Dishwasher-Size, 25kW Fuel Cell In Development

mcgrew writes "Forbes has an article about a new type of fuel cell that is 90% less costly than current cells at one tenth the size (making it the size of a dishwasher), with far higher efficiency than current cells. It runs at only 149 degrees Celsius (300F) . It was jointly developed by Diverse Energy and the University of Maryland. 'The first-generation Cube runs off natural gas, but it can generate power from a variety of fuel sources, including propane, gasoline, biofuel and hydrogen. The system is a highly efficient, clean technology, emitting negligible pollutants and much less carbon dioxide than conventional energy sources. It uses fuel far more efficiently than an internal combustion engine, and can run at an 80 percent efficiency when used to provide both heat and power.' It produces enough power to run a moderate-sized grocery store, or five homes. A smaller, home-sized unit is on the way. Is the municipal power plant on the way out?"

Comments

More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

This happens all too often at research universities. Professors develop new technologies funded by the university, then spin off a startup company to patent and exploit the technology for the Professor's personal profit, essentially stealing the initial investments and intellectual property rights from the University, which is funded by the taxpayers.

These criminals should be locked up. And besides, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The claims being made here are out of this world and are probably based on simulation using only the most ideal assumptions, then embellished to make it sound good enough for the startup company to rip off investors.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[itsybitsy]

Wow, you convicted the "professors" of a crime without any evidence. What next? Executions?

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[the_B0fh]

How the fuck is something like this insightful?! Every single line is full of bullshit, by someone who clearly have no idea how things work, and is just getting talking lines from somewhere.

If it was funded by the University, you can bet your ass the University will get is share.

For example, Google's famous PageRank patent is owned by Stanford:
http://contracts.onecle.com/google/stanford.lic.2003.10.13.shtml
http://www.clickonf5.org/10824/google-pagerank-license-expire-2011/

Fucking moron moderators as well. Insightful my ass. You whole lot should be the ones locked up for sprouting lies on the Internet.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[grumpy_technologist]

I know!

• How dare they take research dollars and research new technologies?
• How dare they follow through with successful research by *forming a business in the U.S. of A.* the very country that funded the research.
• How dare they take advantage of NSF-funded programs to transfer successful research to US-based businesses? It's almost like they (congress, policymakers, and business) wanted this to happen.
• How dare they use a volunteer-based peer review system to verify the findings and disseminate the results?
• Finally, how dare they use the NSF-mandated Data magagement plan to make all data available to the public and other researchers? Clearly they are trying to dupe us all now!

Source: NSF funded researcher. Disclaimer: NSF-funded researcher.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[hide_drive]

Bullshit. See the UMD policies on university ownership of faculty sponsored research products: http://www.president.umd.edu/policies/iv320anew.html

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[mug funky]

this man needs the mods.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[amiga3D]

I'll bring the rope.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[amiga3D]

Don't hold back man. Tell us how you really feel.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[amiga3D]

And some tranks.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't apply, because this was not a faculty-sponsored research product, it was a government-sponsored, taxpayer-funded research product that belongs to the taxpayers.

Socialized risk, privatized profit. Welcome to the new oligarchy.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Manfre]

The universities and other entities involved with funding the research are not shafted when these startups happen. Spinoff companies are great for universities. They get paid for their ownership on the patent(s).

I work at a research management company.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[ralphaostrander]

So you think a bloom box just like this is not powering a google campus. Sorrrrrry your so wrong but this is the future. I have bought property with nat gas wells. Just for the day I can buy one. Nice to get a good compressor off of ebay now for 6k. in the mean time.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck is something like this insightful?! ... Fucking moron moderators as well. Insightful my ass. You whole lot should be the ones locked up for sprouting lies on the Internet.

Modding an AC up should "cost" two points, possibly forcing the moderator to seriously think twice about the value of the comment before doing the mod; and probably consider it should only be when the AC is making an important point that requires anonymity. If they don't like it, they can create a pseudonymous reputation like everyone else.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

tranqs

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a lot more complicated than this unfortunately. At the last three universities I worked at, they all had an option to get help from the university's patent lawyers to help you file the patent correctly, and in two of those cases, they could decide to cover the fees for you too. The university would then get some percentage ownership of the patent. That wasn't the only way you could get a patent, but was by far the most common because it was easy. In certain conditions there were options to get the patent yourself, if you paid for your own lawyer and fees, and then you could get the full ownership of the patent. But there were also a lot of fine print on various projects and grants that could block that option, and it will vary greatly from university to university.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[the_B0fh]

Of course it would vary from university to university, but the AC made a blanket statement and basically found every single professor guilty. That is simply stupid.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

Federally sponsored research is explicitly mentioned in the document, and along with any other funded research ends up owned by the university except when barred by federal laws.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

That is beside the point. Why are our taxes going for this stuff in the first place? Our country is in deep debt to China that we might see CONUS land being sold off to them in order to just make interest payments (think the Louisiana Purchase, except in reverse.) Maybe we should start paying debts first, then worry about the cool stuff when the economy is better.

This stuff is for private companies to do, not unconstitutional pork barrel projects.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[slick7]

The universities and other entities involved with funding the research are not shafted when these startups happen. Spinoff companies are great for universities. They get paid for their ownership on the patent(s).

It will never get off the ground if there are no wires for the power companies to meter it.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[NotQuiteReal]

Trunks? Come on, I can't believe everyone on Slashdot sits around at their computer typing replies, pant-less!

Re: More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

you're right. he could've limited to stanford and been safe.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because like, you know: the University TOTALLY would prefer to be in the license plate manufacturing business instead of licensing patents. If it wasn't for these dastardly rogues dedicating years of their life advancing the knowledge base of the human race(for low compensation relative to the prerequisite requirements), the Universities would be free to stop looking towards the future and instead focus on commercializing the technology of today!

Universities being the pinnacle of modern business efficiency, I have no doubt they would be extremely agile and lean in their processes. They would certainly have little to no competition to worry about, from foreign manufacturing bases(whose exports are subsidized by government manipulation of their national currency).

I'm just glad we have crusaders on the internet so willing to bear the ultimate sacrifice by accusing others of unethical behavior. A true martyr in every individual who finds themselves discontented by their own inability to have a positive impact on their life or the world around them. The ones who feel compelled to tear down any success made by others that would suggest their perception of futility in life's pursuits is only a reflection of their own personal failings.

Believe me: it's not that life is hard, you just suck at it.

Your unquestioning acceptance of traditional wisdom has brought you little reward in life, yet it's apparently somebody-successful's fault you appear to be a schmuck? The question I would ask you is: "What did you expect after listening to the advice of nobody but other schmucks?"

Don't worry, if you just keep at it a little bit longer I'm sure you will have something to show for all your hard work.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

After Googling the CEO of Redox, I see that he founded and sold a company for quite a bit of money and is now an angel investor.

I guess this is where the funding came from.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bring the rope.

No that's only for niggers.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Manfre]

Gas companies would happily back this against the power companies. Probably will not be cost effective for the average person for a very long time. I'm curious about whether this would follow the same buy back requirements offered to solar panel power generation.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

As the previous AC, I didn't mean to imply the first poster up there was correct. But the line "If it was funded by the University, you can bet your ass the University will get is share." is not necessarily true either, and looks a lot like a blanket statement going in the opposite extreme.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[tolkienfan]

Taxes have funded our advances for decades.
Where have you been?
Thing is, businesses wouldn't fund much of the research that gets done... and for good reason: most of it doesn't result in profitable technologies and products.
We wouldn't be #1 if we didn't fund this research.
Personally, I would reduce defense and increase research spending by a factor of ten.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

Without research, our economy will remain bad. Yes, it takes money, but what the teabaggers who failed economics don't understand that there is a concept called an i-n-v-e-s-t-m-e-n-t. "Useless" silicon research got us the IC.

While the US has chopped the nads off of R&D, guess where China is putting hundreds of billions? It sure isn't shoring up hedge fund managers.

If you want to exist (not live, exist) in a country that has eaten its planting corn and is uninterested in a future other than falling back into a turd world (using Rush Limbaugh's expression) shithole, fine. Most of us actually want to see progress, especially in energy generation.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not how it works. These professors generally spin off the start ups with the universities blessings, they own part of the patent and generally have a substantial stake in the company. Often the start-up is even based on university property in facilities paid for by the university and capital they are able to raise from the private sector. This is usually a better choice then selling off the patent of a potentially ground breaking technology for a pittance since universities are not in the business of mass producing fuels cells or even managing their large patent portfolios efficiently. Your entire post is willful ignorance of malicious dishonesty, and the rest of the ignorant rate it insightful. Since you have no idea how research is actually done, I do not think anyone should put any faith in your assessment of the technical aspects either.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

The AC, like me, may have moderated in the forum.

Otherwise, the AC may not want to be connected in any way to what he felt was postworthy, because if it got back to someone else, he may have some answering to do.

In the past I have both seen and posted stuff that I thought others needed to know, but if posting it came the likelihood others could pin it to me, ( likely costing me my brownie points at work ) I would not have posted at all.

Often times we cannot speak what we really think and have to go along with the popular doublespeak in order to maintain social standing. Its like no-body wants to tell the emperor he has no clothes. On the job, most of us have to lie in order to keep our jobs and social standing, but as an AC on Slashdot, we can let the cat out of the bag for others to see and make of it what they will.

I find employment is like religion - if you disagree with the leadership, regardless of the evidence which you need to discuss, you will be ostracized/excommunicated/whatever. Most of us - especially people of scientific bent, are very demanding of truth and can't stand living a lie or being asked to propagate a lie for someone else's benefit. This AC bit allows us to reveal the mess as we see it, and if what we post has merit, the maker of the mess will eventually be asked to justify what he is doing.

Many of us abuse AC, but there are times being able to AC is of much importance.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Redmancometh]

You'd do the exact same for something this lucrative. Most would. It's not like the university can't make them anymore...it was done on paid time. I'm surprised he could even takr the product elsewhere.

Either way having it in homes/catalogues/ etc builds awareness which sells units...which spurs competition which means now you need a new better battery.

One of the *Good* aspects of capitalism

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in general agreement with the ideas you described about being an AC; it's in how moderation points are being given to an AC, where we seem to differ; unless I'm misunderstanding your reply. The previous post was meant to be about the value of an AC being modded up and how much thought should be put into it.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[beelsebob]

Our taxes go on that kind of thing because without funding it, the scientists will leave to other countries, and in 5 years time this is what you will have:
    An economy trying to recover, just about
  No researchers with cool ideas for how to spend the money you now have on projects that could run the economy for the next while
No graduates from uni worth anything because they've had no one worth anything teaching them anything.

Basically, because the people who are running the country have some foresight, and realise that we need to spend money to make money. Unlike you, you idiot.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Yoda222]

If you don't spend money in research, China will do it, and a Chinese company will patent the result. Not sure it will help to reduce the debt.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[lxs]

I don't know about others but when modding I try to consider the comment rather than the identity (or lack thereof) of the poster and never the amount of mod points I have. There is no scarcity of mod points. When I am out someone else will take my place. Modding an interesting comment up may not benefit an anonymous poster personally but does lift the post to a level where it can spark a good discussion which as far as I can tell is why we're wasting our time here and not somewhere else.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[sjwt]

Modding an AC up should "cost" two points, possibly forcing the moderator to seriously think twice about the value of the comment before doing the mod; and probably consider it should only be when the AC is making an important point that requires anonymity. If they don't like it, they can create a pseudonymous reputation like everyone else.

Mod points are the same as Kama whores,
A never ending supply, and all spent in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[nospam007]

"We wouldn't be #1 if we didn't fund this research."

Sure you would.

#1 The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world and the largest total prison population on the entire globe.

#2 According to NationMaster.com, the United States has the highest percentage of obese people in the world.

#3 The United States has the highest divorce rate on the globe by a wide margin.

#4 The United States is tied with the U.K. for the most hours of television watched per person each week.

#5 The United States has the highest rate of illegal drug use on the entire planet.

#6 There are more car thefts in the United States each year than anywhere else in the world by far.

#7 There are more reported rapes in the United States each year than anywhere else in the world.

#8 There are more reported murders in the United States each year than anywhere else in the world.

#9 There are more total crimes in the United States each year than anywhere else in the world.

#10 The United States also has more police officers than anywhere else in the world.

#11 The United States spends much more on health care as a percentage of GDP than any other nation on the face of the earth.

#12 The United States has more people on pharmaceutical drugs than any other country on the planet.

#13 The percentage of women taking antidepressants in America is higher than in any other country in the world.

#14 Americans have more student loan debt than anyone else in the world.

#15 More pornography is created in the United States than anywhere else on the entire globe. 89 percent is made in the U.S.A. and only 11 percent is made in the rest of the world.

#16 The United States has the largest trade deficit in the world every single year. Between December 2000 and December 2010, the United States ran a total trade deficit of 6.1 trillion dollars with the rest of the world, and the U.S. has had a negative trade balance every single year since 1976.

#17 The United States spends 7 times more on the military than any other nation on the planet does. In fact, U.S. military spending is greater than the military spending of China, Russia, Japan, India, and the rest of NATO combined.

#18 The United States has far more foreign military bases than any other country does.

#19 The United States has the most complicated tax system in the entire world.

#20 The U.S. has accumulated the biggest national debt that the world has ever seen and it is rapidly getting worse. Right now, U.S. government debt is expanding at a rate of $40,000 per second.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

When does the taxpayer get a return on their investment? Oh that's right. Never.

You do understand that this whole paradigm of "socializing risk, privatizing profit" is morally reprehensible, right?

Government subsidy should only come in the form of the Treasury purchasing shares of stock in a security. That makes it a lot more transparent, and easier to understand that we no longer live in a capitalist economic system.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Eunuchswear]

Go USA!

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

We also have a strong lead in producing/enabling internet crybabies.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[BrokenHalo]

It will never get off the ground if there are no wires for the power companies to meter it.

I expect there will be businesses who would take it up. There is an increasing industry in off-grid power supply. I happen to have a certain amount of first-hand knowledge about this, since I live far enough away from power lines to completely rule out grid power as an option. I have to generate all my electrical energy or do without. Since my setup is still a work in progress, I am stuck (for the moment) with having to run a generator rather more than I would like.

If a fuel cell were to be made available at an affordable (or at least economically viable) price, I would probably jump at it rather than use a noisy and inefficient infernal combustion engine as my backup.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we know what color this professor is?

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[umafuckit]

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Lennie]

I don't know, I would probably make the same list and I'm from Europe.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

Is tenured a color? Or is that equivalent to yellow?

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

You're thinking too small. No government should exist. I have the guns, I make the rules. Now give me all your gas so I can go take down the Thunderdome.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[tolkienfan]

None of that contradicts my point

Re: More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for this Dude's reaction when he learns about Troll posts.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[pepty]

This happens all too often at research universities. Professors develop new technologies funded by the university, then spin off a startup company to patent and exploit the technology for the Professor's personal profit, essentially stealing the initial investments and intellectual property rights from the University, which is funded by the taxpayers.

Nope. Universities are pretty careful about getting patents on their professors' research: it's in the contracts the professors, postdocs and grad students have to sign. The big hubbub about patents on BRCA1 genes a few months ago? The original patents were jointly filed by the University of Utah, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and Myriad Genetics. And that was back in the '90s, before the big squeeze on university budgets.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States is #1 in creating lists about itself that ignore virtually any hint of potentially exculpatory context in order to make an emotionally inflammatory pseudo-point that exists solely in a unassailable, disturbing psychological netherworld of "Ain't it Awful?" i.e propagandizing without educating.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

Universities are pretty careful about getting patents on their professors' research: it's in the contracts the professors, postdocs and grad students have to sign.

You are right that it is int the contracts, but not probably as you intended, depending on which school you are talking about. When I was a graduate student not too long ago, the contract explicitly stated that all copyrights and patents would be mine for the work I did myself (even if using funds and equipment from a longer project). At some places, postdocs get lumped into how graduate students are treated as for such matters. And even professors at many (if not most) universities are given the option to keep patents themselves as long as the funding agency/grant that paid for the work allows it. The universities still get a lot of patents out of things though, as they offer programs to make getting patents really easy in exchange for partial ownership, which I've seen vary anywhere from 25% to 49%.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

You have been enabled to cry thanks to both the U.S. actions and technology. You're welcome.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[fast turtle]

On # 16, a trade imbalance benefits the countries that we have the negative Imbalance with. In other words, if we closed the god damn ports and told everyone they couldn't sell their stuff here, it wouldn't hurt us for very long but would cause economic collapse around the world followed by various governments going to war.

As to # 17, is more complex then you pointed out though I agree we need to reduce spending by pulling all American Troops home, close all Bases Overseas and quit providing 50+ percent of Nato's Funding. This will reduce the number of our people dying overseas as they simply wont be there and while we're doing that, we may as well cut off all foreign aid while closing the borders/ports and what not while telling everyone else in the World "You want us to Play Police, have our people die to protect you from your leaders. Then you have to pay us to do so. We're no longer doing it for free and then paying you to let us stay. Simply put, we need to become completely mercenary about policing the world. If we did, nations would stop Demanding that we fix their fucking problems or they'd at least think twice about it because of the cost.

As to #18, if we closed all of our basis and pulled our troops home while cutting off Nato's Aid, we wouldn't have the most bases on Foreign Soil would we? It also means telling everyone else to go to Fucking Hell in your Own Hand basket.

