The free energy debate

[niphilim222]

Hello do you feel like we are stuck in a war with nature, the Unlimited energy sources are out their, but do you think it will ever be used in our life time. :confused:

This has been popping up every where on the web lately.

 

 

http://moneymorning.com/ext/articles/new-fuel/the-end-of-big-oil-tab.php?iris=442305

 

I did some research and this popped up.

this video was taken in 2010, so they had 5 years to perfect it. :dance:

 

Supposedly its going to topple big oil. :huh: Its also catching big medias attention to.

 

There is also a 1hour radio broadcast in the link.

Edited December 17, 2015 by niphilim222

[Tidus44]

One should not believe everything one sees on the internet.

 

There is no such thing as "free energy", unless the debate is that energy exists all around us and we have not figured out a way to harness it and use it effectively and efficiently. Not much of a debate as the conclusion is rather obvious.

 

Fuel cell technology has been around since the late 1800's and fuel cells are in use around the world in various places, including in vehicles. They likely won't be in wide spread use for some time as the technology still has not been able to reduce the cost of a fuel cell, or its operation nor enhanced the reliability or efficiency of fuel cells sufficiently to make them commercially viable.

 

As for the "clean" side of energy from a fuel cell. Fuel cells are somewhat less polluting than current electrical generation technologies (coal and natural gas fired electrical generation plants), but they still produce and vent to the atmosphere quantities of CO2 because they rely on a hydrocarbon to operate.

 

Why are you seeing the advertisements all over the internet for Bloom and their "energy from sand" that will "topple big oil"? Probably because they are losing money and customers as fuel cell technology is advancing and other companies have more cost efficient and more reliable fuel cells while Bloom is still playing around with dated technology.

 

Look up "fuel cell companies" on the internet and you'll find hundreds of them listed. Bloom isn't anything special and has been surpassed in technology by other companies.

 

And why do we not see huge advances in alternative energy sources? Because too many people like this (http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/north-carolina-citizenry-defeat-pernicious-big-solar-plan-to-suck-up-the-sun/) exist.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Tidus44

[Lisnpuppy]

Not to mention if this was all "free" why would all these people (from the link) be investing in this. Investors don't put money in something they don't have a chance to make more back from. Maybe the cost to profit ratio is much better and there would be a cheaper energy...a more efficient energy but not free.

 

 

I would love to have a cheaper energy for people. One that didn't rely on the mass use of fossil fuel or a safer alternative to the things we have. One like is described here but that may make it cheaper, safer and even better but nothing is free.

 

Not only that but do not underestimate the power of the established oil industry to bury any competitive energy. Unless it is developing the product...well....that is a Sisyphean task.

[niphilim222]

Free energy doesn't always mean free tot he public. You still have to buy it.

 

 

LOL deniability, some people just don't believe in anything, the Oil cartel wins with that notion, if don't believe means you are scared of the future. When OIL runs out or you banked with the OIL industry and want that technology dead anyways, so no sense arguing to a blind rat..

 

The technology is there and its scaring the crap out of you.

 

 

http://energyandgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/danger_zone.jpg

 

Its going to bank big and you know it to, its already made billions in profit with google and other big tech companies, so a warning to you its coming very quickly, sense Obama stopped the oil pipelines from interring the USA, Trudeau has banked over millions of $ into the clean industry after the collapse of the pipeline. California is a big clean industry state as well, where the technology originates.

Edited December 18, 2015 by niphilim222

[Lisnpuppy]

I'm 44 with three teenage kids. Nothing scares me.

 

If you want to argue the point of your energy thing I suggest you construct some actually arguments and not just be a mouthpiece to whatever infomercial site you have picked up. Heck that first link you provided...which you had to go to yet another link...spent I know not how much time talking about this great "opportunity" and all those "profit" scores you are talking about. It reminded me of an Amway pyramid scheme.

 

So are you discussing the viability of this tech or are you trying to get us to invest?

[Tidus44]

Bloom has never turned a profit in 11 years of operation - why is that if it is the miracle of clean, free energy production?

 

Let's talk facts.

 

A Bloom 400 KW system costs $5.8 million, or $14,500 a kw.

A conventional natural gas electrical generation plant runs at about $1,017 per kw.

Bloom Energy charges $425,000 per year to maintain their boxes.

Generating power for 8,760 hours a year, or 3.2 million kwh means a Bloom Box costs 13.3 cents per kwh - that's just for maintenance.

Add the cost of natural gas which a Bloom Box needs to operate and it costs about $.30 a kwh to operate a Bloom Box.

Take a look at your next electrical bill and see what a kwh costs you off the utility grid.

The nationwide average in the USA is 13.4 cents per kwh.

