology for this type of fuel cell is well developed. What is different here is the use of natural gas as a fuel, and the apparent absence of platinum as a catalyst. It isn’t clear from this show whether the natural gas is used directly in the fuel cell or is reformed (converted) to hydrogen and carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide before use. The latter would be less efficient than the former.

The 64 billion dollar question is durability. The longest the commercial units have been running is said to be 18 months. Fuel cell life has always been a problem, even when they are running on pure hydrogen and oxygen. Natural gas contains methane, ethane, traces of other hydrocarbons, moisture, a bit of hydrogen sulfide, and mercaptans as a safety oderant, which is an even bigger challenge. Will these fuel cells last 20 or 30 years? Can they be made cheaply enough?

This isn’t free energy nonsense. The question is whether their technology is sufficiently reliable and cost-effective. Only time will tell. I wish them luck.

Roger @9:07 I was fascinated by the interview, I’m glad the product was tested at many different facilities to make sure it works as advertised. As time goes by it will be improved also, plus many other inventors are also working on cheaper/alternative energy. Here in Florida due to Hurricanes some people days/weeks/months without power due to all the lines down. Talk about waste-food thrown out etc. Many folks bought generators cost $1,000+ not realizing they have to run once a week or they freeze up-plus many issues with hazardous fumes resulting in death.
Cheaper energy would be such a relief to the American people.

If it can power a home, a smaller one could power a car.

Did ya’lll catch this?

He was describing the fuels that could be used, the reporter asked if solar could be used, he said yes.

Huh?

SOLAR WHAT?

HEAT?

RAYS?

What from the sun mixed with ‘air’ makes electricity?

Just sayin…

Yeah, one of those buildings had solar and this gizmo.

If what he said is true, why weren’t the solar panels running this thing?

Juas askin…

“baking powder submarines”

I remember those, five labels, four boxtops, three bottle bottoms, two wrappers and one thin dime.

Colin Powell is a member of the board? This sounds like a wrong fit. Now, if he were to be a member of a board for something like, say, a “knife” mfr. (since he is good at stabbing friends in the back), then we’d be talking.

1. I am not an expert but does not OXYGEN come from plants in the ocean, and plants on land And does not plant life need CARBON DIOXIDE to produce oxygen?

Wikipedia
(Oxygen is produced from water by cyanobacteria, algae and plants during photosynthesis).

Wikipedia
(Carbon dioxide it is produced during respiration by plants, and by all animals, fungi and microorganisms).

So if this box were to be the real thing, don’t we need all the Carbon dioxide we can get so that plants can keep up with the production of oxygen? May I dare say Carbon dioxide is a good thing.

2. Also the cost of the unit will come down when the demand increases like refrigerators, and TV’S.

2. Also we need to attract more immigrates like this man, and less uneducated laborers.

Lesley Stahl looks like she’s drunk. Prescription medication? Senility?

10g’s for a unit….hmmm….let’s see $10,000/$90 month electric bill=111 years

=/

Ok, call me a skeptic, but I lived/worked through the .com days and all of that was smoke and mirrors, a lot of WE CAN DO THIS….and You’ll love us….nothing is free and if this guy isn’t blowing crap I’ll give you an hour to draw a crowd and I’ll shoot myself in front of it……just another con man with a good sales pitch.

While it might not be the answer, it is an answer.

“Burns”, you’ve hit it on the head! Also, it could take years to get wetlands paperwork filed and approved. Seriously, you’re probably right. Some nut group would raise hell to stop sand removal!

There are some serious issues and lack of data in this program.

What is the connection to the large boxes compared to the small boxes that supposedly were to power an entire house?

Something is extremely fishy about this entire thing.

david February 22nd, 2010 – 1:55 pm
While it might not be the answer, it is an answer.

5 is also and answer, to what is 2 + 2. However, david, in case you did not miss it, the answer is WRONG and meaningless.
Much like mouthing the words hope and change and yes we can? What is missing is what do you hope to change and how
can you actually make things better. And I hope that you have some proof that your positive attitude actually leads to
a meaningful better change.

For example, Obama spending 463,000 dollars for one 45,000 dollar job was a change, but not a good change, and it did
not produce a better result, it produced a worse result, in this case, wasted money.

The CBS report starts out that the small box can power a home, then ends up showing a huge box that does the work? It sounds rather confusing at best. Then we have reports that the company lost 80 million dollars in one year. What gives with that? Then the most rosy reports are that the energy is not really clean energy, just one that produces less carbon than other methods, yet it still produces quite a bit of carbon. Then we are purposely given very vague answers. Something stinks.

GOD BLESS , this GENIUS , KEEP ON KEEPING ON BLOOM ENERGY !

“10g’s for a unit….hmmm….let’s see $10,000/$90 month electric bill=111 years” –Joe

Obviously you flunked math, Joe. That’s 111 months. But you’d still have to pay for the gas to power the damned thing. And replace the fuel cell membranes in x months. And cover the interest costs on the $10,000 you borrow (if only from yourself).

Given the cost of the full size units cited as ~$750,000, and the fact that Google is running 40 units, (total ~$30 Million) the $130,000 saved annually ($100K x 12/9 months) would have a payback period of 225 years, unless the video isn’t accurate.

If the subsidy is 50% (per the video), Google gets paid back in 112 years. You and me, who are footing the subsidy cost for them, we NEVER get paid back.

Something is bogus here. The technology must work; so it’s either the capital costs that are unreal, or the lifetime of the membranes. Disposal costs were also not revealed. In fact, there is so much that was kept hidden, I wouldn’t put a dime into this technology.

The whole project looks like a boutique energy source, something for greenies to wave their hands about, claiming that, oooh, alternate energy sources are practical. Fact is, they’re not.

This will never work in Dear Leader’s world.
How will cap & trade stick it to the common man if this thing is allowed to exist??

DTOM!
http://RightWingStuff.com

I am intrigued but there are still questions:

1) This can’t be turning oxygen and fuel directly into electricity, what is the type of gas emitted from the chemical reaction?
2) Any type of fuel? I’m guessing any carbon-based fuel?
3) What are the metals used in the cell? How exotic are we talking here?
4) How much energy is created? “Two can power an American Home” is kinda nebulous.
5) You still need to have some type of fuel coming into the house, I’m guessing natural gas companies would like this?

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.