BTW: If you are a foriegner who's tired of the U.S. sticking it's nose into your country, don't bitch to us but your god damn governement and tell the fucktards to quit demanding we help em out for anything. No more assistance when you have a natural disaster, no more donations to charities that benefit you, not more troops when you're being attacked in response to treaties. That's right. We'll pull our troops home and refuse to honor anymore mutual defense treaties and let you hang in the fucking wind when China decides "Oh the United States is a Paper Tiger and wont do anything to us for invading." Go for it.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[uninformedLuddite]

I wish you luck. My off grid system is having some problems and so I am running a generator at 4.30am right now. Will be fixed by the end of the week but is a big pain in the arse. Don't skimp on the important stuff. Batteries are not something to try and save money on.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[SimpleFacts]

Dear Assbucket; 1) How dare we enforce our laws and lock people up! We lock up the most people (legally) because you can't/won't count the dictatorships or countries that lock their citizens up for heinous crimes like insulting mohammed or the current leader. 2) We're the richest country in the world and take great care to provide our people as much (or as little) as they care to eat. Most likely, your asshole country's citizens as well. 3) So we have freedom to make the wrong choice. That's a bad thing? 4) We have more free time to waste whatever way we choose to. Beats the hell out of working 16 hours a day. 5) There's that damned freedom thing again. We may have more drug laws than other countries as well. 6) More people and more cars, too. More crime because we're too cheap to pay for more cops or use the militia as a police force? Maybe. 7) See above. More people, less cops. Also, I would conjecture that we have more accurate and public reporting of crimes. 8) See above. Damn, this is getting repetitive. 9) Okay, this is stupid. Biggest country, most people, freedom, best and most open reporting of activity. 10) More than Russia? China? Really? Wow, Obama's full employment campaign must be working. 11) Yes, we do! And have the healthiest, longest lived population in history. If you discount all of those pesky traffic accidents, homicides, farm and other accidents. If you speak only about health matters, we win hands down. 12) As opposed to the most people suffering curable afflictions? 13) Really? We can afford 'em. It's that damned pesky healthcare system that supports giving us drugs to cure just about any real or imagined ill. If you can afford it, you can have it. If you can't afford it, the damned government will probably take more of my money and give them to you anyway. 14) And more students, too. Even idiots like you who should never be allowed to go to school can attend university here. And get a loan to do it. Which you probably will default on and I will end up having to pay through higher fees. 15) Go USA! Big business. If you object to it, don't look at it. Hey, did you know that the countries with the most stringent anti-gay laws have the highest viewership of online gay porn? 16) That means we buy the shit you make. Hence we fund your economy and your ability to blather on in internet forums. Does that really bother you? Would you prefer that we didn't buy from you? Maybe you could sell to Cuba. 17) The US maintains the most modern military structure in the world, not the biggest. Being the best costs money. We spend less on defense than we spend giving free colonoscopies to illegal immigrants and feeding third world assholes, who watch internet gay porn. 18) Yes more military bases around the world. We spend more on our military so Europe and Japan don't have to bother with spending on theirs. How about if we all just pick up our toys and go home. And take all of our jobs and local economy expenditures with us? How about if you pick up the tab for your own defense? 19) Is that somehow your business? If you are an American citizen, I suggest you move since you obviously do not like it here. 20) Yup. More national debt from giving freebies to everyone in sight. Since Obama took office the national debt has tripled and no end in sight. Free student loans for liberal arts students! Free healthcare for all! Free housing for people too stupid to get an education! Free food for people who would rather work the system than a job. And here's a free one for you: 21) the singular most powerful, richest country in the world in less than 200 years. A country that kept the Soviets from waltzing all over Europe after we kicked Hitler's ass and flattened Japan. A country that makes China think twice before annexing Japan and Korea. A country where people are still free to do what they want to do, where and when they want to do it. A place where even our "poor" own houses, drive cars, have TV, AC, and phones and are fatter than the rich people in most countries because they eat too much.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[samkass]

Not to worry... with the sequester, US funding for basic science has slowed to a trickle, and since most funding is locked up in ongoing projects, new scientists in the United States over the past year have gotten almost nothing funded and are leaving the country in droves. 5-10 years from now when those projects reach the point of practical implementation, they'll be creating industry in some other country. So your perfect libertarian paradise is on its way!

Re: More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow.

So if big business offends you, then don't look at it? Izzat right?

How'd that work out for the people in Bhopal?

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[evilviper]

I like how you play fast and loose with the facts, like arbitrarily switching back and forth between absolute values and per-capita values, depending on which one puts the US at the top...

1) The US is only #1 in incarcerations because China is #1 in executions...

2) Obesity is falling slightly in the US, while other countries are rising. Some reports say the UK has surpassed the US, but in a few years the US will definitely lose it's #1 spot.

3) Divorce and marriage laws could use some reforms.

4) TV is NOT A BAD THING. The US/UK might be #1 just because we have more leisure hours. Or perhaps because we have the best entertainment, news, and documentary industries.

5) Only if you emphasize the "illegal" part of it. Legalizing drug use like other countries doesn't make the behavior better or worse.

6) We have nice cars. We have more cars total, and per-capita, than anywhere else in the world, so it only makes sense that thefts would be higher in absolute terms.

7) "Reported" crimes are a GOOD thing. That means you have a working police and court system, and people are more likely to report crimes. It's the unreported ones that are a sign of your country going horribly wrong.

8) See above.

9) See above.

10) See above.

11) US heath care is always better in some ways than other systems around the world. And recent reforms (see: Obamacare) are going to bring prices down in the next few years.

12) We get all the best pharmaceuticals, our doctors correctly diagnose medical issues, and our insurance pays for them.

13) Keeping suicide rates down is a good thing. We're not #1 there, are we?

14) We have good, expensive schools, and we get good, higher paying jobs than elsewhere, so we can afford to incur and later pay off that debt.

15) Sounds like a strong entertainment industry is bringing-in more jobs to California, and exports are strong.

16) "Largest" everything (in absolute terms) happens a LOT when you have the largest economy (by far). And a lot of the reason for it is one of the strongest consumer economies in the world, which is also NOT a bad thing.

17) The US provides military services for more than 7 countries. NATO countries all depend on the US to some degree. The US maintaining a large blue-water navy is protecting the trade routes all other countries use, but don't spend the money to defend.

18) See above.

19) Simplification of the tax system would be good, but companies are managing, and the economy is doing just fine.

20) See #16. "Largest..." everything happens a lot when you've got the biggest economy. The US also has the best credit worthiness rating in the world, so you really can't claim there's a problem with the amount of debt.

Re: More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

you realise if your property is in the Usa you do not have mineral rights on that plot of land you purchased.

Re: More ripping off the taxpayer

[Anonymous Coward]

no treaty compelled Usa to invade Iraq.

supporting dictators for decades (e.g. Suharto, Musharraf, Noriega) served the interests of Usa and not the people they ruled and controlled.

if I recalled correctly, Canadian police and mounties assisted in crimping through the sept11 aftermath and they were welcomed by the Usa. we should never count humanitarian acts on a ledger to ensure proportional reciprocity. we should really. just shut up and help people in need when we come across the opportunity.

to leverage humanitarian assistance in your "American exceptionalism" tirade is to use human rights as a bargaining chip. how American of you.

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[the_B0fh]

I think this is the most important bit. AC or not AC is irrelevant. What matters is the points brought up. In this case, the original AC was a dumbass who happened to trigger my WTF button by being a damned idiot... :)

Re:More ripping off the taxpayer

[slick7]

Gas companies will go along as long as there is a meter or gas tank involved.

Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[93 Escort Wagon]

The municipal power plant isn't going anywhere.

Our house has all electric utilities - stove, oven water heater, dryer, home heating (in-wall heaters, no central furnace). I'm too lazy to add up the exact numbers, but we're probably paying $2000-2500 a year for electricity (Washington state).

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[hedwards]

What you're forgetting is that in WA we have some of the lowest prices on electricity in the country. Thanks to the WPA dams that the federal government gave us and the Californians that are incapable of producing enough electricity to cover their needs.

In much of the rest of the country, the cost of electricity is substantially higher, so one of these would be cost effective much more quickly.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

There is *no* use case for generating power from natgas coming in through a pipe.

(1) The pipe is as easy to break as the power line
(2) It's more efficient to generate power on a large scale

There is a use case for generating (emergency backup) power on site. That's covered by diesel generators, and solar cells.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[ShanghaiBill]

(1) The pipe is as easy to break as the power line

My experience:
Frequency of electricity outages: About every six months. More when I lived where thunderstorms are common.
Frequency of gas outages: Never. Not even once. In my entire life.

(2) It's more efficient to generate power on a large scale

This is only true for generators. It is NOT true for fuel cells, which is what this article is about. Fuel cells benefit little from "scale", and not enough to offset the transmission losses you avoid with local generation.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

This could replace a diesel generator.

note also though that there are quite a few natural gas backup generators out there for backup purposes.
This could replace one of them easily. Also remember that natural gas can be compressed, so you can have a redundant supply tank if the pipe gets cut.
I'm wondering, though, about mobile use - if it can be run off propane, it could easily be used in a large pickup truck or semi; I'm wondering if the efficiency would be good enough that you woud be able to run one of these and wheel motors instead of a diesel engine and manual gearbox, differential etc.. each of which wastes power.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Trepidity]

Electric outage frequency really depends on your local weather and infrastructure. Neighborhoods with buried lines have a lot fewer outages than those with above-ground lines, for example.

Where I currently live, there hasn't been an outage in several years.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[HangingChad]

I'm too lazy to add up the exact numbers

The prototype is 25 kW, that's metric assload of power. Probably enough for your house and one or two of the neighbors depending on how much you run the A/C.

Your power bill is pretty high.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

Well hello, I'm from Finland. We have -35C winters. Some of the houses are direct electric heated. Electricity consumption is around 25000kWh/a. Electricity price is around 0.15eur/kWh. For one, I welcome our new type fuel cells....

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

A large reason for power outage is that because of the "reduced" hazard of wires over pipes, the wires are open to the elements. NG pipes are usually deep under ground, meaning that anything other than human error or a earthquake is unlikely to touch them. If all electrical wiring were buried with the same requirements as NG pipes, outages would likely be equally rare.

ovo -hoot

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[ShanghaiBill]

Electric outage frequency really depends on your local weather and infrastructure. Neighborhoods with buried lines have a lot fewer outages than those with above-ground lines, for example.

Electricity is still far less reliable than gas. A lightning strike can send a voltage surge for miles, up and down trunk lines. There is nothing analogous for gas. With gas, any break can be quickly isolated. Electricity has to be delivered within a narrow voltage range, but gas pressure can fluctuate much more widely. If you have one of these dishwasher sized fuel cells, you could also install a gas storage tank that could store a day or two of gas, so even if there was a gas interruption, you could keep the fuel cell going.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[ArhcAngel]

You obviously live in an economically secure area.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Brett Buck]

Thanks to the WPA dams that the federal government gave us and the Californians that are incapable of producing enough electricity to cover their needs.

        Incapable, no. Unwilling.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloom Box

This is a blatant ripoff of Bloomenergy's vaporware.

Three years on from the earlier slashdot article, Bloomenergy is the most wildly successful vaporware introduction EVVVEEERRR!

Don't let haters detract from the indisputable fact that America is still the foremost nation for vaporware incubation.

We even attract charlatans from other countries to our shores...Elon Musk comes to mind...

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloom Box

This is a blatant ripoff of Bloomenergy's vaporware.

Three years on from the earlier slashdot article, Bloomenergy is the most wildly successful vaporware introduction EVVVEEERRR!

Don't let haters detract from the indisputable fact that America is still the foremost nation for vaporware incubation.

We even attract charlatans from other countries to our shores...Elon Musk comes to mind...

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[c0lo]

The municipal power plant isn't going anywhere.

Our house has all electric utilities - stove, oven water heater, dryer, home heating (in-wall heaters, no central furnace). I'm too lazy to add up the exact numbers, but we're probably paying $2000-2500 a year for electricity (Washington state).

Another way of saying: it may go by the time the patent expire (if, at the time, the power production is still mainly generated by burning fossil fuels and we didn't run off natural gas until then).

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[c0lo]

(2) It's more efficient to generate power on a large scale

This is only true for generators. It is NOT true for fuel cells, which is what this article is about. Fuel cells benefit little from "scale", and not enough to offset the transmission losses you avoid with local generation.

Ummm.... underlying assumption in your statement: the maintenance cost of fuel cells are low enough. For example: it may not happen if the catalysts need frequent replacement - the power company can afford discounts for "bulk buying" those catalysts and their replacement costs will be lower than the sum of all individual costs for calling a technician at the premises.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

In Melbourne, Australia; town of ~3.5 million, maybe 15 years ago there was an explosion at our primary Natural Gas plant.

We had no gas for almost 2 weeks.
Many houses here are gas hot water, gas stove tops and gas ovens.
Cold showers for 2 weeks was no fun.

Having said that; there has been "significant" (1 hour+) power outages maybe once or twice in the last 15 years in my area...?

But; certainly not the entire city. So; gas *can* go out, but electricity certainly goes out more often.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[c0lo]

The municipal power plant isn't going anywhere.

Well, they might go the way of Dodo. Once the patent expires, some may use the published paper and a sufficiently advanced 3D printer to get their your own fuel cell.

(letting aside the tongue-in-cheek tone, my main point above: here's an article with details on the technology. Others as well)

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than 3+Megawatts of units have been installed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_Energy_Server

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Jarik C-Bol]

Or, you can live where I do, at the third to last town at the end of a distribution trunk. We have major power fluctuations nearly daily, and actual outages weekly. There is a large supply of 'broken' microwave ovens to be had here, that all need the internal fuse replaced from the surges and brownouts we have.

We have had power outages extending nearly 24 hours, and the fluctuations make battery backup systems a must for any important electronic device. The town at the actual end of the trunk got federal funds to construct a battery backup that will power the entire town for something like two hours.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100325-presidio-texas-battery/

The gas though? never had an outage.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Jarik C-Bol]

I for one recommend you switch to a more efficient form of heating. Electricity is terribly inefficient way to heat a house. (we burn say, coal, (at a energy loss) to generate steam to turn turbines, to turn generators to make electricity, to transmit over lines (at a bit of a loss) to heat up resistor, (at a hilarious loss) to warm air. Or, you pipe gas to the house, burn it, and get warm from all the heat the gas makes. I for one, choose the latter.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[viperidaenz]

Delivered gas bottles never go out. A 45kg bottle supplies an average size house with hot water and cooking for 3 or 4 months, depending on season. It's cheaper than articulated gas too.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, this isn't modded funny... You're not actually being sarcastic?
What the hell are you even talking about then? Perhaps that's how my 7 year old might understand it, but anyone older than that who would even attempt to advise others in such things should clearly know better.

Exactly where does this "lost" energy go when you heat up a resistor to warm the air? Into... oh yeah, HEAT, genius! Yes, there are some transmission losses getting the energy to your house, but electric heat is 100% efficient at the point of delivery. Exactly ALL of the electric energy consumed by the heating element directly creates heat within the home. Any loss at that point is through the doors/windows/walls due to poor insulation.

Now, when you burn gas at your home, you don't just stick an open flame in the middle of your living room You have a furnace with a chimney and guess where a significant amount of the heat goes? Yep, right out the chimney. If you have sealed combustion, then outside air is used as the air source for the flame, which has some minor a cooling effect, and if you don't, then air that has already been heated is used for combustion and then exhausted, which is even worse.

Given economies of scale at the power plant, the ability for some of the electric energy to come from wind, hyrdo, solar, etc, it might even be MORE efficient to use electricity, but at worst it's probably a wash.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

I could well see where you would welcome a box running 149 degrees C in your house when its -35C outside!

And getting electricity out of it as well.

Talk about win-win.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

The temperature this runs at will heat water nicely. I wonder if I can use one of these - as a water heater.

The power companies are always referring to peak demand periods, rolling blackouts, and timeouts for air conditioning systems. A little cajoling from the power company would probably get people to install these with remotes, in such a manner if someone had thermal capacity in their water tank, it could be heated upon request of the power company so that the electrical energy co-generated would be backfed into the power line, easing demand on the primary generator. Thousands of home water heaters coming online would probably do the same thing as powering up a natgas peaking generator.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Miamicanes]

> There is *no* use case for generating power from natgas coming in through a pipe.

Er... I guess you don't live in Florida, or along the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts. Natural Gas is just about the *ideal* fuel for home generators smaller than ~10KW. It's not the most efficient, but if you're buying it to make sure you can have air conditioning and charged batteries for a few days/weeks after a hurricane, absolute efficiency is less important than low ceremony and minimal preventative maintenance needs, because you're really only going to use it for more than 2-4 weeks *maybe* twice in 50 years, and the rest of the time it might get 1-5 days of use in an average year. Natural gas generators aren't *quite* 100% maintenance-free, but they're about as close to it as an average consumer is likely to get.

Regular gasoline generators suck, especially if you live somewhere with high-ethanol gas. It turns to varnish unless you run the generator every few weeks, and turns to varnish after a few years even if you *do* unless you double the gas cost by adding fuel stabilizer too.

Diesel generators are ungodly expensive in the US, at least in smaller sizes. I don't think I've ever even SEEN a diesel generator in the US smaller than 15-25 kilowatts. I think it's due to environmental reasons, because my coworkers from India said that small diesel generators are cheap and common there.

That said, if you don't have natural gas available via pipe & have to settle for propane, give some major thought to the logistics involved. Blue Rhino is NOT a viable option for generator use (due to both post-hurricane logistics and cost), and in all of Dade & Broward Counties, I think there are *maybe* 3 or 4 places where you can show up with empty customer-owned cylinders and fill them without getting raped. You really need enough cylinder capacity to get you through 3-4 days... and if you're running a 5-10KW generator around the clock to run a window air conditioner or two, that means you're going to need about 200-300lbs of LPG and 2-3 cylinders. 80lb cylinders aren't cheap -- even when used -- so make sure you factor the cost of them into your cost comparison. The cylinder-acquisition costs can EASILY double the amount you're going to have to spend to buy a 5-8KW propane generator.

While I'm at it, if you're still reading this far and live in Florida... here's the abbreviated version of my hurricane generator info.

* Be aware that you need AT LEAST 2,500 running watts and ~3,000 starting watts to reliably run even a small window air conditioner without holding your breath and praying every time you go to start it up.

* When shopping, check to see whether the generator is 120v ONLY , or also does 240v. If it outputs 240v, that probably means that each 120v circuit can only handle HALF the generator's advertised output... and that if you present it with radically unbalanced loads (ie, air conditioner on one leg, battery chargers on the other), it's going to run badly & your fuel economy will go down the toilet (assuming it doesn't stall or have other problems). The moral: it just might be worth spending a little more to get an inverter-type generator that gives you the full rated output power on a single leg, or buying a 7-10KW generator and running TWO window units with it (one on each leg), with your remaining loads divided between the two legs.

* If you want to run exactly one window unit on a generator whose capacity is a little on the low side, you might have to hack the air conditioner and graft a starter capacitor onto it (central AC units have them, but window units almost never do). You might also have to get creative and rewire the compressor & fan controls, so you can start up one, then start up the other a couple of seconds later.

* Another option, if you don't need 240v, is to rewire the generator so it has only a single 120v leg.

* Inductive loads (including anything with a motor) are "different" from resistive loads (like incandescent lights), the advertised

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[davester666]

No, it only costs 10% of the current electrical price of the power it produces to actually make the device.

It will probably be priced 90% and 300% of the current electrical price of the power it produces when it is sold to the end-user [based on things like convenience [no brown/blackouts until it runs out], forecast price of electricity over the life of the product[varies by zip code], and a gut feeling for how much earlier adopters can be gouged].

Witness the incredible money-making potential of the intangible concept known as "the patent".

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

"to heat up resistor, (at a hilarious loss) to warm air. "

Uhhhhh.......

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[thegarbz]

It's cheaper than articulated gas too.

Cheaper for who? The supplier? Infrastructure installer?

Certainly not the end user which is why I don't have bottles in my house.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

Frequency of gas outages: Never. Not even once. In my entire life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esso_Longford_gas_explosion
just saying. no guarantees

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not likely to use the knowledge, I live in Ireland, thanks for your efforts all the same. I'm sure this will have an influence on something which will have my input in the future.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[jkflying]

Yep. Better to use a heat pump.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

You are comparing apples and oranges here.

It is possible to make reliable infrastructure for electricity, but then it would cost as much to install as gas-pipes. It is not possible to make gas-infrastructure as cheap as electricity.