In Canada the nationwide average is 13.56 cents per kwh.

I live where electricity is 12.62 cents per kwh.

 

Consider also that a coal fired electrical plant releases about 1700 pounds of carbon per megawatt hour. A Bloom Box releases 884 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. They also generate 22.56 pounds of volatile organic compounds per day.

 

Bloom is not "clean" and it certainly isn't "free" and the idea that they are going to free the world from "big oil" is just a load of PR BS that Bloom is releasing hoping to stay in business.

[HeyYou]

The Bloom Box is NOT "free" energy. You need to feed it something for it to produce power. At this point, commercial power in this area is cheaper than what the bloom box would cost. What you are paying for there, is the convenience factor. It's a generator, it needs fuel.

[niphilim222]

Actually its air and sand, sand to make the product but air is the ideal fuel, it can even terrariform a planet if they had enough of them at once.

In a sense it can be classified as a any fuel maker, the fuel cell is made of sand, but it can use all sorts of fuel types.

 

I was referring the bloom box because its similar to what the video describes, it could be a whole new energy source made of sand. Or giant brake through that will topple oil. There are countries poooriing billions into this type of device.

Canada recently put millions into clean resources , maybe they have something so good that it will crash the market when it comes to Gasoline as a fuel, but that fuel could be used with the that fuel and make it 1000% clean energy.

Any fuel can be used with this Fuel Cell.

 

Carbon Dioxide can be converted into clean energy, THE WORRLDDD IS # SAVED HA HAHAHAHa

 

Anyways I'm still curious to what google has in store when it comes to bloom tech. You can't deny they are using it. Its been nearly 6 years and that tech had a long time to become relevant in the energy sector.

 

Just like the Ecat cold fusion.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline

more on fusion

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/219291-huge-german-fusion-reactor-powers-up-giving-age-old-tech-a-new-shot

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/217948-risky-fusion-power-study-pays-off-by-bringing-plasma-close-to-reactor-walls

Edited December 19, 2015 by niphilim222

[dpgillam]

As an engineer, I try to look at overall scope of projects. Part of the reason I dislike the current "eco" "green" fads is because too many focus only on their immediate factors instead of total effects.

 

We started switching to plastic for everything in the 80s because it was slightly cheaper (at that time), and we were told it would be more environmentally friendly by the tree-huggers because it was so much easier to recycle. Since then we've found that recycled plastic isnt useful for much; its cheaper to make new than to recycle, and you cant reuse plastic safely like you could paper, glass and metal. In all, thanks to pushy, uninformed eco freaks rushing things, we made a very bad decision, bad for both humans and the planet.

 

We see the same flaw with windmills. The government approved designs (by most all the Western Nations) require metals so toxic, China, with its non-existant environmental laws, is the only place on the planet that can legally make them. The single home versions avoid the heavy metals poisoning, but still need battery packs that need replacing every 3-5 years, and Lead Sulfate is very bad for you and the environment. LiON batteries are even worse. On top of that, between installation and maintenance, contrary to the claims, your system will never pay for itself; the necessary battery packs alone tend to run $3K-5K for reliable quality. You can do it yourself and cobble it together, but it still gets into the thousands of dollars.

 

Solar cells suffer the same flaws; the battery packs are the main killer, both in coast and in (massive) environmental damage. You can expect 10% degradation from your solar cells each year, which means energy loss, of course. And thats under optimal standards. If you live in an area known for bad weather...well, each "pod" is a series of crystals. When one breaks, the whole pod dies, and no one fixes them; you cant, really. They're surface mounted. Its too delicate for human hands. You lose too many pods, and your whole panel is junk.

 

Fuel cells are a fancy way of saying "gas can". Its not entirely accurate, given the different fuel sources, and how they are compacted into the cells, but the basic idea is the same as a gas can, with the same problems. Vehicles that run on explosive fuel have a carry limit inversely proportional to their odds of accidents. Jets arent likely to do anything to make them go "BOOM" so they dont mind carrying extra fuel. Rockets are one giant, barely controlled explosion. Thats why they try to carry only whats needed and no more. The major push against Hydrogen or methane cars is less the EPA emission standards, and more the simple idea that a 5mph collision can produce the spark needed to level a city block.

 

Its nice to see all the brilliant ways people are trying to solve our energy needs. But dont get suckered in. Most of our current environmental "crises" stem directly from "solutions" of the 60s-80s that people jumped to with out getting all the facts first.

[HeyYou]

The box still needs a fuel source. Air does not qualify. It is a fuel cell, that uses slightly different principles of operation, nothing more. It isn't going to topple oil any time in the foreseeable future. I suspect we will see fusion come in to widespread use first, and even that isn't going to be portable enough to be used in personal transportation.