How many yrs, yes yrs before the "bloom" box is proven too good to be true???

[CK_John]

These scams are like a play they keep opening in new venues. It is good theater at the wrong time. It will keep money and resources from finding legit alternates to our energy problems.

[catbyte]

1. It looked pretty good last night on "60 Minutes"

Where's the scam? Really, what didn't they tell us last night?

Thanks,

Diane

Anishnabe in MI

[Schema Thing]

2. This is not a scam

nor is it too good to be true.

[blondeatlast]

5. Exactly. nt

[napi21]

3. Why do you think the Bloom Box is a scam?

I watched the 60 Mins segment last night, and I thought it was a great idea. I would guess it's currently way too pricy for individuals to buy, but I see noreason electric utility co's wouldn't buy them and just put them in their substations.

[blondeatlast]

4. Google it--all the news stories are prefaced with "too good to be true?"

Some on DU are way too easily influenced. nt

[rox63]

6. They are saving energy and money right now at Google, Ebay, and other companies testing them

The price of the technology needs to come down. But it is real and it does work.

[Uncle Joe]

7. It looked promising to me, but the usage maybe unnecessarily dysfunctional creating

a middle man where there doesn't need to be one, just to placate utility corporations.

[cutlassmama]

13. Exactly. In several years it will down to $3,000 per home. For free

energy that sounds pretty reasonable for most families.

[FormerDittoHead]

17. The cost will be what people are willing to pay for it - figure $12k+ for 10+ years.

As long as there is no competition.

Price is determined by cost of production only at the last stage in the marketing cycle (after competition comes in).

I think a VERY good example is how long it's taken cell phones to stop their apples (no pun) to orange comparisons and actually compete with PRICE.

Just LAST WEEK I saw one company saying THEY WERE CHEAPER. First time I EVER saw a cell phone service directly compete with PRICE, and it's been a solid 12 years.

On edit:

ANOTHER EXAMPLE I can think of are these leaf-less rain gutters? It was "patented" like 25 years ago, and I'm STILL waiting for some competition to kick in to bring it EVEN CLOSE to the cost of regular "leaf catchers".

[Uncle Joe]

18. The linear marketing cycle is dysfunctional and we're running out time.

I believe there will need to be a new paradigm if humanity is to save it self, we can't keep living like consumer locusts.

[HeresyLives]

8. You mean like this? Japan 2007

A reason is his new home fuel cell, a machine as large and quiet as a filing cabinet that sits in front of his house and turns hydrogen into electricity and cold water into hot — at a fraction of regular utility costs. But even with the futuristic device, which is available for now only in Japan...



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/06/business/worldbusiness/06japanfuel.html?_r=3&bl&ex=1168318800&en=4e3c90a7b5edf11c&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[WhiteTara]

9. why would it take years

to uncover this as a scam? It either works or doesn't.

[Brother Buzz]

10. As many years as it takes T Boone Pickens corner the natural gas market

[enki23]

11. it's probably not a scam. and it's not good enough to be "too good to be true"

some of the claims, though, are obviously (even to a non engineer/physicist, part-time chemist) misleading or untrue.

it's just another way to get energy from hydrocarbons. (or pure hydrogen, with all the problems *that* would entail) with energy losses made necessary by using oxygen from the air (pressurizing and dehumidifying), it's unlikely to be much more efficient than using a plain old gas generator, and likely less efficient than most plain old fossil fuel power plants (though i don't know how it would stack up when line losses etc. are taken into account).

and, unless you used hydrogen fuel cells (which these don't appear to be) you are still generating about as much CO2, plus or minus any differences in efficiency, which seem likely to be minimal at best.

i suppose you might save $$ on a personal level if the profit margin on sales, maintaininance, and fuel for your fuel cell are less than that of your electric power producer and its middle-men. probably true if you have an enron in the mix somewhere. otherwise, i'd be pretty skeptical.

[Statistical]

15. Why would you think it is less efficeint that burning hydrocarbons?

Generator are about 12% efficient. Large scale thermal power plants are better at around 40% however due to spin up/down cycles they are closer to 30%.

The bar is set pretty low. Most raw fuel cell efficiencies are around 60%-80%.

The idea that it is somehow worse than generator or power plant is kinda laughable.

Even if there is a 10% overhead for reforming nat gas into hydrogen it still is roughly double the efficiencies of power plant and about quadruple the efficiency of a generator.

Simply put thermal power plants suck and generators (internal combustion) are laughably inefficient. Efficiency really can only go up.

[Duke Newcombe]

12. About as long as it takes Big Oil...

to make sure the inventor and his plans wind up in a landfill in New Jersey...

[Statistical]

16. Why would big oil hate this?

It uses natural gas. A whole new market for nat gas customers.

If cost get down to $5000 or so people will install them at their homes.

Nat gas players will sell you nat gas for heating, and nat gas for electricity, and maybe someday nat gas to reacharge your hybrid car.

[Statistical]

14. It is a lower cost fuel cell that uses hydrocarbons as fuel. What is "too good to be true"?

[earth mom]

19. So the disinfo and smear campaign begins....HUGE UNREC to this crap OP!

:thumbsdown:

Can't wait until the Bloom Box is ready for home use!