Your electricity is unreliable by design, it saved money once upon a time. That doesn't mean that your experiences are true outside of your neighborhood. There are plenty of places where electricity is necessary for life support.

Where I live people would freeze to death if there was a longer power outage during winter. The infrastructure is designed accordingly.
I have experienced blackouts as long as an hour in my childhood but nothing longer than a dip that has caused some computers to restart in the last 20 years.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

The cylinder-acquisition costs can EASILY double the amount you're going to have to spend to buy a 5-8KW propane generator.

Usually a stationary tank can be fairly cheap.... A 1000 gallon tank can be had for about ~$1500-$2500 .. 500 gallon tank for $700-$1500...... You might want to bury it but that will raise the price of the tank a bit... Buying a used tank can be very cheap, but remember to have it inspected before putting any pressure in it.
You can also lease a tank from the propane-supplier..

* Be aware that you need AT LEAST 2,500 running watts and ~3,000 starting watts to reliably run even a small window air conditioner without holding your breath and praying every time you go to start it up.

Well.. A easy way to solve this would be to have a small battery-bank, or really big capacitor-bank in front of the generator... If you plan it so you can draw say 20kW for 10 seconds you should be safe, and it would be a fairly low price. (and it should probably be designed to handle up to 50kW for up to a second.) Then all the generator has to do is to change the battery-bank so it's always full. This way you do not have to run the generator at anything but the most optimal setting.. You might want to have a 15-60 minute battery bank, at normal load, to minimize switching on/off the generator, if that might have a bad impact on it.
With these things you should have not really have any problems, and generator never needs to run above capacity to make sure enough current is available

But for cooling/heating of the house i would go for geothermal heating/cooling... ( random link from google: http://www.boerbrothershvac.com/Geothermal.html )..

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, when you burn gas at your home, you don't just stick an open flame in the middle of your living room You have a furnace with a chimney and guess where a significant amount of the heat goes? Yep, right out the chimney. If you have sealed combustion, then outside air is used as the air source for the flame, which has some minor a cooling effect, and if you don't, then air that has already been heated is used for combustion and then exhausted, which is even worse.

With this generator you would not have a need for a chimney... All the heat and power would stay within the house without any loss.. Ie reducing the energy loss during transmission of electric current.. (Not a clue what the average loss is on gas-lines are).

Another thing about fuel-cell's is that they scale quite nicely so it does not really matter if it's in a power-plant or in someones home (except for the energy the control-logic on the fuelcell uses since it would be in all of them.).. Another nice thing with fuel-cells is that they are a clean energy-conversion unit and not producing much pollution during their life (production, run-time, decommission) ....
Also if you have a fuelcell like this there are very nice things you can do to supplement it.. like solar-cells on the roof etc.. Multiple energy-sources and then having a fallback for when none of those are available.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anne Thwacks]

25kW is a Fiat Punto engine - and here in London, an average house boiler thermal output. We have piped gas to every home in the UK, so put a generator on a Punto engine in every home and never mind the esoteric technology!

(Ford Pinto is similar but not as sexy).

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[geoskd]

I for one recommend you switch to a more efficient form of heating. Electricity is terribly inefficient way to heat a house. (we burn say, coal, (at a energy loss) to generate steam to turn turbines, to turn generators to make electricity, to transmit over lines (at a bit of a loss) to heat up resistor, (at a hilarious loss) to warm air. Or, you pipe gas to the house, burn it, and get warm from all the heat the gas makes. I for one, choose the latter.

Technically, resistive heating is 100% efficient (it converts 100% of the energy to heat). The problem is the transmission and generation, which you mentioned is very low efficiency. Using electricity for resistive heating is pretty stupid these days, What you want is a heat pump. It uses much less energy to move existing heat energy "uphill" to where you want it than it does to create it out of electricity. You can make a gas powered heat pump, but its easier to make electric powered ones. Of all the heating and cooling options, air source heat pumps are the second most energy efficient (and second cheapest under most conditions), and a ground source heat pump is the most efficient and cheapest under all conditions. In 100 years, people wont even be installing fuel sourced boilers or hot water heaters at all.

That having been said, it may be economically viable to install one of these fuel cells to generate the electricity that future heat pumps will use. I sat down and did the math: at a price point of around 10k USD, it becomes worth the cost for me to install a 10kW unit. I can justify more if I assume (which I can) that this will prevent me from having to get a generator for power outages as well.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't even true for generators.

In Amsterdam there is an old russian hotel called Krasnapolsky. It was in the news a few years ago that they weren't on the grid but where producing electricity and heat themselves. So all the green people went up in arms about the waste. Because small generators couldn't be as efficient as the big once on the electrical grid, right?

Except in this case the generators at Krasnaplsky were a lot more efficient than the ones used on the electrical grid, this is mostly due to the fact that waste heat from the generator was used to heat the hotel. In Amsterdam it is cold for most of the year, so heating is good to have.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[BrokenHalo]

Well.. A easy way to solve this would be to have a small battery-bank, or really big capacitor-bank in front of the generator... If you plan it so you can draw say 20kW for 10 seconds you should be safe, and it would be a fairly low price.

Sure, this might be "easy", but it certainly isn't cheap. Remember, your battery bank supplies DC current, so if your appliances demand AC, you're going to need an inverter. And a charger. Plus you need ancillaries like a transfer switch, battery fuse and cabling, in addition to the services of (at least here in .au) a properly certified electrician.

Those components of my setup (with a 2400Ah battery and 3kW inverter) came to around $10K.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[mcgrew]

The end user would be a supermarket. Single-household ones should be soon, the article said (one of them, anyway).

It wouldn't run out of fuel, have you ever run out of natural gas? Of course, gas is cheap right now in the US, my heat bill last year was a third what it was just a few years ago. This thing might not be such a good deal if gas prices go back up.

Of course, the environmental advantages of this won't go away; little exhaust and no CO2.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[__aaltlg1547]

I think I would need a 25KW unit just to power my house. Saying a 25kW unit can power 5 houses doesn't account for the peak-to-average ratio, which is huge for a single house but much lower for a city.

They're also assuming I can get gas to my home as cheaply as the utility company can get gas to its centralized plant, which is far from true.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct up to the resistor. The resistor heat up with no loss at all. It is all other electrical devices that have loss. Electrical lights create some heat as well (loss), electric motors create some heat (loss). But the point of a resistor oven is to create heat, which it usually does at 100% efficiency. What form would "loss" take in a resistor? It would have to be other forms of energy (light, sound, movement). Which is easily avoided.

But a resistor is not the best way heat a house with electricity. Use a heat pump instead. (Same kind of machine as air conditioners or refridgerators.) A heat pump will use perhaps 1kW of electricity, and use that to pump about 3kW of heat in from the outside. (Even though it is colder outside). So you pay for 1kW, but get 3+1=4kW of heating.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[__aaltlg1547]

Fuel cells benefit from scale too. Whatever you use, it must be sufficient to handle your peak energy usage condition. That means you probably need a system that handles about about 5 times your average load, or you will experience brownouts or carefully schedule your power use to reduce your peaks. A centralized system only has to plan for about 60 or 70% above average loads. So if they were using the same kind of system (say hundreds of units identical to the one you might have at home, you'd need about 8kW of generator capacity to account for your home if the generator is located at a centralized utility and about 25kW of generator capacity if the generator is located at your home -- with no external electrical feed.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, Smaller diesel generators are available but they tend to be expensive.
Professional welders use them all the time. In the 10KW class, they tend to run at 3600rpm - very inefficient at that speed. They are also pretty loud at that speed.
The better ones tend to run at 1600rpm but are either much bigger or less powerful.
See either Miller or Lincoln welder generators. Note: they are expensive, quality American tools. Sit down before you look at the price.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Immerman]

A valid point, but it has absolutely nothing to do with efficiency unless the fuel cell is significantly less efficient generating at partial capacity. And you don't need centralized generation to average out the peaks, just a power distribution grid.

I imagine grid-tied systems would be as popular for fuel-cell systems as for solar - in which case you share power with all other generators/consumers and get charged/compensated* based on your net energy consumption/generation. In that case you only need enough generating capacity to cover your average load so that net consumption ~= 0 and you're good to go.

The question then becomes whether the amortized cost of generating your own electricity is cheaper than buying it from the grid. For solar this is very much region dependent, in the mostly cloudless US Southwest for example a pure grid-tied solar system (no batteries) typically pays for itself in 5 years or so. If this fuel cell can hit a similar price point then it could take the world by storm, especially since it sounds like it's also designed to harness the waste heat so that you get hot water and at least a measure of home heating for free.

* compensation only available in some jurisdictions

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Immerman]

That depends - if you used a grid-tied system as is common with solar then you share your unused generating capacity with everyone else on the grid and only need to cover your average usage. If everyone moved to that model and eliminated centralized generation then the average system would need an extra 70% capacity or whatever the centralized generation facilities have to handle the "average peak", but still far less than any one person's peak/average ratio.

Add in the fact that you're also getting on-site heating for free and this could be a really interesting system - even in the summer you could potentially use that excess heat for cooling purposes. It's not terribly efficient, but look into solar cooling, it can be done, and if you've got the waste heat anyway...

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[__aaltlg1547]

If you eliminate the centralized generation on the grid, nobody is going to be able to pull power from the grid unless you come up with a system where you pay me when you use my gas.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[ShanghaiBill]

Whatever you use, it must be sufficient to handle your peak energy usage condition.

No it doesn't. If you need more power than your fuel cell delivers, you can pull it from the grid. If you have excess power, you push it to the grid. A home fuel cell only needs to be sized for the average load.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[zippthorne]

Ceiling fans might put a huge load on your generator, but my experience is that a small room-sized ceiling fan doesn't put a huge load on a battery-backed inverter.

During one 3-week outage, I ran a small inverter off of an 8 amp-hour lead-acid gel cell battery, changing the battery off of my car motor every couple of days because I thought I ought to keep it topped up, not because I needed it that frequently. Ceiling fan + a 3-bulb floor lamp (of 7W fluorescents) and about 30 minutes of a 16" CRT TV every night didn't seem to put too much of a dent.

The fan was really loud, though, which I attribute to the crappy 2-bit approximation to a sine wave (almost literally 2-bit, btw, it had high, mid, zero, -mid, -high voltage points...) interacting with the fan's pretty much entirely inductive load.

I'm surprised about the UPS issue. I'd think that if you're running an "inverter" generator that you should have relatively clean 12V DC somewhere in the generator's stack, and should be able to connect that directly to a 12V input on the UPS...

I don't know how things are in south florida, but in central florida it's pretty possible to go a week or three on cold-showers and no AC after a mid-summer hurricane. The most efficient option is to train yourself to have a wider temperature tolerance.

No coffee, on the other hand....

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[__aaltlg1547]

If you eliminate the centralized generation on the grid, nobody is going to be able to pull power from the grid unless you come up with a system where you pay me when you use my gas.

(quoting myself because of an afterthought)

And if you do that, you make a niche for people who are in the business of converting gas to electricity for the purpose of putting it on the grid for sale. The people running these businesses will locate where land and gas access are cheapest, which is the same place you would locate centralized facilities. So they would be de-facto centralized generation facilities.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your comment. We look forward to seeing you at the next NASEO conference. Your astroturfing check is in the mail.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Immerman]

Absolutely. And that's exactly how it works - your power meter runs either forward or backward from moment to moment depending on whether you're consuming more power than you're producing. Then at the end of the month you get either a bill or a check depending on your meter readout, at least in some locales - many won't actually cut you a check, or pay net producers at a much lower rate than they charge net consumers.

There would still be a demand for "The Power Company", just not necessarily for *producing* power. Somebody needs to maintain the distribution grid after all, and if they charge a bit more for net power consumed than they pay for net power delivered then it's easy enough to make a fair profit. Add in a real-time demand feedback mechanism so that folks with controllable production or storage capacity can ramp production up/down to compensate for variation in demand and uncontrollable production (solar, wind, etc) and you've got the skeleton of a vibrant distributed-generation power system.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Immerman]

Quite right, except that it wouldn't actually be centralized. Firstly they would (potentially) be independent of the power distribution company, and secondly if most people are supplying for their own average power demand then the total amount of power flowing long distances over the grid would be much lower, and with it the distribution losses. Moreover a halfway decent grid would be extremely resistant to power outages - there's no reason a neighborhood couldn't keep operating indefinitely without access to outside electricity, so long as everyone was a little more careful to avoid major peaks.

Consider this - if I install a solar array to supply my average consumption it will pay for itself in 5-10 years, and then provide another 10-20 years of free power. I can then take the savings from those free years and build a second array so that I'm getting a monthly check comparable to my original bill. I can then take those checks and... you see the pattern. It lets "little people" get in on the power generation game. And so long as the "big people" aren't permitted to cut better deals with the distribution company that will strongly foster distributed generation. Sure the "big people" can probably generate power more cheaply than the "little people" and make more profit, but so long as personal power generation systems can do better than break even the little people will just keep nibbling away at the pie, and making for a much more continuous spectrum between the "little" and "big" power producers.

The net result - a power grid that's *extremely* resistant to disruption, and larger power generation facilities that lack any monopoly/regulatory advantage and have to actually compete on an even keel with everyone else, and can individually succeed or fail on their own merits without significantly affecting the grid as a whole. And that's a system where everybody wins (except the monopolists). Tell me this: Why is it possible today for me to install a personal power generation system that will completely pay for itself in five years and then keep delivering free energy for decades to come? That's a symptom of some grade A jumbo market inefficiencies right there.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go: http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/NTESearch?storeId=6970&ipp=24&Ntt=diesel%2Bgenerator

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Plunky]

25kW is a Fiat Punto engine - and here in London, an average house boiler thermal output. We have piped gas to every home in the UK

There are vast areas of the country that do not have piped gas. London is but a small corner!

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

Heating up a resistor is the one part of electric heats that does the work you expect, to create heat.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[__aaltlg1547]

Quite right, except that it wouldn't actually be centralized. Firstly they would (potentially) be independent of the power distribution company, and secondly if most people are supplying for their own average power demand then the total amount of power flowing long distances over the grid would be much lower, and with it the distribution losses. Moreover a halfway decent grid would be extremely resistant to power outages - there's no reason a neighborhood couldn't keep operating indefinitely without access to outside electricity, so long as everyone was a little more careful to avoid major peaks.

Consider this - if I install a solar array to supply my average consumption it will pay for itself in 5-10 years, and then provide another 10-20 years of free power. I can then take the savings from those free years and build a second array so that I'm getting a monthly check comparable to my original bill. I can then take those checks and... you see the pattern. It lets "little people" get in on the power generation game. And so long as the "big people" aren't permitted to cut better deals with the distribution company that will strongly foster distributed generation. Sure the "big people" can probably generate power more cheaply than the "little people" and make more profit, but so long as personal power generation systems can do better than break even the little people will just keep nibbling away at the pie, and making for a much more continuous spectrum between the "little" and "big" power producers.

The net result - a power grid that's *extremely* resistant to disruption, and larger power generation facilities that lack any monopoly/regulatory advantage and have to actually compete on an even keel with everyone else, and can individually succeed or fail on their own merits without significantly affecting the grid as a whole. And that's a system where everybody wins (except the monopolists). Tell me this: Why is it possible today for me to install a personal power generation system that will completely pay for itself in five years and then keep delivering free energy for decades to come? That's a symptom of some grade A jumbo market inefficiencies right there.

I don't agree with your argument in this way: If the power distribution company isn't forced to buy your excess power, they'll buy the cheapest available power, which will come from the lowest-cost generators, who will always be industrial-scale operations.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[__aaltlg1547]

I think it will always cost something to buy a generator and that the cost of that generator will be a little less than proportional to capacity.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Immerman]

Right. Which is why for this to work well they should probably be required to pay the same rate to everyone, and at least credit individuals for their power generation (i.e. they never have to write a check, but can only charge you for consumption in excess of production).

If PowerGenCo can drive the local grid's "buy price" down below what I can generate it for then then it no longer makes sense for me to generate any excess, and really that's okay, provided of course PowerGenCo gets no special subsidies or immunities against pollution cleanup. That's the free market in action, and there are valid economies of scale involved, at least up to a point. But that has nothing to do with the current realities, so I'll leave it to be solved by folks that are actually faced with such a horrible (heh) situation.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[tragedy]

There is *no* use case for generating power from natgas coming in through a pipe.

(1) The pipe is as easy to break as the power line

As others have pointed out, this isn't really the case. Outages are very rare with natural gas and, unlike most of the power lines in the US, natural gas lines pretty much always run underground (with some really weird exceptions I'm sure).

(2) It's more efficient to generate power on a large scale

The point of this device is that it's highly efficient. Transmission losses are nowhere near what they used to be, but they are still a factor counting against centralized generation. So, if home generation can get close to the efficiency of centralized generation, then it can beat it by dropping the overhead. There's also the issue of waste heat, power plants may just have to dump it, but homes can use it for hot water and home heating in the winter, although dumping it in summer might be an issue for heavily built up areas. Let's also not forget that most power plants don't have one giant generating turbine, etc. but rather have a cluster of generating devices. So, clearly there's a point of diminishing returns in just making it bigger. Depending on the method, the point where the diminishing returns makes building a bigger one not really worth it might be at the scale of a single home. For fuel cells, that might be the case.

There is a use case for generating (emergency backup) power on site. That's covered by diesel generators, and solar cells.

Technological changes can alter that dynamic. They're working on nanopore carbon storage for natural gas so it can be stored at high density with relatively low pressure like propane. If that becomes possible, there's no particularly good reason to stick with diesel when a similarly sized tank can store an equivalent amount of power and the tank can be continuously replenished by a pipe running into the house. You can run diesel pipes around too, but it's a much bigger environmental disaster when one of those leaks. Solar cells are always going to be handy for an emergency, but there's the local power storage problem. It's possible to use electricity to generate methane from atmospheric CO2 and water, although we don't have a very efficient process yet. If the storage problem is fixed for natural gas and an efficient process for making the stuff from air and electricity is developed, then a natural gas storage tank can replace lead-acid batteries as the principal storage method for solar power.

That's also ignoring the use case of power generation in remote locations with natural gas but no electrical service.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[evilviper]

We had no gas for almost 2 weeks.
Many houses here are gas hot water, gas stove tops and gas ovens.
Cold showers for 2 weeks was no fun.

You should look into camping gear... Because of moving around a lot, and not having utilities for the first few days, I've done the same, and found I can carry EVERY convenience I could want.

Camp showers cost $5-10 (USD) and work better than you could ever have hoped for. Dump one cup of boiling water in, and fill up the other 5 gallons with cool tap water, and you'll have a warm show for one or two people, before you have to do it again.

Small propane cylinders cost $5/ea, are tiny enough to barely take any space, and are just incredible. They sell tiny burners/stoves, lanterns, torches, and heaters that can screw-on to the canister for $5-20/ea, and will work for weeks of use with a single canister. Very easy to cook with. Very cheap, and no temperature limitations like butane or other gas.

Immersion heaters cost $7-15, are tiny enough to fit in your pocket, and will boil a cup of water in 1-2 minutes. Even if you don't have a microwave, you can cook many foods and drinks with electricity. Avoid anything thick, but everything from ramen to macaroni and spaghetti, hot dogs, hard-boiled eggs, mashed potatoes, stuffing, vegetables, stews, soups, and packages/cans/tins of just about anything that can semi-submerged in boiling water can be cooked with this tiny item.

Solar battery charger... Keep your cell phone going in a power outage, as well as your room lights (because nothing else matches the efficiency and convenience of LEDs), and any other small entertainment devices. But be aware of your power usages, as it'll take 1-2 days to charge 4 AAs with a pocket-sized solar panel/charger.

12V ice chest / mini fridges can keep a small amount of food refrigerated for about $50. If you've got an existing ice chest, a 12V/60W Peltier/TEC can be had on Amazon for $4, then you just need to add some large heat-sinks and 12V computer fans, and mount it in the enclosure.

It's a bit too much to ask a cooler to run on solar power, as you're looking at a large panel for $150+ just for under-powered daytime-only use. But you can always start-up your car every day, using gasoline to charge the 12V car battery, or hooking-up a 12V UPS battery to charge and power your cooler if you've got one. Have to be careful not to leave it plugged-in and drain your car battery, as that's your only means to start up your vehicle and recharge it.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[evilviper]

Should have mentioned AM/MW, FM & SW/HF radios as a must-have item for entertainment and information during a power outage, with minimal power draw.

Also a camping water filter is a good addition. Both the immersion heater and the propane stove can boil water to decontaminate it, but a filter is quicker, easier, cheaper, and tastes better as it removes chlorine, bacteria, and other suspended solids. Only about $30 if you look for Sawyer on Walmart.com

Probably forgetting many others, too.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

* For all intents and purposes, no combination of generator + UPS is likely to work. Don't even try.

If clean power is a must, purchase a generator with a built in inverter. Both Honda and Yamaha make them - I'm sure their are plenty of others. The basic idea is that the generator produces DC allowing it to run at any speed. The engine can run at a RPM that allows for optimal efficiency. The resulting DC then goes to an inverter and is turned into a clean 60Hz waveform. They offer impressive efficiency over more traditional designs.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[kermidge]

This.

This isn't an either-or situation, the way most posters seem to regard it. While it lends itself well to remote use, it would fit right in as an on-site adjunct. Some times it would export power to the grid, sometime not. Even if a utility didn't pay for grid contribution, it'd only lengthen pay-back time. For those in outlying communities and the boondocks, this would be right handy to have.

If the cost to buy and costs to run and maintain were reasonable this would fit nicely where I live in the Great Lakes states. Waste heat could be an issue a few months of the year and welcome the rest of it.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Nefarious Wheel]

It is a lot. At that scale you could run a small truck with it fairly easily. 25 kW isn't much in terms of internal combustion (my daughter's Honda VTR250 has about that much) but it's a huge amount of torque from zero RPM for an electric motor or two.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[evilviper]

Why is it possible today for me to install a personal power generation system that will completely pay for itself in five years and then keep delivering free energy for decades to come? That's a symptom of some grade A jumbo market inefficiencies right there.

Because the government subsidizes consumer PV solar installations heavily, while NOT giving the same benefits to producers.

There are the up-front purchasing subsidizes the state and federal government pays you to keep that payback time low. Then there are the regulations that require power companies to pay full retail price your the PV power you inject back into the grid, rather than wholesale price they pay big producers, so your 5 year payback time is being borne by higher prices paid by everyone else who doesn't have rooftop solar panels.

So the market inefficiency is the government forcing your solar panel investment to work out, when it would otherwise never be profitable.

There's also other issues, such as a large power plan needing to pay for the land the solar panels take up, while you use your free rooftop space. And a power plant needing to pay someone to clean those solar panels like you do for free, and maintaining electric lines out of the panels, which you pay for with your monthly bill.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

With this generator you would not have a need for a chimney... All the heat and power would stay within the house without any loss.. Ie reducing the energy loss during transmission of electric current..

It would still have an exhaust, and depending on the specifics of the cell, there is a limit to how much heat and pressure it can let build up before impacting efficiency, so you would have to remove it fast enough. Then it is a matter of how much heat you can get out of the exhaust while removing it that fast, without using a heat exchange that is too big physically.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Immerman]

Actually the subsidies aren't as extreme as you suggest - a typical number is around 20% or less, possibly as high as 40% in some situations and jurisdictions if you have a good pencil pusher on your side (I have a friend in PV whose job includes being that pencil-pusher). But even without those subsidies it'll still typically break even in under a decade, less for a grid-tied system without batteries.

And if you want to talk about subsidies, how about the massive subsidies routed into the fossil fuel industry? Subsidies on exploration, drilling, and pipeline construction. Expensive wars waged to ensure a stable supply of oil. Federal legislation explicitly indemnifying oil and natural gas companies from any environmental damages due to fracking, and allowing coal plants to dump their waste ash into settling ponds that proceed to leach massive amounts of toxic material into the soil and water supply, without having to then remediate the land like any other industry. Pretty much all the most expensive aspects of fossil fuel acquisition and use are heavily subsidized by the government. Make oil/coal/gas companies pay for such things themselves and fuel prices would skyrocket to the point that you wouldn't need any subsidies to make the alternatives tempting.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[yusing]

Your situation is dually atypical. All-electric remains rare, and WA has a surplus of hydroelectric power.

Five houses into $1M is too expensive. Five houses into $100,000, on the other hand, could certainly make sense in well-off housing clusters located in a more rural setting. The first units will no doubt be purchased by corporate-sized entities that would have no problem with price and the investment could pay for itself with the efficiency gain.

As the effects of climate-warming become so obvious that not even our insane so-called leaders can ignore them, such devices will come in handy to power the massive air-conditioning they'll need to continue their worthless existences.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Jarik C-Bol]

I should have clarified. For the most part, electric elements (resistors) used for heating do not really dissipate their heat into the air very well. Yes, they get hot, but their surface area is not particularly large, so the thermal transfer from the resistor to the surrounding environment is not particularly good. This of course means you have to use the resistor for X time to heat up Y volume of air , where other heating systems could achieve a greater thermal transfer in less than X, for the same Y volume of air.

obviously, I did not phrase it well at all in the first post.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Jarik C-Bol]

I should have clarified. For the most part, electric elements (resistors) used for heating do not really dissipate their heat into the air very well. Yes, they get hot, but their surface area is not particularly large, so the thermal transfer from the resistor to the surrounding environment is not particularly good. This of course means you have to use the resistor for X time to heat up Y volume of air , where other heating systems could achieve a greater thermal transfer in less than X, for the same Y volume of air. obviously, I did not phrase it well at all in the first post.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[drunkennewfiemidget]

Hank Hill? Is that you?

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some egregious inconsistency in that wikipedia entry:

The company says that its first 100 kW Bloom Energy Servers were shipped to Google in July 2008.[27] Four such servers were installed at Google's headquarters....

"The company says" that it sold some THIRTY FIVE100kW units.

However earlier on in that wikipedia entry:

Bloom stated that TWO HUNDRED servers have been deployed in California for corporations including eBay, Google and Wal-Mart

I have the utmost respect for vaporware manufacturers such as Bloomenergy, but it seems like they can't do basic addition.
Being off by a factor of 10X is nothing to write home about.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, looks like Bloomenergy CEO K.R Sridhar is yet another charlatan we attracted from another country.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esso_Longford_gas_explosion

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[sjames]

Once the home sized model becomes available, my ability to decide if my home has one or not will be high (depending on cost, of course). My ability to decide on buried or areal power lines will remain non-existent.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

> There is *no* use case for generating power from natgas coming in through a pipe.

Er... I guess you don't live in Florida, or along the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts.

Your sense of geography is astounding. Most people living in Washington State (which was the only location mentioned so far) are, indeed, not living in Florida, or along the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) The pipe is as easy to break as the power line

This is a patently false statement. Not only are buried pipes in theory far better protected than elevated wires, in actual real world practice they experience failure at about 22% of the rate of powerlines in the same geographic area.

(2) It's more efficient to generate power on a large scale

So, you've replied to "we found a low pollution, highly efficient way to do distributed generation of power based on the low transmission losses of natural gas pipelines as compared to the copper line losses associated with traditional centralized power generation" with "MY DOGMA SAYS NO!"

Good job, trolly mctrollstein.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[viperidaenz]

Perhaps you don't have ridiculously high fixed charges for a gas connection in your country.
If you use a hell of a lot of gas, articulated does become cheaper than bottled in New Zealand, but by the time you've paid the daily charge for a year, you could have paid the rental on the bottles and had them refilled twice.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[evilviper]

Hank Hill? Is that you?

Out of context, I admit my promotion of propane must seem quite odd. However, if you do some reading on some camping websites for a while, you'll completely understand why I phrased things as I did...

You see, backpackers heavily promote their preferred fuels that have huge drawbacks, all for some TINY benefit. Little or no thought is given to those who aren't interested in spending hundreds of dollars to save an oz of weight in their pack, or are not interested in terrible food prep methods, and living on the very edge (packing BARELY enough fuel to get by, and using dangerous methods to shave tiny bits of weight).

Common stove types being promoted include ethanol/methanol, gasoline/kerosene/naphtha, several types of incompatible isobutane mixes in various canisters, etc.

Here's just REI's superficial writeup:
http://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/backpacking-stove.html

Now just imagine THOUSANDS of "experts" offering similar advice spread all over the internet, often the writeup is FAR more verbose and involved than that one.

Now imagine it's all a huge waste of time, and propane beats them all in convenience, price, availability, compatibility, efficiency, emissions, isn't much heavier than the lightest-weight options, and performs great both in hot and cold weather down to -40 degrees. It's the best of almost all worlds, and I see no reason for practically anyone to bother with any of the other options, except in very few *extreme* fringe cases. And those same propane canisters can be used for lamps, torches, and other accessories, so they have a second life in residential use as well.

For vehicles and stationary (home/business/industrial) use, I much prefer (compressed) natural gas over propane for many reasons. I also prefer to BBQ/grill with charcoal. And I never could stand to watch King of the Hill.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[bfc_inc]

As an example, here in Wyo, we have a house in the county (which has higher utils than in town) and our gas, electric, and water combined are $208/mo ($2496/yr). Water is a flat $80/mo. Our OnDemand water heater is 80% efficient (or was when installed in 04).

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[mattack2]

Our house has all electric utilities - stove, oven water heater, dryer, home heating (in-wall heaters, no central furnace). I'm too lazy to add up the exact numbers, but we're probably paying $2000-2500 a year for electricity (Washington state).

Then you sound like a perfect candidate for getting grid tied solar. (Averaging over the year your use vs. your production, and only paying any extra over what you generate.)

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[nobodie]

what this is aimed at is a (maybe burgeoning) market in "co-generating" where the homeowner generates their power as a constant stream and feeds back into the grid any extra power (or draws extra power when their banks of high-intensity plant lights come on at 4 in the morning: I'm looking at you oregon and Washinton).

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[gunnaraztek]

I'm paying the equivalent of about $680 yearly for electricity and heat.

I live in Iceland.

Re:Unless the amortized annual cost is low

[thegarbz]

Depends on what you use gas for. If you use them for the oven only you're likely to be cheaper in bottles.

If you use them for water as well that may change.

Here we're talking about using them to generate power. I don't think there's a scenario where you can use that much gas and still have it cheaper to be delivered in bottles.

Question asked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer is no.

While it would be awesome to have your own power plant. You're fighting aginst alot of money.

Won't happen anytime soon.

Re:Question asked...

[gmuslera]

If is cheap/simple enough to build and not patent encumbered could happen. People already uses natural gas for home heathing, if uses instead this for electricity (and if is efficient enough) could be a very possitive thing.

In the other hand, could be cheap/simple enough to build and have a metric ton of patents all around, forbidding anyone else to even try to make a solution. Then it could be something very damaging.

Re:Question asked...

[Anonymous Coward]

If its cheap/simple enough to be a threat to power company profits. There will be legislation to prevent it. Or at least enough to create a maze of red tape to prevent it from becoming the majority.

Re:Question asked...

[amiga3D]

The best thing about it will be people who want to live off the grid back in the back side of nowhere. One of these and a Sat dish and you can stay connected while being far, far away.

Re:Question asked...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Answer is no.

While it would be awesome to have your own power plant. You're fighting aginst alot of money.

Won't happen anytime soon.

I assume that 'Big Power' is why ordinary liquid-fuel internal combustion generators can only be obtained on the black market, if you have the right connections, after their brutal suppression? Oh, wait, no, generators are ubiquitous and relatively cheap, they're just a pain in the ass to maintain.

There is certainly a fair amount of capital tied up in generation and distribution infrastructure; but there are some points to remember:

The power company isn't pleased by your fluctuating demand: In an ideal world of steady demand, you could get away with exclusively operating the absolute cheapest (generally a polite way of saying 'coal', except in very good hydro areas) base-load plants 24/7, and size your distribution infrastructure to that load, with a dash of margin for safety. Nice, easy, lowest cost per kilowatt hour. In the real world, with demand fluctuating throughout the day(lights/no lights, commercial facilities open vs. after hours, etc.), throughout the year (A/C in summer, some heating in winter, little of either in spring and fall), and potentially over the longer term(population increases and decreases in a given area, movements of power-intensive industries, turnover of housing stock, improvements or decreases in gadget efficiency), the problem is more complex.

Short term fluctuations mean having to size the grid with peak load in mind (lest you risk some really hairy cascading failures) and mean having to have peak-load plants (often combined cycle natural gas) sitting idle part of the time and burning more-expensive-than-coal fuel the rest of the time. More capital invested, higher cost per kilowatt hour. Seasonal variations potentially mean even more facilities sitting idle, depreciating, part of the time, and longer-term variations mean wacky fun with demand forecasting and the potential for either customer displeasure or wasted facilities built for demand that never came.

If somebody announced, tomorrow, that their 'Unobtanium Plot-point Reactor' could fully replace all legacy electrical infrastructure, it is indeed likely that there would be some... industry unhappiness. However, any widget that costs more than base-load generation and distribution and can be used at the customer site to reduce demand fluctuation and function as a backup unit is a mutually beneficial arrangement: The utility gets closer to their ideal of 100% stable demand, the customer has a backup/peak generator that is ideally less obnoxious than the old diesel unit.

Plus, of course, for any given advance in power generation, there isn't anything stopping a large-scale producer from running the device at a large scale (with capital investment, and engineers on site, and other handy stuff) and offering the result for sale. Unless the transmission overheads or profits are usurious, many people probably don't want to coddle their own generator when they can just plug in for not much. Since the ability of utilities to individualize chargers based on precise per-person expense (ie. transmission line distance, difficulty of terrain, etc.) is typically constrained by some mixture of inadequate information and regulation, the customers who are least impressed by the centralized service (say the ones who live at the flaky edges of the grid, and deal with lots of exciting blackouts and issues, or in an area with brownout problems at peak) are also the customers that are likely to be least profitable.

Re:Question asked...

[hedwards]

If that's a concern, then I recommend you stop voting GOP. They're the ones that tend to be very vocally opposed to anything that might harm corporate profits.

Re:Question asked...

[redback]

I'd be interested in seeing this scaled up to power plant size, and then using its heat output to run steam turbines for MOAR POWAH!

Re:Question asked...

[evilviper]

One of these and a Sat dish and you can stay connected while being far, far away.

That's true today, too. You'd just be generating electricity by burning that propane/kerosene/etc. in an engine, rather than a fuel cell.

Hell, except for internet service, it was true many, many decades ago, when humans pulled TV channels right out of the air, and all you "packets" of information got batch delivered to a small box you had to periodically poll...

Re:Question asked...

[camperdave]

You'd just be generating electricity by burning that propane/kerosene/etc. in an engine, rather than a fuel cell.

Um... no. I'd be looking at microhydro sites if I were to go off the grid.

Re:Question asked...

[Anonymous Coward]

you've got a real deep understanding of the realities of the political process in the US don't you. is that you Obama?

Re:Question asked...

[cheekyjohnson]

What? I'm pretty sure both of the 'main' parties are like that.

Re:Question asked...

[ShanghaiBill]

If that's a concern, then I recommend you stop voting GOP. They're the ones that tend to be very vocally opposed to anything that might harm corporate profits.

Exactly! It was the Republicans that voted for the bank bailout ... oops, no wait, that was the Democrats. Well, it was the Republicans that voted for the bailout of GM ... oops, that was the Democrats too. Well, it was the Republicans that supported the taxpayer subsidies for Solnydra ... no? Dang, Democrats again. Gee, this isn't looking so good.

Re:Question asked...

[ShanghaiBill]

I'd be interested in seeing this scaled up to power plant size, and then using its heat output to run steam turbines for MOAR POWAH!

Good luck running your turbine with steam at 160C. You might want to read up on the second law of thermodynamics.

Re:Question asked...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a dammfool if you think either party is any different at all.

Re:Question asked...

[peragrin]

you do realize there were very few republicans dissenting against bailing out those companies.

Indeed the bank bail out was designed by republicans before Obama took office and was barely modified afterwards(by either party).

The real trick is the democrats support one type of companies(usually RIAA and their pets) While republicans protect military, and oil companies.

You get to choose which is the lesser of two evils, and remember who wrote up the DCMA.

Re:Question asked...

[zoomshorts]

http://www.ctdata.com/articles/2000/09/19/1052244.html
Big money already did.

Re:Question asked...

[peragrin]

Why? this is perfect for CARS. Dishwasher sized will fit into most full size cars right now. creates electricity at low heat, which mean actual practical electric cars.

you change the fuel source to something other than oil.

Even better at 25kw that is enough to run the majority of homes.

Re:Question asked...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather be concerned with profits than failed industries like solar, wind and Fisker. I don't want the government hoarding all the money in tbills for my healthly relatives on disability, rather then lend it out so someone can actually make a dime.

Re:Question asked...

[ShanghaiBill]

you do realize there were very few republicans dissenting against bailing out those companies.

Let's look at the facts:
Number of Republicans voting NO for both bailouts: 13
Number of Democrats voting NO for both bailouts: 1
Number of Republicans voting YES for both bailouts: 6
Number of Democrats voting YES for both bailouts: 35

Re:Question asked...

[gagol]

On the other hand, it could be used as power plant to grow pot in remote areas...

Re:Question asked...

[gagol]

In case you missed the memo. Both republican and democrat parties are parties favoring the rich with a different public image.

Re:Question asked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup! This is part of the strategy the elites use to keep us commoners inline! They keep us divided with the illusion of differences between the two major political parties. These distractions keep those of us interested enough to get involved distracted by party politics and fighting amongst ourselves. Some of our elected representatives do indeed have the interest of our country at heart, but the political parties themselves absolutely do not. Study the candidates and choose the best person without any regard for their party affiliation.

Re:Question asked...

[evilviper]

And that relates to fuel cells ... How?

Re:Question asked...

[putaro]

That was my first thought. However, 25KW is only 33 horsepower. You could make a hybrid, I suppose with a battery pack for acceleration and one of these to top it off and as a "range extender" ala the Volt. The Volt has a 75KW (100 HP) internal combustion engine so it's within reason.

Re:Question asked...

[Anonymous Coward]

wait. so.. there is 55 people in the American Government?

Re:Question asked...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Good luck running your turbine with steam at 160C. You might want to read up on the second law of thermodynamics.

I suggest you do the same. There are plenty of low temperature boiling point liquids that could serve the same function in place of water to do the same thing.

Re:Question asked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Owned.

Not that he'll hear you over the sound of his cognitive dissonance.

Re:Question asked...

[camperdave]

And that relates to fuel cells ... How?

The very same way that burning the propane/kerosene in an engine does. To wit: both are current alternatives to using fuel cells as off the grid power sources. A microhydro site is a lot better for the environment than smogging up the atmosphere by burning up fossil fuels; hence my preference.

Re:Question asked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Marked as informative but misleading. You mention both the bank and auto bailouts, but forgot the most important figure when comparing them:

Number of senators who voted for the bank bailouts but NOT the auto bailout:
Republicans: 18
Democrats: 2

That means that 24 republicans in the house voted for the bank bailouts, and 15 voted against. Or to put it another way, 61.15% of republicans voted for the bank bailouts. That's a caucus super majority.

So yes, both parties supported the bank bailouts. And most American's think they stunk (and they did). There was no direct benefit to the tax payer. Though, if you're being honest there was a HUGE indirect effect: we didn't have economic collapse and ruin. It was a crappy place to be - the democrats and republicans had to vote to bailout the banks or we'd have been in a massive world wide depression.

The 100% republicans didn't vote for it was simply to save face. Yeah, I said it. It was to save face because it was going to pass no matter what but they didn't want to be the guys who deregulated the industry, allowing for the colossal screw up in the first place, and then use the US taxpayers to bail it out.

Now back to the auto bailout. The auto bailout on the other hand did directly affect MANY MANY American's. It allowed Chrysler to find a home (ironically, saving not just the butts of American auto workers, but also of the former bush administration colleagues who owned the company at the time and steered them towards only making huge gas sucking crap cars, and killing off well selling and loved cars like the Neon, which had a small car following and tuner community), allowed Ford to stay afloat, and GM to get reorganized.

In the end the auto bailout was structured in a way that the government would get it's money back plus interest. This bailout was orchestrated by the democrats, and it worked - the US tax payer got it's money back, plus interest, and kept a crap load of jobs.

Comparing that to the bank bailout orchestrated by the republicans (whose policies of bank deregulation cause the problem) where the only thing the tax payer got was the middle finger, foreclosed homes, robosigning?

And that's why context matters. Posting some figures (which while technically true) doesn't tell the whole story. The whole story is more complex than the figures alone. The whole story is that the republicans knew it would pass with a democratically controlled senate - cause there's no way the democrats, in control of the senate, would let the country delve into the deepest depression in history. They knew it would also be unpopular, yet necessary. So some of them voted against. And for the ones who did it on principle - e.g. the freshmen tea partiers? Those guys were loons. If the guys who voted AGAINST the bank bailout had been in majority we'd all be majorly hosed right now.

Re:Question asked...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the Republicans that turned a blind eye to billions in no-bid contracts for Haliburton, KKR, et al, for the Iraq & Afganistan occupations...

Re:Question asked...

[colinrichardday]

It's not just the boiling point. One should run the heat source for a Carnot engine hot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_efficiency#Efficiency

Re:Question asked...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're on the ass end of nowhere. Fuel will still be a problem just as it is now.

If you're nowhere and want to be offgrid. Solar/wind/water is the way to go. No fuel needed.

Re:Question asked...

[GrahamCox]

25kW/33hp is more than adequate if people could only let go of the idea that their cars need to weigh two tonnes and have a large overcapacity for the majority of their needs.

A single-occupant commuter vehicle with a space frame and carbon fibre body weighing more like 500kg would have excellent performance with 25kW. If such a thing could be legally allowed to use bus lanes and other special lanes it could work really well for a huge number of journeys.

Keep the gas guzzling behemoth for when you really do have to carry four people and half a ton of luggage.

Re:Question asked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! It was the Republicans that voted for the bank bailout ... oops, no wait, that was the Democrats. Well, it was the Republicans that voted for the bailout of GM ... oops, that was the Democrats too.

If you are referring to TARP, it originated in the last year of the Bush presidency.
It was structured to return a profit to the taxpayers. Almost all banks have already paid it back, with interest.

It was modified during the Obama administration to use the money for other things like the GM bailout.
That money will probably never come back.

Re:Question asked...

[putaro]

With a dish-washer sized fuel cell in it? I don't know how much it weighs, but a gasoline engine for something like a SMART car or a motorcycle you can put in your lap. You're onto diminishing returns. When it's down to about a quarter of the size it starts to get interesting.

Re:Question asked...

[Eunuchswear]

Why do you put it in such a confusing way? Why "Number of Republicans voting NO for both bailouts"?

Oh, because you're trying to hide the fact that most republicans voted "yes" for the bank bailouts.

See the buried AC comment above for the details.

Re:Question asked...

[Eunuchswear]

As others have pointed out it's not hot enough to make useful power.

But, think combined heat and power if you want maximal efficiency. Low temperature heat is useless for making work, but it's great for keeping your house toasty.

Re:Question asked...

[Eunuchswear]

Dishwasher sized will fit into most full size cars right now.

For values of "full sized" approaching "ridiculously big".

Re:Question asked...

[Chickenlips]

Shame you posted as AC. Very succinct redress.

Re:Question asked...

[geoskd]

Why? this is perfect for CARS. Dishwasher sized will fit into most full size cars right now. creates electricity at low heat, which mean actual practical electric cars.

you change the fuel source to something other than oil.

Even better at 25kw that is enough to run the majority of homes.

The problem is that it isn't the size of a dishwasher, its closer to the size of a fridge. There's a picture of a guy standing next to the prototype from five days ago, and its frickin huge. Calling that dishwasher sized is a gross exaggeration. Plus, when you think about it, your "hybrid" has to have this thing in there, plus a small battery (I would use an ultra-cap for that btw), plus the electric motor, plus a tank for Compressed gas, and soon there's no room left for anything else.

Although they would like it to be ready for transportation use, its just not there yet. Maybe soon, maybe not: It all depends on how much more they can improve the power density.

Re:Question asked...

[s0litaire]

Or the power companies buy it by the truckload and "rent" it out to local consumers in areas they think is too costly for a proper infrastructure (Large Gas Pressure tank + Cube = lot cheaper than laying gas pipelines to backwood / middle of nowhere locations!) for inflated prices!

Re:Question asked...

[mcgrew]

Patents aren't like copyright, it expires in 20 years.

Re:Question asked...

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to read more carefully. It is counts of votes (of senators - not mentioned directly)
of "No" or "Yes" on *both* of two different votes. That's 55 as you said, but the other 44
split there votes - YES on one, NO on the other (and vice versa) and 1 guy (Ted Kennedy)
who missed both votes. Actually, read the link - there are also those who only voted once.

Re:Question asked...

[jfengel]

Accounting for just over half the Senate, and only 19 of the 49 Republicans. Leaving me to conclude that well over half of the Republicans voted for one or the other, but not both. And only a quarter can claim to be fully against all bailouts.

So the OP may not be correct in claiming that "very few Republicans" dissented, it's also not correct to imply that they're universally against bailouts. Rather, it seems more like "bailouts when we like them; not when we don't (but somehow justified by being universally against them)".

Re:Question asked...

[Nefarious Wheel]

Answer is yes. Google "microCHP". Lots of commercially-produced cogenerators for home use. Whispertech did these until New Zealand blew up around it. Volkswagen does it through "LichtBlich" (LightPoint) and much of German and Spain are using these distributed generators.

The economies are political as well as financial; it's a lot easier to build a distributed generation capacity than it is to fight the NIMBY for another centralised power plant built with 1950's thinking.

Re:Question asked...

[dywolf]

a car as a home "generator". now that is actually makes some sense and is an interesting idea. if you aren't home, you really dont need that much juice at home. enough to heat the water so its ready when you get home (solar heater works fine). maybe run the computer/netowrk while you're gone, dpeending how much downloading/processing yuo need while you're out.

Re:Question asked...

[dywolf]

note that i dont know the right size to power a home of 4. i just like the concept of having a single "fuel" bill, versus 3 (gasoline for the cars, natural gas for the furnace/water tank, electricity for everything else), and a source that uses it that pretty much goes everywhere I go, outside of hiking/running trips.

Re:Question asked...

[Anonymous Coward]

If "big power" is stopping the decentralization of power generation to consumers, then why did my power company just sign a 5 year agreement to buy my excess solar power generation at retail line rate. Because the government forced them to.

If these units become available for cheap, I would love to have one to use to generate power at night when my solar array is not producing power and as backup in case a hurricane damages my solar array (A cat 4 or 5 might be able to) At 80% efficiency these units would be about twice as efficient than the natural gas plant that makes my electricity now, and that's BEFORE transmission losses. That likely means I can generate my own electricity for 1/2 to 1/3 of what I pay for it now (no need to pay overhead and profit to the power company).

Re:Question asked...

[amiga3D]

I was figuring on a road at least. I did see a house on HGTV today where a 30 minute boat ride is the only access to it.

not new

[Anonymous Coward]

This is hardly news. There are companies that are already commercialising this kind of thing, and are rolling it out, eg Ceramic Fuel Cells http://www.cfcl.com.au

Re:not new

[amiga3D]

I didn't see any for sale on that site.

Summary

[The Cat]

It will never work.
It's been done before.
They'll get bought out.
The laws of themodynamics make everything impossible.

Re:Summary

[EmagGeek]

Not everything is impossible. Just the bullshit that the liberals have been claiming "would only be possible if the oil companies would die in a fire and taxpayers gave billions to another one of Obama's friends' so-called green companies."

Re:Summary

[ebno-10db]

It will never work.
It's been done before.
They'll get bought out.
The laws of themodynamics make everything impossible.

I can't believe you got modded down to a -1. There is something called "humor" that many people on this site are unfamiliar with, possibly unless you hit them over the head with it.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

We already went that road with solar. Solar is a cool thing to eyeball in the fact that it is "free electricity"... but it is the same greenwashed BS as E85 (which takes food from people's mouths). A solar cell takes far more energy (likely coal or oil) to produce than the panel will ever, EVER, get back in its usable life. The silicon takes a lot of juice to make, same with building the panels, the inverters, and so on. Cool looking tech, but it will never, ever, get back the coal burned to make the collector.

Re:Summary

[ebno-10db]

A solar cell takes far more energy (likely coal or oil) to produce than the panel will ever, EVER, get back in its usable life.

Wrong, a solar cell will produce 6x as much energy over it's life as it took to produce. That factor is continuing to increase. It's not as good as most other electric power sources, but it edges out nuclear's 5x. http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/03/energy-return-on-investment-which-fuels-win

Re:Summary

[Zmobie]

Actually there have been significant improvements in the manufacturing process and the general solar cell efficiency that may make that statement incorrect. I haven't looked at the math in some time, but they have made significant advances in solar cell production such that I don't think they actually are a net loss in energy now.

Re:Summary

[Eunuchswear]

A solar cell takes far more energy (likely coal or oil) to produce than the panel will ever, EVER, get back in its usable life.

Wrong, a solar cell will produce 6x as much energy over it's life as it took to produce. That factor is continuing to increase. It's not as good as most other electric power sources, but it edges out nuclear's 5x. http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/03/energy-return-on-investment-which-fuels-win

Zow, EROI of 5 for nuclear? That's amazingly low. Most quotes I see are for around 40-60.

The referenced paper: Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review seems to be somewhat out of step with other figures I've seen.

Re:Summary

[Eunuchswear]

Ah, the big differences seem to be based around fuel enrichment and fabrication - the low EROI numbers come from people who assume you're using coal powered electricty to enrich your fuel.

This would, of course, be insane.

Re:Summary

[ebno-10db]

GGP here. I'd be a bit skeptical of the EROI for nuclear too, but the reason I posted the link was to debunk the absurd "a solar cell takes far more energy (likely coal or oil) to produce than the panel will ever, EVER, get back in its usable life". EROI calculations are always tricky and subject to debate, but I've never seen a modern calculation that suggests solar cell EROI < 1, or anywhere near that bad.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the fact a solar panel doesn't work at night. So capacity factor is low. That doesn't edge out coal, gas, nuclear.

And you still need a gas turbine regulating voltage on the line.

Stop supporting solar and wind - they are useless technology. Support natural gas and nuclear, far superior in every way.

Re:Summary

[chihowa]

So far as utility-scale renewables go, hydro is great (power-wise, not environmentally) but almost completely tapped.

Solar and geothermal are great for off-utility individual installations.

Re:Summary

[Immerman]

Forget subsidies to green tech, how about we just eliminate the subsidies and pollution amnesty we're giving to the fossil fuel industry, especially coal? Significantly increasing the cost of fossil fuels would make alternatives far more viable, which is part of the reason that so many countries around the world are starting to make real headway into deploying renewable energy infrastructure. If you want to keep energy prices down then move those subsidies into "green" tech, but step one is stop giving the problem technologies an artificial advantage.

Re:Summary

[Lennie]

Those numbers are old, solar isn't a technology that is not improving.

If you look at graphs of how cheap solar panels are to produce or how much power they generate, it looks something similar to Moore's law.

Re:Summary

[bill_mcgonigle]

A solar cell takes far more energy (likely coal or oil) to produce than the panel will ever, EVER, get back in its usable life.

That has been true for decades, but they went over-unity a few years ago. That was only able to be determined in retrospect. There was a news article about the analysis 6-9 months ago (probably a story here too).

Re:Summary

[dywolf]

i wonder, do those numbers also include the processing and long term storage (as well as the construction of the proposed underground sotrage bunkers) of the waste?

Is the municipal power plant on the way out?"

[Nutria]

Only if the cost of the fuel cell pack + installation, and the on-going cost of propane (not natural gas??) is cheaper over 3-4 years than the cost of electricity.

In places where power goes out during storms, it might be fruitful to get one anyway.

Re: Is the municipal power plant on the way out?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless it is economical the only market I see is potentially for use as backup generators or for homes in the middle of nowhere. Rich people with islands with no power, homes built in the middle of forest land or high on mountains where the power company wouldn't justify building out architecture...etc.

Re:Is the municipal power plant on the way out?"

[mug funky]

it'll take natural gas. RTFA. it'll take that horrible e85 stuff too. hell, you could probably feed it on corn syrup if you're going down that route.

Re: Is the municipal power plant on the way out?"

[mlts]

There is one place where a fuel cell that can work with butane and propane would have a -ton- of demand: The RV industry.

As it stands now, most RVs come with absorption refrigerators. These units have the advantage of being able to work with a boiler and a propane flame as well as an electric resistance element. However, they will destroy themselves if run off-level (the sodium chromate which is used as a rust blocker gets "cooked" out, and eventually will completely block the tube, cause a small pinhole leak. From there, the ammonia leaks out and the refrigerator is done for.

A range of absorption refrigerators have been also recalled, because there are reports of them causing fires.

Having a propane fuel cell means that the absorption refrigerator can be given the heave-ho. Instead, the fuell cell can charge the house batteries, and a compressor refrigerator that runs from 12 volts or 120/240VAC via an alternator can be used. This setup would be functionally identical to having to use the absorption fridge, but without the worry about having to have the RV perfectly level. Compressor fridges cool their contents a lot faster than the absorption fridge counterparts as well.

So, even though propane fuel cells wouldn't be useful for primary electricity, they would come in handy with RVs.

As another advantage, the power from a fuel cell would offset the electricity used to power a RV furnace's fans, which means that one doesn't have to have a loud generator or run a vehicle's engine for recharging. For people boondocking, one of the biggest considerations is running a generator as little as possible, because even the quiet ones do make noise.

If this Redox model can be scaled down to 5 kilowatts, this would completely replace the inefficient generator on the RV (generators have the Otto engine cycle which loses a good chunk of energy out the exhaust pipe coupled with the losses of energy from turning rotational energy into electrical. A fuel cell would use a fraction of the propane a propane generator uses.) This would allow running the air conditioner and microwave and other electric appliances.

Take this smaller to being able to do 300-500 watts, and this will compete with the EFOY fuel cells that are used in combination with solar charging systems to keep batteries topped off.

I'm hoping some commercial products come from this. Truma in Europe has a usable propane fuel cell, as well as top notch RV water heaters and furnaces... but they seem to have no interest in selling their products across the pond, and US water heaters and furnaces can be viewed as extremely primitive in comparison. For example, a Truma water heater has a passive mechanism to drain it when the water inside hits 35 degrees to prevent it from getting damaged due to freezing. No US heater has this.

Re: Is the municipal power plant on the way out?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Traveling with propane is a HUGE hassle. You can't take it through most any significant tunnel, for example. The RVers I know just buy their 20lb tanks when they get somewhere they plan to be for a while.

Re: Is the municipal power plant on the way out?"

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on the tunnels. Not that many forbid propane altogether, most just demand you shut your main valve off if your RV has an inboard tank.

Unfortunately, propane is a hassle, but the alternatives are not that great. The only fuel that can substitute completely is diesel fuel, and buying a diesel generator, Webasto diesel stove, diesel hydronic furnace, and a flat plate water heater is expensive, and of course requires a rig with a diesel engine. If you want all diesel and a self-contained RV, you are looking at $160,000 from Sportsmobile.

Propane is easy to cook and heat with, and provides almost as much energy per volume as gasoline. To boot, propane stored in a tank or bottle doesn't go bad unless the bottle rusts through.

As an RV-er who does more than just go from campground to campground, having a propane fuel cell would be an incredible thing. No running the generator for hours to top off batteries. No dealing with absorption fridges and having to perfectly be level, as well as waiting 24 hours for the thing to cool.

The closest thing to a fuel cell are the EFOY ones, although good luck trying to find their methanol cartridges in the US.

Re: Is the municipal power plant on the way out?"

[Anonymous Coward]

This would be nice, but not a game changer. The only time I actually run the fridge on propane is when I don't have access to 120v, which is never.

Re: Is the municipal power plant on the way out?"

[tompaulco]

The RVers I know just buy their 20lb tanks when they get somewhere they plan to be for a while.
I know literally zero RVers that don't carry their propane with them. 30 years ago you weren't allowed to have your tanks hooked up while driving. Now, it is just fine and you can even have propane appliances running while driving.

Re: Is the municipal power plant on the way out?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I've found that 120 volts is hard to find. usually campsites tend to be below that, around the 110 volt range. The heat put out by the refrigerator electric element is definitely proportional to the voltage... so the result is poorer cooling on electric.

So, I just leave my refrigerator on propane where it seems to cool the best, turning it off when on the road (with a couple ice packs in the freezer, I move one or two to the fridge section, and things stay acceptably cold for the day's drive.)

Re:Is the municipal power plant on the way out?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why just 3-4 years? How about 15 or 30 years? If the cost of installing the fuel cell is rolled into the purchase price of a home or paid for via a cash-out refinance, it should actually lower your overall monthly outlay (mortgage + utilities), and that doesn't even factor in resale value of the system.

Is the municipal power plant on the way out?

[submain]

No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

Re:Is the municipal power plant on the way out?

[arielCo]

“Can every headline ending in a question mark be answered by the word 'no'?”

Also, it's not a headline. *runs*

Re:Is the municipal power plant on the way out?

[mcgrew]

Read your own link; Betterige has broken his own "law".

isn't anything huge for normal people

[locopuyo]

This isn't going to change anything for normal people. You're still going to get your power from the power plant. But it could be good for places like hospitals that have their own backup systems.

Re:isn't anything huge for normal people

[Anonymous Coward]

"A smaller, home-sized unit is on the way."

Re:isn't anything huge for normal people

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be good solution for my dog house power backup. We looked at solar but the dog thought the panels didn't go with the yard decor. If power outage, we need to keep the AC, lighting and big tv screen on showing dog movies otherwise he freaks out, digs holes, pees on our house and howls all night.

Fuel cell - storage device or generator?

[oldhack]

I had thought fuel cell was an energy storage device, not a generator?

Re:Fuel cell - storage device or generator?

[amiga3D]

It's an energy conversion device. It converts fuel to electricity.

Re:Fuel cell - storage device or generator?

[mug funky]

the cell part, yes. the fuel part, no.

think of it as like a battery that doesn't carry the electrochemical stuff with it, but takes it from fuel.

Re:Fuel cell - storage device or generator?

[hedwards]

Fuel cells are generators. You put something in and you get electricity out. The specific mechanism may vary a bit, but ultimately, the point is that you wind up with electricity, so it's a generator.

Re:Fuel cell - storage device or generator?

[ksandom]

In my limited understanding, I believe it's both. A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy from a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction with oxygen or another oxidizing agent. Therefore if there is fuel in it, it's generating electricity. If the fuel is sitting in a tank beside it, it's storage... I think my interpretation is a somewhat liberal interpretation of those ideas. And I don't know what what maintenance is required. Eg Is it bad to leave it dry for long periods of time? Is it bad to leave it full when idle for long periods of time? But back to my point, potentially you could use it in both ways.

I'm curious to hear the opinions of someone who knows more on the topic than me.

Re:Fuel cell - storage device or generator?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I had thought fuel cell was an energy storage device, not a generator?

There isn't actually a strict boundary, it just depends on how much of the universe you wish to consider:

A fuel cell is always a means of turning inputs with chemical potential energy into electricity, at some loss from inefficiency. If you start your calculations with synthesizing your inputs (cracking water for hydrogen, say), you will need more energy to produce the fuel (because that is also inefficient) than you will ever gain by sending it through the fuel cell. It's just a way of moving/storing the energy.

If you start your calculations with a fuel already provided, or counting only the cost of extracting and purifying the fuel(as with, say, drilling for natural gas, or hooking up a propane cylinder) it counts as a generator, since your accounting ignores the original synthesis costs and only considers the upside, and possibly a few logistical costs.

Re:Fuel cell - storage device or generator?

[rusty0101]

More specifically it converts specific types of fuel to energy. Usually Hydrogen and Oxygen get converted to Water, and the reaction releases an appreciable amount of dc voltage.

Systems like this that take propane, or natural gas, (pretty much any hydrocarbon fuel is an option, though as the chains get longer you run into other problems, we're not likely to see conversion of tar to electricity any time soon) first strip the hydrogen out of the hydrocarbon, and capture and sequester, or release the remaining carbon,

This works as long as that fuel source is not cost prohibitive. You're not likely to get Reliant to deliver a gas line to the middle of no where just so you can have electricity, and if you decide to go with delivered propane, I recommend spending time actually running your entire load off the system to see what your usage patern would be like if the AC line were cut for several days at a time, and size your propane delivery and reserve to support those needs. (Do remember to allow for additional load that may be seasonal, for example lines brought down by an ice storm in the middle of winter are probably going to result in a different demand pattern for the propane than wind storm in the middle of summer. It's also likely to result in different delivery limitations of the propane, and power restoration by the AC provider.)

An alternative to natural gas would be to electrolicize water using solar or wind power (or even a small hydroelectric plant,) then use a straight hydrogen and oxygen fuel cell to recombine the molecules as your demand for power comes up. There are issues with this of course, you're going to have to find a way to stuff the hydrogen into something that you can extract it from later, though there are a number of possibilities for that already. No real need to worry about the Oxygen molecules. The percentage of O2 in the atmosphere is high enough that most fuel cell systems that work in earth normal atmosphere can use it. (you run into issues in space and deep sea situations, and in theory on other planets, but we're pretty much ignoring those situations here.

Re:Fuel cell - storage device or generator?

[Anonymous Coward]

No the fuel is the energy storage device, the fuel cell is what turns it into electricity directly.

I hope they have better demonstrative powers...

[Alejux]

then our Italian friend, Andrea Rossi.

80% *including* waste heat

[BenBoy]

Great, so if you use the waste heat it throws off, you can get 80% efficiency. How is this different from the efficiency of using a Bunsen burner-heated teakettle to turn a little turbine for power, and claiming the waste heat as usable energy? Plus there's the entertainment value of the whistling sound of the kettle itself ... What are the figures without the waste heat thrown in? RTFA was no help ...

Re:80% *including* waste heat

[Anonymous Coward]

80% eff including heat? Modern combustion engine based micro-CHPs do better than that...

Re:80% *including* waste heat

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually include the waste heat, you'll always get 100% efficiency. Energy conservation, you know.

Re:80% *including* waste heat

[Anonymous Coward]

Waste heat != economically recoverable waste heat.

Re:80% *including* waste heat

[evilviper]

If you actually include the waste heat, you'll always get 100% efficiency. Energy conservation, you know.

Go find a 100% efficient condensing boiler and get back to me.

Re:80% *including* waste heat

[the eric conspiracy]

I have a two stage condensing gas furnace. At stage 1 it spec'ed is 99.5% efficient. At stage 2 it is 98% efficient. When checked during yearly service it meets or exceeds these specs.

I don't know why a NG fuel cell/heating system couldn't be built to similar specs (for winter operation anyway).

Re:80% *including* waste heat

[gronofer]

Waste heat is fine if it's cold and you want to heat the building. It wouldn't be so great if it was already too hot. Sounds like a technology I'd only use for part of the year.

Re:80% *including* waste heat

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends if you are trying to maximize the electricity part or not. If using it mostly as a heater and slightly as a source of electricity, you could hit specs like that. But most of the loss of heat comes from the need to remove heat from an engine/reactor/etc at some minimum rate, and having exhaust to deal with that you can't let sit around or build up until it is at ambient temperature. The harder you try to remove heat from that exhaust, the more sacrifices in other regards you will end up making, whether it is size, or electrical efficiency because of more back pressure, etc. If just trying to make something really hot, these issues mostly don't come up, even if still having to deal with exhaust.

Re:80% *including* waste heat

[Anonymous Coward]

This is called co-generation, it is done all over with regular power generation, and even with co-gen and massive highly efficient turbines it is less than 50% efficient combined, this is a big deal. Even asking this question reveals a child's understanding of how power generation actually works.

Re:80% *including* waste heat

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they mean "including using the waste heat to power turbines".

Re:80% *including* waste heat

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you think the rest of the heat goes?

Re:80% *including* waste heat

[sribe]

Go find a 100% efficient condensing boiler and get back to me.

As a response to, well, that which you were responding to, your comment makes absolutely no sense. Even high-efficiency condensing boilers have waste heat. Add the waste heat to that which is captured and, presto, 100%!

Re:80% *including* waste heat

[Anonymous Coward]

You could use the waste heat to heat your water. I saw a thing on current affairs program about something like this and the heat waste was funneled through to heat up the hot water (which further reduces the demand overall for electricity).

Re:80% *including* waste heat

[evilviper]

Your numbers are a bit optimistic. I've never seen manufacturers claiming more than 98%. But in any case, it's still not "100%" as claimed, which was my point.

Re:80% *including* waste heat

[gronofer]

Good point.

One piece of the puzzle

[Anonymous Coward]

One of these powers 5 houses... So put solar panels on 5 houses, use that energy during the day to create hydrogen. Use hydrogen to power all 5 houses in a stable manner (day, night, rain, otherwise).

That would be revolutionary to much of the world. Just like skipping landlines but having cell phones- they will skip the grid and have electricity.

Also huge in terms of security. The grid is too vulnerable for my tastes.

Re:One piece of the puzzle

[Anonymous Coward]

you can alreaddy do that with a vanadium redox battery

Re:One piece of the puzzle

[FatLittleMonkey]

Hydrogen electrolysis is a bulky, low-efficiency battery. You've got two major losses of efficiency, electrolysis to produce the hydrogen, and the fact that hydrogen leaks like crazy.

Laser Power Plant!

[Anonymous Coward]

Vehicle mounted 12 KW Laser is the obvious use!

Nothing new, but good luck to them

[evilviper]

Nothing new here. Identical tech dates back at least to 2009:

http://www.cerespower.com/Technology/TheCeresCell/

There's no question that fuel cells, that can run on the same fossil fuels we use now, would be a huge step forward, if they could be made cheaply enough. They exceed Carnot efficiency, so a fuel cell that ran on unleaded gasoline would instantly double even the best hybrid vehicle fuel efficiency. Large natural gas power plants would get perhaps a 50% improvement in efficiency. Fuel cells running on methanol are quite popular in forklifts because they are zero emissions, lower maintenance and get more run-time than batteries, according to the DoE.

They'd be a great replacement for generators as well. Imagine a fuel cell in every cellular tower, with a CNG tank on-site in case both the power and gas lines fail (and can be refilled by truck). Imagine your central heating boiler being for home and water heating was generating free electricity as well as heat for a combined ~80% efficiency (almost as good as condensing boiler). Imagine every city block has a fuel cell the size of a utility cabinet, reducing transmission losses and easing strain on the power grid.

High efficiency, plus fuel flexibility, plus almost zero maintenance (and nearly no noise), and little pollution, makes these things possible, where they aren't all that practical with conventional heat/combustion engines.

Bloombox anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading about something like this a few years ago called a bloom box. Apparently big companies like Google were already using large versions to power their data centers. Not sure on its actual output in kW however. I don't remember if they even released that sort of information, it was somewhat lacking in details at the time except for the testimonial of people testing it. It sounds almost exactly like this one though,

Re:Bloombox anyone?

[c0lo]

Bloombox anyone

Maybe better. Page 5:

For stationary applications, Bloom Energy is arguably the current commercial leader in terms of deployed SOFC units.
Their zirconia-based SOFCs are reported to deliver power densities of ~0.2 W/cm2 at ~900C (21, 22).
Our current LT-SOFC power densities (at the cell level) are higher by a factor of 10 at ~250C lower temperature, indicating the potential for much higher energy efficiency with considerable cost reduction.

Summary is wrong: Mfr claims 60% efficient at 550C

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the manufacturer's website, the operating temperature is 550C (~930 degrees F), NOT 149C/300F. And efficiency is listed as 60%, not 80% as the summary claimed. The specs are for the to-be-release 80kW model, I can't see where the 25kW specs are located -- I'm guessing it's a prototype.

Source: http://www.powerserg.com/redox-powerserg-the-cube-specs.html

LOL, yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, yeah right. It has less energy density than a lipo battery.

Whatever... Slashvertisement

No thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm holding out for the Mr. Fusion. I have it from a reliable source that it will be available in a couple of years at the most.

Re:No thanks

[Macchendra]

If only we could harness the air pressure of the apparent whoosh. I'd mod it as funny if I could.

One of the key benefits of this

[CFD339]

...is the lack of long haul transmission waste. My understanding is that up to half the energy available at a large plant can be lost through the resistance (heat conversion) and other factors (induction?) in the lines before it gets to it's point of use. Small, neighborhood generation stations would be excellent if they were available, clean, safe, and reasonably inexpensive to maintain.

Re:One of the key benefits of this

[Anonymous Coward]

That long haul electrical losses is now replaced by tanker trucks overhead to each of the individual substations. However, if you make the local storage large enough, then it is not too bad. It might be a safety and NIMBY issues.

Re:One of the key benefits of this

[rusty0101]

And gas lines don't ever leak.

There will always be some form of transmission los. Hopefully over the long haul, losses due to pipeline leakage, or storage tank leakage will be a significantly lower percentage compared to high tension power line loss. I'll agree that it's likely to be less than 50%, and presumably less than 30% (which combined with the 20% unrecovered waste in an 80% efficient fuel cell would come to a 50% loss.) but there will be some appreciable loss due to leakage. Heck you loose gasoline to evaporation between filling up the 1.5 gallon gas can at the station and filling the lawn mower, though you only notice it if you're storing the gas in that gas can for months at a time.

Re:One of the key benefits of this

[ebno-10db]

My understanding is that up to half the energy available at a large plant can be lost through the resistance (heat conversion) and other factors (induction?) in the lines before it gets to it's point of use.

No, average loss from power plant to customer is about 7%. Even very long (1000+ mile) HVDC lines only add a few percent.

Re:One of the key benefits of this

[Anonymous Coward]

And your understanding is way off. Power transmission is over 90% efficient, even more than 95% efficient in areas with newer equipment.You can even do long distance transmission without getting anywhere near 50% loss, A single 5 GW, 2000 km line would be about 95% efficient.

Re: One of the key benefits of this

[Anonymous Coward]

i think you meant to write "my lack of understanding"

Re:One of the key benefits of this

[CFD339]

Thank you. This is helpful information.

Re:One of the key benefits of this

[CFD339]

Well, others have pointed out that I'm mistaken about the amount of loss in electrical lines -- but as to loss in gas lines, it's actually very minimal. I'm a firefighter and so have had some training in dealing with both high pressure long-haul gas lines and low pressure home delivery lines.

How. Much. ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ~7KW jobbies I looked at around 10 years ago were around $10K. The last time I looked, a couple of years ago, about the same. Economies of scale have not yet come into play, as far as I can tell.

If they can sell a 25KW unit for significantly less than $1K per KW they may have something.

it would be worth it only if

[FudRucker]

i could get one installed for less than six thousand dollars, the startup cost is where this machine kicks everyone at, after that the machine must be able to pay for itself in a few years otherwise it is not worth it

Re:it would be worth it only if

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, not correct. It just needs to pay for itself eventually to be worth it. If it pays for itself in a few years, it will fly off the shelves like you can't believe.
Think in terms of rate of return. If you put $6,000 in the bank (or other investment) today, how long would it take to double that vs. if you buy a fuel cell, how long will it take to pay back (earn you) $6,000.

If the fuel cell does it faster than the bank does, then it makes sense to buy the fuel cell. And that's just from the purely economic standpoint. If the fuel cell really is more efficient, then you would able be improving our domestic energy security while saving money--a very patriotic act. And if you value having standby power in an emergency, then that's another great value. A quality standby generator costs in the neighborhood of $5000 and this would replace that.

Also factor in the value of a stable long term investment. How many chances will you have to make an investment that returns a high margin, regardless of what the stock market does?

And it's called the Perpetuum Mobile!

[divisionbyzero]

Sorry, it's hard not to be snarky with claims of energy breakthroughs. There is always a trade-off. What is it?

Re:And it's called the Perpetuum Mobile!

[RespekMyAthorati]

The machine is definitely not going to be cheap.

How much is that cube?

[Anonymous Coward]

and when is Fry is going to carry it - I can power my racks of computers with that thing

No more hockey stick

[pubwvj]

Gee, this is going to throw out the doomsday scenarios of all those neo-ecovists who claim our increasing energy consumption and pollution are going to destroy the planet.

1) The planet really doesn't give a hoot.

2) Energy usage is getting more efficient - my new freezer, refrigerator, computer, fan, van all use far less energy to do the same work as pervious models.

3) Power generation technology is dramatically improving with things like co-generation fuel cells, micro-hydro, micro-solar, etc.

My personal favorite is micro-hydro. I can generate about 25KW with something about the size of half a home washer and no fossil fuel inputs since it's just catching motion from falling water. Sure, it won't work everywhere but there are a lot of places where it will. In other places solar hot water, solar electric, wind are all viable options too.

This raises the one big issue I have with the fuel cells, they require a fuel input. That costs money.

Re:No more hockey stick

[russotto]

My personal favorite is micro-hydro. I can generate about 25KW with something about the size of half a home washer and no fossil fuel inputs since it's just catching motion from falling water.

Too bad it will cost you about 10 billion dollars to get the required permits, if it's at all possible.

Re:No more hockey stick

[Anonymous Coward]

There are not a lot of available parcels of land with enough water and enough fall with that water to build such a system. If you've managed to find one you are indeed very lucky.

Re:No more hockey stick

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, this is going to throw out the doomsday scenarios of all those neo-ecovists who claim our increasing energy consumption and pollution are going to destroy the planet.

1) The planet really doesn't give a hoot.

2) Energy usage is getting more efficient - my new freezer, refrigerator, computer, fan, van all use far less energy to do the same work as pervious models.

3) Power generation technology is dramatically improving with things like co-generation fuel cells, micro-hydro, micro-solar, etc.

My personal favorite is micro-hydro. I can generate about 25KW with something about the size of half a home washer and no fossil fuel inputs since it's just catching motion from falling water. Sure, it won't work everywhere but there are a lot of places where it will. In other places solar hot water, solar electric, wind are all viable options too.

This raises the one big issue I have with the fuel cells, they require a fuel input. That costs money.

Most people who put forth micro-hydro as having potential to have a real impact on overall power generation or being at all usable at the scale of a single home have no idea just how much fall and flow are required to make it work. Even a 30 foot drop is near useless unless you have a flow of hundreds of gallons a minute. Fantasies of attaching a generator to a paddle wheel on a slow flowing stream are just that.

Re:No more hockey stick

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on ones location!

"can run at an 80 percent efficiency" ???

[lfp98]

"[it] can run at an 80 percent efficiency when used to provide both heat and power." This makes no sense. If you count the heat produced, any combustible material can easily yield much better than 80 percent efficiency just by burning it. Condensing natural gas boilers, for example, routinely run at >95% efficiency. Of course, they're producing all heat and no electricity, but by the specified criteria, that's more efficient than the Cube. Straight % efficiency in producing electricity only, would be a much more useful number. I doubt that they're only counting electricity in the 80%, but it's ambiguous as written.

Ignore TFA and read company web site

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual, the Forbes article is misleading. Read the company web site (http://www.powerserg.com/). They're positioning "The Cube" as an alternative to small generators. That sounds like a really good application if they can get the cost down. Diesel and natural gas generators are a pain in the ass. They're not efficient. They have a lot of moving parts that require maintenance. They're noisy. The cheaper ones are only intended for short-term use, and can't run continuously for more than a few days. A fuel cell is better in all respects, as long as the price is right.

It is NOT Diverse Energy!

[PineHall]

The company is Redox Power Systems, not Diverse Energy. Diverse Energy's fuel cell uses ammonia as a fuel source, not natural gas. The summary is mixing up 2 different fuel cell technologies. (I know broke the rules and read the articles.)

Never going to happen.

[hackus]

There is no way they will ever get approval with the cronyism walking around to ever have someone generate all of their own electricity.

People are already being targeted for growing their own food by "STORM TROOPERS" which barge in with machine guns and kill everyone and ask questions later.

That includes a bullet for the family dog, cat and canary.

People don't understand what is going on with power, and forget the whole ENRON thing (which is still going on by the way, it just changed hands to people who are unaccountable.)

There is no way the Oil/Electric Gas companies will permit such a device _ever_.

-Hack

Re:Never going to happen.

[drinkypoo]

You can already buy a fuel cell generator which runs on natural gas. Right now, from GE. Call them up, prepare to give them a whole lot of money.

Re:Never going to happen.

[sribe]

There is no way they will ever get approval with the cronyism walking around to ever have someone generate all of their own electricity.

How the hell does bullshit like this get modded up, when right now you can buy your choice of any of a large number of: wind-based generators, photovoltaic systems, petroleum-fuel based generators--and even a few, very expensive, fuel cells.

Re:Never going to happen.

[vandamme]

Jeez, I'm not moving to YOUR country (does everyone wear tinfoil hats?). Here in NY, National Gid sells us both gas and electric, and makes neither, just passes them along. So they don't care too much one way or the other.

These stories are always frustrating

[John.Banister]

I've read these stories and looked up fuel cell research for years, and it's very frustrating when I consider to actually buy a fuel cell. It always turns out that the smallest model costs like a car or the largest model is a science class demonstrator kit. A 5kw fuel cell that costs only double the cost of a 5kw Honda generator would likely find lots of consumer interest, but despite "promising research" since the '70s (and before, I'm sure), the one people would want to own never makes an appearance in the marketplace.

Re:These stories are always frustrating

[sumdumass]

Lol.. since the 70's. I been waiting on solar power to become a cost effective reality since 1876 when Grylls and Day discovered solar cells. Of course my hopes jumped enormously in 1953 when Fuller, Pearson, and Chapin discovered the silicon solar cell and increased efficiency by leaps and bounds.

Today, while they are common, they are still less cost efficient then grid power in most places and as usage increases, we are finding that their projected life spans are more of a guess then reality. For some reason, self sufficient energy is something always out of the reach of the common man. I have a 200 amp service and only occasionally do I ever need more then a 100 amp service. This 25k fuel cell is about all I need and more 90% of the time but as history suggest, it will be cost a ton more then grid power.

Re:These stories are always frustrating

[John.Banister]

That's quite a wait. Do you like the Slashdot for passing the time away?

Re:These stories are always frustrating

[Anonymous Coward]

Fossil fuels will lose their in the market dominance and political lobby power between 2015-2030!

In favor of power plant

[manu0601]

Is the municipal power plant on the way out?

The power plant comes with power lines that reach houses. If that is replaced by distributed fuel cells, unless there is a municipal pipeline network, the fuel has to be carried by vehicles, and I have trouble to understand how it could be more efficient in the end.

Good

[The Grim Reefer]

a new type of fuel cell that is 90% less costly than current cells at one tenth the size (making it the size of a dishwasher)

Nice try SkyNet. At least it's still not small enough to fit two of them in Arnold's chest.

some details would be nice

[strack]

ok, firstly, that "80% efficiency when it provides both heat and power" is a copout. any engine can be 100% efficient when you classify usable energy output as both heat and electricity. i wanna know the efficiency of the electricity production.
secondly, how long is the lifetime of the unit? how much fuel can it process before the catalyst or membrane or whatever wears out? and how expensive is the catalyst? is it still made out of freaking platinum?
thirdly, can this thing be used in vehicles? planes? cause thats the real application of something like this.

Re:some details would be nice

[AlreadyStarted]

Efficiency of 60% @ 80kW. If you want to know click the links.

http://www.powerserg.com/redox-powerserg-the-cube-specs.html

Re:some details would be nice

[Xyrus]

ok, firstly, that "80% efficiency when it provides both heat and power" is a copout. any engine can be 100% efficient when you classify usable energy output as both heat and electricity. i wanna know the efficiency of the electricity production.

It's not a "copout" because the heat generated isn't waste heat (since it is useable by the house it is connected to). This is unlike an ICE or central powerplant where it IS waste heat.

The typical fuel cell has an efficiency of between 40-60% for electrical generation only. Their website indicates that it is at the higher end of that scale.

secondly, how long is the lifetime of the unit? how much fuel can it process before the catalyst or membrane or whatever wears out? and how expensive is the catalyst? is it still made out of freaking platinum?

It's amazing what you can learn when you RTFA. The membrane they use is based on ceramics (solid oxide). They're durable and less expensive than platinum.

thirdly, can this thing be used in vehicles? planes? cause thats the real application of something like this.

They're planning on making a smaller version for cars. Again, TFA has more information.

Re:some details would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a "copout" because the heat generated isn't waste heat (since it is useable by the house it is connected to).

In the summer, heat isn't useful to me - I spend lots of money removing heat from my house. You only get to claim the waste heat as useful in the winter.

Re:some details would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

In the summer, heat isn't useful to me

Oh, yea?

I for one still like warm water for showers even in the summer. I would love a home system that generated electricity to run the house while making hot water.

In fact, maybe future homes will be designed with warm-water heating loops so that the power, water, and home heat can all be the same single system. Or maybe it's easy to heat both water and air with this thing, I don't know.

Re:some details would be nice

[Firethorn]

As the AC said, there's still hot water to consider for showers, baths, washing and such. This would provide that essentially for the cost of setting up the piping.

Plus, at somewhere between 300-500F, well as long as it's 190F or higher, you can get cooling using absorption or adsorption systems.

Yes!

[NotQuiteReal]

“Can every headline ending in a question mark be answered by the word 'no'?”

Cars?

[ebno-10db]

Can these things be scaled to smaller sizes and are they rugged (resistant to vibration, etc.)? If so, they'd be great for cars.

imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare

[SuperBanana]

Imagine a fuel cell in every cellular tower, with a CNG tank on-site in case both the power and gas lines fail (and can be refilled by truck). Imagine your central heating boiler being for home and water heating was generating free electricity as well as heat for a combined ~80% efficiency (almost as good as condensing boiler). Imagine every city block has a fuel cell the size of a utility cabinet, reducing transmission losses and easing strain on the power grid.

Imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare:

Electricity? Check.

Flammable gas? Check.

Unlimited supply of flammable gas? Check.

Neighborhood cogeneration might be interesting, but there's going to have to be some serious, serious thought put into making them safe.

Also: this does not solve the problem of needing carbon neutral energy sources. It's "better", but we've dug ourselves into a sufficiently deep enough hole that we're well past "better" being good enough. Nuclear, wind, solar, hydro. Anything else is just delaying the problem, not fixing it.

Re:imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

"Electricity? Check."
"Unlimited supply of flammable gas? Check."

That is every house heated by natural gas or propane in the country.

Re:imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

Electricity? Check.

Flammable gas? Check.

Unlimited supply of flammable gas? Check.

Sounds like every house in my neighborhood.

Re:imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardly a firefighter's worst nightmare. They deal with that combination at just about any house fire. (Most houses in an urban or suburban area are hooked up to the gas mains.)

Their worst nightmares are more likely to involve tanks of unknown gases/liquids (it is it explosive? toxic? both?) or industrial chemicals (some of the really fun stuff just burns harder if you put water on it). Even something as apparently innocuous as PVC pipe can produce phosgene (a WW I war gas) when burned. Plain old electric + gas fires are the kind of thing they deal with every day.

Re:imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention every diesel-, gasoline-, propane-, natural-gas-, etc. powered vehicle already in existence (for the uneducated: 50kvolt ignition systems tend to make short work of fuel vapors).

Re:imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

How is electricity and an unlimited supply of flammable gas any different than a very common configuration of home utilities today? Every home has electricity and natural gas is an incredibly common method of heating. My gas hot water heater and furnace are only a few feet from my panel.

Re:imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare

[rahvin112]

There is a famous saying that if Natural gas was developed and proposed for residential use today (for the first time) everyone would freak out because of how dangerous it is.

Every house in areas that already have natural gas heating already have everything you claim to be worried about.Gas is actually incredibly safe, it needs a precise mixture with oxygen to be explosive or burn. Yet it still kills thousands every year.

Its paranoia like yours that handicaps society.

Re:imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare

[mcgrew]

Imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare

You already have natural gas and electricity in the buildings.

Also: this does not solve the problem of needing carbon neutral energy sources.

RTFA, it emits no carbon.

Re:imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare

[camperdave]

Electricity and natural gas to most homes can be shut off from the road. If the person has a tank and power cell inside the house, the fire crews won't be able to shut them off. That makes the fire-fighter's job that much more dangerous.

Re:imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare

[camperdave]

The point that was unsuccessfully being made runs more like this:

Electricity? Check. Turned off? Can't get at it Chief. The controls are in the fire.
Flammable gas? Check. Shut off? Sorry, Chief, they're running one of those personal fuel cells, and we can't get near the tanks yet.

Hardly a nightmare, but definitely a few notches up from a standard house fire.

Re:imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

Human Safety is important!

Re:imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare

[evilviper]

You can always go further afield and cut off the electricity to a house, even if it'll kill the neighbors' as well.

And firefighters are well versed in dealing with tanks of flammable gas... It's easy enough AS LONG AS THEY KNOW ITS THERE. If you keep spraying it with water, you'll keep it cool even in a raging fire, and it won't explode. Tanks also have mandatory pressure relief valves to prevent such things in less extreme circumstances. And firefighters face these issues all the time. Trailers all have propane tanks. Houses and business away from gas lines have big propane tanks in the back. City buses have CNG tanks. Cars and trucks have tens of gallons of gasoline or kerosene. And refineries catch on fire often enough...

Re:imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare

[camperdave]

You can always go further afield and cut off the electricity to a house, even if it'll kill the neighbors' as well.

No, you can't. Not if they're generating their own power. If there is a fuel cell running in the basement, there's no way the fire crews can get to it to shut off the power except by entering the burning building.

Re:imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare

[evilviper]

That's a problem they would face with any off-grid home. Battery banks and inverters in the basement, or tanks of fuel and a generator.

Re:imagine a firefighter's worse nightmare

[mcgrew]

You'll still be able to shut the gas off ate the road, which would shut down your fuel cell.

Interesting choice of words

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did the author choose to compare it to a diswasher instead of a washing machine?
At least here in my country most people use the latter but many still wash their dishes by hand.

Re:Interesting choice of words

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine that it is a combination of a dishwasher's much smaller average size and a primarily middle-class American audience.

Re:Interesting choice of words

[gl4ss]

the size for standard size of them is just about the same..

but.. how is this different from samsungs fuel cell trials? or toshibas laptop fuel cell? was the fuel cells for space&rocketry ten washing machines in size? (not).

that should have been in the summary.. not shit about how previous fuel cells of some type we've never heard of were ten washing machines.

Cost of natural gas

[DigiShaman]

The cost of natural gas will soar through the stratosphere once these become widespread. It's bad enough when a spike occurs due to an excessive winter season (2005 for example). Early adopters will benefit. Everyone else will get fucked once LNG futures rise.

Re:Cost of natural gas

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost of natural gas will soar through the stratosphere once these become widespread. It's bad enough when a spike occurs due to an excessive winter season (2005 for example). Early adopters will benefit. Everyone else will get fucked once LNG futures rise.

The cost of natural gas isn't likely to rise in North America anytime soon. There's such a huge glut of production that governments are actually considering building liquefaction plants for tens of billions of dollars to liquefy and ship natural gas overseas. These plants will take hundreds of MW to power, if not GW. The reality is that the shale-gas boom means we have more natural gas than we could ever hope to use. In the currently climate, the spike of 2005 is unlikely to occur again.

http://www.gov.bc.ca/com/attachments/LNGreport_update2013_web130207.pdf

Re:Cost of natural gas

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not, since you're getting a substantial amount of electricity through gas fired generation right now (regionally it varies, yes I know).

And the large utility selling you electricity is probably selling you natural gas. They don't discount NG prices for residential customers, so you're going to end up paying the same price anyway.

This is why we should not be protesting hydraulic fracturing. It's created a glut of cheap natural gas, which is FAR better than coal in every way possible except supply after about a century.

Re:Cost of natural gas

[evilviper]

The cost of natural gas will soar through the stratosphere once these become widespread

That's complete nonsense. Fracking has resulted in such a boom in cheap natural gas production, that we're going to have to start exporting it in the coming years. And using it in a fuel cell will be about 50% MORE EFFICIENT than burning it to turn a turbine, perhaps more if the waste heat is used to also heat your home (for free).

What MAY need to happen is improving the nation-wide natural gas pipeline. When there's a spike in demand, LNG tankers have to be dispatched to the east coast to put more supply into the pipeline. A couple more pipes would eliminate this added expense during cold winters.

Re:Cost of natural gas

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe that will be true, if these units are more efficient than power plants, which they seem to be based on specs.

Mass adoption would actually decrease natural gas demand substantially, which would have the effect of lowering natural gas prices.

Also, TFA states the cells can run off a variety of petrochemicals. So presumably one would (for some cost) switch fuel sources if needed.

Subtle economics

[EmperorOfCanada]

Often these situations can somewhat over promise but when it comes to breaking the power companies I keep my fingers crossed. But the key here is that the economics can be quite subtle. A simple example would be if this system were to provide power at an overall cost of $0.11/kwh; which is roughly what many people pay. (My point being based on a price that is roughly your present rate) So you would doubt that many people would switch. But there are many people out there who genuinely hate the power company. Lets say 3% who do. So these 3% make the cost neutral switch. No biggie except that the power company just lost 3% of their residential customers who previously (at least in my area) had no where else to turn. Still 3% isn't much. But the power company didn't lose 3% of their costs as many of their costs are fixed. So income is actually down a tad more than 3%. So this causes the power company to raise rates a bit to compensate; thus losing a few more customers. Raising rates a tad again. But the growing power rates are now making home power generation more and more attractive. At even a fairly low total loss of customers, say 10%, the power company could potentially cross a threshold where their fixed costs have remained high enough and their revenues dropped by enough that they become profitless.

In all likelihood the power company will begin insane lobbying efforts to force people to remain customers. People won't put up with that so those efforts will eventually fail. I can see a situation in some areas where the power company is government owned that the government will either outlaw or severely tax home power generation.

Now there are two other considerations which complicate the situation. The fuel cell will create much waste heat. In a hot crowded location it actually might be in the public interest to keep power generation outside of the urban heat islands.
The other consideration is that increasing home power generation may very well increase demands on things like natural gas which could result in price increases. But my guess is that much of this would be offset by the matching reductions in natural gas usage by your local power monopoly. (If it generation is done with that fuel)

My argument holds even if the home generation rates are a tiny bit higher than power company rates. But my argument isn't even needed if the home generation rates are significantly lower. Then I will laugh for the entire 5 minutes the power company tries to claim that it will survive this new technology.

So in my neighbourhood I suspect a wonderful collapse of the local power company due to the heat mostly being desired(cold winters). The power company being reviled. The natural gas prices being OK. And the fact that the local anti-fracking government is about to experience a "Throw the bums out" moment. Plus the fact that our reviled power company is doing a strange deal that some think will send our power rates soaring.

So go Diverse Energy!

Awesome

[sunking2]

5'7, 150lbs, and powers 5 houses for minimum wage.

Sign me up

[PopeRatzo]

I'm willing to overpay for one of these. I really believe that a lot of good can come from off-the-grid power, and I would invest to help that happen.

So much of our lives is about how this corporation or that government agency has us by the balls. So much of our politics is payback. How something like this could change the balance of power back toward the hands of the individual!

It's not just traditional energy companies that worry about something like that happening. There's a lot of entrenched power in the hands of a shrinking number of people because people can be squeezed. I think about it every time I have to fill the car with gas.

The other key would be open-source, off-the-grid networking. Think about how life and politics would change in the absence of Big Energy and Big Telecom. I'm sure someone else would try to step into the void left by these behemoths, but once you start down the road away from dependence, it gets easier to get rid of the next tyrant.

Re: Sign me up

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me, if "off the grid" power ever comes by way of fuel cells, it will be put under the tight control of power companies, because it will be done in a way that these fuel cells replace traditional centralized generation plants.

The power company will come install one at your house, charge you full rate for the output that it uses, pay you "generation" (which is the rate minus "transmission" and "transition" charges) for what you put back out on the grid, and you'll still have to pay your natural gas bill.

Anyone with Fios knows that utilities are shifting the cost of production to the customer (as Fios customers pay for the electricity that runs the ONT, not Verizon).

In most markets that allow grid intertie, you are paid a pittance for the electricity you put back on the grid. In Pennsylvania (where I have a 100kW solar farm) and in South Carolina (where I have a 55kW Solar Farm), you must sell ALL of your generation to the utility, and you cannot use it directly yourself. That means that when the utility power is off, so are you, even though you have ample solar energy right in your own back yard.

So don't worry, even if this comes to fruition, you as the consumer will be screwed out of any benefit in order to support the Oligarchy.

Re: Sign me up

[drinkypoo]

I fail to see how moving off of the electrical grid to the gas grid actually reduces your dependence.

Re: Sign me up

[anorlunda]

If you don't want a grid connection for backup purposes, then you cease to be a utility company and they have no say about what you do.

Others, like the fire marshall, or code inspector, or UL Labs, may have things to say, but not the utility.

Re: Sign me up

[iggymanz]

if you have one of these in your home it will be set up for one and only one type of fuel. the producers of that fuel will have you by the balls. true 90% of the time that technology and energy come from big corporations

Re: Sign me up

[PopeRatzo]

Well, for one thing, the plan is to be able to use multiple fuels: "The first-generation Cube runs off natural gas, but it can generate power from a variety of fuel sources, including propane, gasoline, biofuel and hydrogen.". That alone cuts into the hegemony of the big energy companies.

The goal, though, it to be able to locally source your biofuel and/or hydrogen.

Also, remember this fuel cell is at 80% efficiency. That reduces dependency all on its own.

Re: Sign me up

[PopeRatzo]

Others, like the fire marshall, or code inspector, or UL Labs, may have things to say, but not the utility.

That's why the solution is to develop the technology and speed up adoption to the point where it's simply too late for anyone to do anything about it.

Sort of the way the Internet started. By the time the powerful corporations knew what it was, it was too late to for them to own it. Of course, they've spent the past decades trying to own it, which is why we need A) net neutrality laws and B) off-the-grid, ad hoc networking. I know "off-the-grid" networking sounds like an oxymoron, but I've heard it explained very well by some smart people. It's why I'm pushing for some of the "white space" in the spectrum to be left open as a public preserve.

Re: Sign me up

[Anonymous Coward]

It can also be a solid fucking for the poor - they likely can't afford this and when the middle class and higher go off the grid, guess who gets to pay for the infrastructure maintenance through higher rates.

SWEET!

[Ferretman]

If this comes to fruition I'll be one of the first in line for it.

Ferret

Any longevity data?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting point -- if their marketing it as a small generator replacement I bet they have longevity issues
with the new membrane that need to be worked out. Expected cell lifetime is not in the specs:

http://www.powerserg.com/redox-powerserg-the-cube-specs.html

Longevity is not so much of an issue for a small-generaor replacement, but it could make
this economically non-viable for power in homes and cars.

Has anyone seen any data on the expected lifetime of these cells?

I want to believe that this is revolutionary and will change the world but I suspect it is
progressive evolutionary step in fuel cell tech?

Although I'd love to be wrong...

[roc97007]

...a paycheck says nothing will come of this. We've heard these kind of claims before.

cars and trucks...

[Anonymous Coward]

The interesting thing about a power source that is in the 25KW range, is that is getting in the range of hybrid motors. Scaling up from there you start getting into work vans and maybe even up to semi tractor trailers (150kw - 300kw). Even a small increase in efficiency can result in significant enough savings to pay for a new powerplant.

80% Efficient??

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why this device is 80% efficient whilst being used to generate power and heat? If the conversion to electricity is 80% then the rest is dissipated as heat yes? Surely 5kW is *plenty* to heat a house with therefore the wasted heat from the conversion process can be used in place? Or am I completely missing something?

Yeah, right.

[sirwired]

Given we are STILL waiting for fuel cells that can power a *bleeping!* laptop that have been "just around the corner" since about the Dawn of Slashdot, color me skeptical.

That guy needs a boat full !

[Anonymous Coward]

And some tranks

That guy sure needs some relaxing

Efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

"can run at an 80 percent efficiency when used to provide both heat and power."

A lightbulb has 100% efficiency when used to provide both heat and light!

cheaper than articulated?

[dutchwhizzman]

You must live in a rural area where it's hard to put gas pipes in the ground. There are plenty of places where it's cheaper to just put lines in the ground then to keep driving around with gas bottles or a big tanker truck to fill home tanks.

25kw of electricity or total power?

[Firethorn]

It mentions that it's up to 80% efficient if it's used in a cogeneration mode - so I wonder if that 25kw is pure electricity or also heat?

On the other hand, the specs don't mention 24kW at all. It mentions 80kW@60% efficiency. Maybe it's more efficient at a lower capacity? What's with the cogeneration, which is mentioned in the forbes article, but not elsewhere? Details people, I'd like some!

Whatever, without some solid price estimates, it's hard to say. I believe that an OOM cheaper for the system would make it competitive with diesel generators price wise, which combined with higher efficiency and comparable lifespan would quickly kill the diesel generator market.

Let's see, the NFCRC has some info.
1. Stationary power market, fuel cells are 'competitive' if they reach $1.5k or less per kW.
2. Current cost is $4k+ per kW
3. Vehicular use is competitive at $60-100 per kW.

Going by the Forbes article, that would translate to $400+ per kW, which would indeed slaughter conventional power generation systems, which tend to be ~$1.5k+ per kW for high reliability sources of power. The Diverse Energy 'Powercube' seems to be a different product entirely - using ammonia as a fuel source, as opposed to the listed NG from Forbes, and NG, Propane, Diesel, biomass, and JP-8 listed on the product website. The Maryland Tech site mentions they're at 650F, 300F is still being developed. In either case, that's a handy heat source for various uses.

Given that I pay some of the highest cost electricity in the country, I think I'd love to have one of the 5kW systems mentioned. I already have a fuel oil tank in the ground for heating, I could get electricity for substantially less than what I pay with this system.

What is the lifetime?

[anorlunda]

The thing that killed many previous fuel cell research projects was not size, efficiency or cost but rather short lifetimes.

TFA is silent on lifetime.

What? Grocery Store?

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough to power a grocery store or five homes?

My moderate/average home(alone) requires 16KW peak on a summer's day. This thing wouldn't even do two homes in my neigbourhood. But, I'm still very interested in it as a backup generator. The small size and, perhaps more importantly, the quite operation would make it a fantastic fit for me. If only we had an idea of the price and if it will be available soon or on a Duke Nukem timescale.

I think the theory is that the money comes back

[Marrow]

In the form of corporate/private taxes and exports. I think there is a net gain if we funded a technology and then sold a bunch of them overseas.

If you want to get down on the government, do it in an organized manner: get a bunch of people together to chip in and hire an external auditor. Audit Congress. That would be fun to watch.

Vehicle choice isn't so simple

[sjbe]

25kW/33hp is more than adequate if people could only let go of the idea that their cars need to weigh two tonnes and have a large overcapacity for the majority of their needs.

There are a lot more considerations than just fuel economy for most of us.

A single-occupant commuter vehicle with a space frame and carbon fibre body weighing more like 500kg would have excellent performance with 25kW.

So we're supposed to buy a second car just to commute to/from work? Very few people have the luxury of buying a car just to handle their daily commute. If you're one who does, good for you. The rest of us are going to remain stuck making tradeoffs among the various requirements of our lives.

Average # of passengers is almost always >1 so your proposed vehicle immediately becomes useless the moment you need to carry a passenger. Such a vehicle would be virtually unusable where I live for 4+ months of the year. (top tip - light cars are demonstrably dangerous to drive in 1-2 feet of snow which happens regularly in some places) A light car like that wouldn't likely be particularly comfortable, quiet or pleasant to drive. Not to mention it would virtually require owning a second vehicle or keeping a rental company on retainer. Add in that it would cost $ to insure, require space to park, and create a bunch of extra pollution just creating the thing. Let's not forget that most of us have families and do a significant amount of driving with at least one extra person in the car. Frankly I'd be better off buying a motorcycle except for the risk to life and limb.

Re:Vehicle choice isn't so simple

[Immerman]

>Average # of passengers is almost always >1
Well yeah, but only because there are precious few vehicles with 1 people in them to balance out the average.

You obviously haven't driven in California or other population centers. Next time you're on the interstate parking lot take a look into the cars around you and count the number of people in them. Notice that one almost empty lane with the black diamonds? That's the one that lets anybody with two or more people in the car bypass the parking lot as a reward for their more efficient traveling behavior.

I admit that for most people a 1-seat car probably isn't terribly appealing because of the lack of flexibility, but a two-seater would probably be plenty for most people most of the time - that gives you room for a passenger or cargo.

Re:Vehicle choice isn't so simple

[Anonymous Coward]

So we're supposed to buy a second car just to commute to/from work? Very few people have the luxury of buying a car just to handle their daily commute.

You're apparently not following recent developments in small commuter vehicles. In the near future, get an 80 MPG Elio for $6800. Since you're apparently totally against efficiency, I'm going to guess your current vehicle gets 20 MPG when miracles happen. At $3 per gallon, you'd save $2.25 every 20 miles. Assuming you drive 40 miles round trip to work, it'll pay for itself in 5 years. If you use it for things like trips to the grocery store, department store, bank, etc., that time is even shorter. The only excuse to not do so is if you're living on poverty-level income, in which case long-term financial decisions can actually be challenging. For everyone else, claiming that long-term decisions are hard is just a stupid lazy-ass excuse.

Re:Vehicle choice isn't so simple

[GrahamCox]

Would it work for everybody? No. But it would work well for a particular class of journey (and journey-maker) that is actually the vast majority of road users at certain times of the day in certain places. For those it would work for, there is nothing available on the market that fits the electric, single-seat,
And by the way, while 25kW power is adequate for such a vehicle, the FA's power plant isn't suitable. But 25kW/hr in LiFePO4 batteries is just about doable in terms of weight now.

My point is that simply taking a current type car and making it electric successfully is a hard problem, because we have become accustomed to the luxury of dragging a lot of extra weight around that serves no useful purpose most of the time.

Re:Vehicle choice isn't so simple

[GrahamCox]

Stoopid slashdot mangled my post. The cut-off sentence was meant to read: For those it would work for, there is nothing available on the market that fits the electric, single-seat, less-than-500kg 'category', so the idea can't even be tested.

Re:Vehicle choice isn't so simple

[Anonymous Coward]

2 feet of snow is pretty terrible for anything with 4 wheels to drive in. That means that the drifts are even higher (4 feet). better to just wait it out for the snow plow. Yes, routine life stops for a few hours until things get plowed. No it isn't that big of a deal. A hypothetical waaambulance could still be diesel powered, it's not like everything has to be one solution.

25 kW is an incredible amount of energy for a car. (not truck, not towing things, be realistic).
Induction motors (which are heavy but dumb and cheap) have about 88% efficiency.
3 phase permanent magnet motors with tight winding are about 93%
simple, single stage gearboxes can be 97% efficient worst case.
22 kW is a lot of energy at the wheels.

The hot steam is cool enough to use for cabin heating in a circulation loop.

You can use a supercapacitor bank for the jackrabbit starts, which would be charged of the regenerative energy from stopping and the idle time while sitting at a stoplight. Supercapacitors are wonderfully light and would be enough for a 10 second boost.

Not sure I understand about the noise part. The biggest noise creator is the gasoline engine, then wind, then tire noise.

Re:Vehicle choice isn't so simple

[evilviper]

(top tip - light cars are demonstrably dangerous to drive in 1-2 feet of snow which happens regularly in some places)

Not true if the tire pressure is increased to compensate. Something similar to bicycle tires might work quite well.

Re:Vehicle choice isn't so simple

[putaro]

The hot steam is cool enough to use for cabin heating in a circulation loop.

I hadn't thought about it, but batteries don't need a cooling system. This fuel cell would, which adds to the weight.

If it really made sense in a vehicle, these guys would have a bunch of images up showing it. It's not, not yet. It would be cool if it were, though.

Re:Vehicle choice isn't so simple

[sjames]

Many families have two people commuting to different places. In that case, one (presumably the one with the longer commute) gets the efficient commuter vehicle, the other drives the family vehicle.

The other issues are a regional problem. Perhaps it won't work well where you live but some places consider a flurry lasting more than an hour to be a major snow event (obligating even the lactose and gluten intolerant to buy a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk just in case).

Re:Vehicle choice isn't so simple

[dywolf]

that gives you room for a passenger or cargo

your quaint concept of "cargo" amuses me.
as does the concept of having to choose between a helper to load/unload said cargo, and the actual cargo itself.

Re:Vehicle choice isn't so simple

[Immerman]

Eh, I was thinking groceries, etc. The sort of stuff that just about everyone hauls on a regular basis. More than that and you're unlikely to be able to retain the advantages of a commuter vehicle - but *without* that capacity it's crippled - even a motorcycle will let you carry a passenger, and those absolutely blow away commuter vehicles on every front except crash safety and weather protection.

You're talking to someone who doesn't understand the appeal of the sedan in the US - on the same chassis a station wagon with fold-down seats is vastly more flexible, capable of carrying significantly more and larger cargo (ever tried to fit a decent-sized office chair into a sedan?), and is just generally almost as useful as a pickup truck for most applications while still having all the advantages of a sedan. Why would anyone want to take a full-sized vehicle and cripple it by chopping out a big chunk of the rear?

Re:Vehicle choice isn't so simple

[hairyfish]

So we're supposed to buy a second car just to commute to/from work? Very few people have the luxury of buying a car just to handle their daily commute. If you're one who does, good for you.

Very few people have the luxury of buying one car let alone any form of motorised transport, if we're taking the global population into account. For my particular circumstance, 25kw is all I need. Where do I sign?

Fuel efficiency gains are (sadly) wasted

[sjbe]

Gee, this is going to throw out the doomsday scenarios of all those neo-ecovists who claim our increasing energy consumption and pollution are going to destroy the planet.

No, just likely our ability (along with many other species) ability to exist on the planet. No biggie. Who cares about the continued existence of the species.

2) Energy usage is getting more efficient - my new freezer, refrigerator, computer, fan, van all use far less energy to do the same work as pervious models.

Which we respond to by using more of it. We generally waste most gains in efficiency by using more energy the moment it becomes economically feasible to do so. Cars today are FAR more fuel efficient per horsepower then they were just 30 years ago. But average fuel economy has not gone up at even close to the same rate. Why? Because cars today have much more horsepower which effectively negates much of the fuel efficiency gains.

Micro-cogen is a great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some units like the Yanmar that are being installed now. http://us.yanmar.com/news-events/news/tags/All%20News/yanmar-america-announces-the-launch-of-the-cp10wn-micro-chp-unit-into-u-s-markets/

If you are going to burn natural gas to heat the house, pool and hot tub, then you may as well generate power as well. Right now the break even point is about $0.13 per kWh, at residential gas rates. Power in places like New York State, Ontario, California, etc is already there.

As unreliable and uneconomical renewable energy schemes spike the price of power, natural gas go-gen will rise. Industry is already doing this. Electricity in the renewable capitals of the world is very expensive - $0.30 to $0.50 / kWh.

Fuel cell or piston engine - it does not matter which tech you choose, co - gen is coming.

 

taxPAYERS "gave" - NOT the gummint

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake up!

The gummint can ONLY take. They then "pay" themselves AND all the petty bureaucrats and thugs with badges salaries and benefits no private company could ever afford and still stay in business. What is left over they HIRE private contractors, who also PAY bribes through various undercover 'conduits' for contracts no private company could ever put in place and remain out of jail for using.

Any and All discussions of the production and utilization of energy in all its forms MUST start from that TRUTH!

Definition of a Fuel Cell

[LifesABeach]

Energy is a by-product when Hydrogen and Oxygen combine. The Oxygen Source is pretty much everywhere we breathe. The Hydrogen Source needs some, "help." So why not use a form of Solar, and Wind to separate the Hydrogen from the local Salt Water supply? Easy? Nope. It's High School easy.

We are approaching a point where the tools we need can be made by a 1 meter cubbed machine and some local dirt placed in a type of hopper.

Re:Definition of a Fuel Cell

[Neil Boekend]

While water electrolysis may be easy to do on a small scale in high school, that does not mean it's feasible in a large scale.
In large scale there are massive problems with corrosion of the electrodes. The high school electrodes corrode to, but it doesn't last long enough to make this noticeable.
Running electricity from an electrode into water means it corrodes fast. Even if it's the best stainless steel you can afford.
And for hydrogen there is a safety and storage problem. Hydrogen burns in air in any mixture between 4% and 75%. That's a large range, thus safety is difficult.
Hydrogen has a low density. It may offer a lot of power per kg, it does need a lot of m3 to make a kg of hydrogen. Thus you need to store it in high pressure tanks or exotic solutions.

Re:Definition of a Fuel Cell

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that industrial sized electrolysis, even of water, already exists and operates. It is a small minority of hydrogen production on the order of a percent or two, but that is still a large amount of hydrogen production relative to a chemistry classroom demonstration. There isn't much issue with corrosion, as appropriate pairing of electrolyte with electrode materials can stop that. This even allows for the use of porous electrodes that have a very high surface area to volume ratio (so if there there was corrosion, the expensive electrode would be gone fast...). There are some problems with the deactivation of catalytic effects on the surface that cause a drop off in efficiency, but the material is still there, and can be revitalized, although research is making good progress in avoiding that. Nonetheless, the thing holding back electrolysis is the energy efficiency, which sucks bad, and makes hydrogen produced that way typically much more expensive than hydrogen produced other ways. Material loss isn't an issue, and dealing with pressurized gas is pretty common on industrial levels, but without it being efficient, that will kill it from moving out of specialized applications.

25 kW car? No, thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

25kW is about 35HP. I don't want such an anemic car.

Large power plants recycle waste heat

[Nefarious Wheel]

I was under the impression that large power plants use downstream heat from their main generators by using Stirling-cycle cogenerators (the rather large ones) in stages until the exhaust temperature is very close to ambient. Thus there isn't really all that much "waste" heat.

Re:Large power plants recycle waste heat

[tragedy]

That's a fairly responsible way to operate. Still, it can't really beat having home heating as one of the primary uses for the device. Only during colder months of course, and a modern well-insulated home reduces the necessity of heating.

bloom fuel cell?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this different to The bloom fuel cell concept of creating power? Bloom has been powering Google and eBay offices for years with the fuel cell they created that takes natural gas and turns it into heat and energy?

Only 80% efficient? Where's the other 20% going?

[FridgeFreezer]

I'm fairly sure gasoline engines manage 80% efficiency if you count heat output as useful.

Does the remaining 20% come out as noise? Light? Radiation?

I Wonder how much energy and exotic raw materials go into making this marvel of clean power?

I also wonder how efficient my gas-cooker is at converting gas into heat, as it doesn't seem to make any appreciable amount of anything else other than heat.

Re:Only 80% efficient? Where's the other 20% going

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably as exhaust that has to be removed before all the heat is extracted. You can see car modders already complaining about the loss of power using mufflers and catalytic converters. Try adding a heat exchanger on car exhaust that can extract 99% of the heat, and see how the efficiency suffers, unless you use something very, very large.

And various cooking devices are not 100% efficient at heating food items, as a lot of the heat goes elsewhere. This is not a big deal if you need the heat in the winter, but at other times it is waste. A gas stove can be anywhere from 10% to 60% efficient at actually using the gas to heat food in a pot, with the rest of the heat lost around the sides of the pot. Even ovens and closed grills can dump a lot of heat to the outside.

And, you can use propane as backup

[LandGator]

Add a Hank Hill special with a regulator which dilutes the propane (since it has more energy per cubic) into Synthetic Natural Gas , and a manual valve to switch from one to the other for the once-in-a-century problem with the gas lines. Result, *surge-free* (grew up on the Gulf where 100 days a lightning a year fries a lot of electronics) electrical power from a fuel cell which also provides heat is a most excellent idea.

Re:And, you can use propane as backup

[LandGator]

Dang. Forgot to mention, it can run your cars, too. http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-natural-gas/

and the carbon goes where? Fairyland?

[SuperBanana]

RTFA, it emits no carbon.

Bullshit. It MUST. It's burning a fuel that HAS CARBON IN IT.

Re:and the carbon goes where? Fairyland?

[mcgrew]

It doesn't go into details, but if the carbon is left as a solid waste byproduct, it wouldn't go into the atmosphere.

Just another piece of the puzzle

[afanofhydrogen]

If they can pull it off this will certainly be a huge win for the “Hydrogen Economy” that guys like this have been talking about for years: http://rogerbillingshydrogen.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/dr-roger-billings-hydrogen-is-in-his-dreams/ Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and with fuel cells like this, it can play nice with a lot of energy platforms such as wind, solar, and even natural gas because it makes it easier to store and transport energy and can be efficiently converted back and forth from electricity with little or no pollution and no overseas oil bill.