Any theoretical physicist or astronomers here?

BTW, Natural gas has many issues with thermal composition. Its has a good mix of isopentane, isobutane, methane, propane, as well as a hideous amount of supercritically dissolved CO2. So the thermal decomposition will vary from source, and time, and thus the electrical power extracted will vary as the thermal units shift due to composition. Originally Posted by winemaker

I think natgas is usually sold based on heat content, not volume or mass, so, in theory, the varying composition doesn't affect most users. I wonder if Bloom can burn the ethane and other combustible chemicals in natural gas?

Speaking of electric, years ago I found a way to power my entire house for free. Well, it was free for me. You see, I had rented a house with the large power lines in the easement behind my back fence. I found some copper wire and wrapped it around my back fence. The grass was tall enough that I would lay the fence down during the day and lift it back up at night. I had the copper wire attached to a row of airplane batteries and then I had them hooked up to transformers etc to power my house. After a while, I notice the power company driving up and down the easement trying to find where they were loosing power. I got away with it for just under a year before they discovered I was stealing electric from the close proximity to the power lines. They couldn't do anything to me because I didn't directly tap into their lines or trespass on their property. But, I was sued and we settled with my agreement to remove the copper wire and reconnect to the system.

The weak link is getting off the grid. Going solar and staying on the gird eliminates the need for storage of surplus electricity (you sell it to the gird), plus you have a built-in backup system. If you want to leave the grid for philosophical reasons, I'd recommend doing it gradually. Start with a solar water heater - most bang for the buck, especially if most of your hot water usage is in the evening. If you want to leave the grid for geographical reasons, save-up a lot of money first. Originally Posted by georgeofjungle

I think I must have missed an important point somewhere.

Exactly, what was the rationale for getting off the grid in the first, place?

Considering it's a very costly venture, why go there?

Yeah 60 minutes did a show on the human effects of living too close to those lines.

Yeah 60 minutes did a show on the human effects of living too close to those lines. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Yeah, it makes your boobs grow real big.

I think I must have missed an important point somewhere.

Exactly, what was the rationale for getting off the grid in the first, place?

Considering it's a very costly venture, why go there? Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

If you're in a very remote rural area there may be no other palatable choice. It can cost big bucks to run power lines to your property, and you'll likely have to front those.

Power availability from some rural electric co-ops can also be very spotty. I know that from experience, as I've seen post-storm power outages that lasted for days.

Yeah, it makes your boobs grow real big. Originally Posted by Nicolette Bordeauxva

Apparently that worked quite well in your case.

Fuel cell is a fancy name for battery. Batteries generate power from chemical reactions. Originally Posted by npita

You are missing the basic difference.

The defined vs indefinte service life, and the way in which the chemical reactions is processed is the difference.

A battery stores electrical energy using electrochemical cells. A battery does not allow the intermixing and direct reaction of the chemicals stored within it. A given amount of chemical is stored within the battery, so the battery has a defined service life.

A fuel cell converts chemical energy into electrical energy. In a fuel cell the reaction continues as long as fuel and oxidizing agent are fed to the fuel cell. Theoretically the fuel cell can function indefinitely.

The two are the same in that both employ a fuel that is oxidized at the anode, and a oxidizing agent that is reduced at the cathode.

The fact that I knew all that off the top of my head, means I'm way too geeky for my own good, and needed to spend more time in college getting laid. Guess I'm making up for that now.

If you're in a very remote rural area there may be no other palatable choice. It can cost big bucks to run power lines to your property, and you'll likely have to front those.

Power availability from some rural electric co-ops can also be very spotty. I know that from experience, as I've seen post-storm power outages that lasted for days. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Okay, I will grant your point, but it still begs the question.

Why live in a remote area where water, sewer and electricity are NOT provided?

Isn't that just another way of choosing to live off the grid?

My question is what is the primary purpose of living off the grid especially considering that it's a very expensive project to fund?

No offense, but I generally find that people who hold such views also hold views of an apocalyptic future on earth and I do not buy that argument.

Why live in a remote area where water, sewer and electricity are NOT provided?
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

In some ways, I'd love to live somewhere where I couldn't see or hear my neighbors. Somewhere I could afford a large chunk of land, etc. A lot of such places aren't practical because of the cost of getting connected to the utility grid.

Sometimes when you actually do it, the reality isn't as good as the fantasy. Long distance drive to work, or to the store. Privacy is nice, but sometimes it's boring and lonely.

Lots of people who make it work out do really love it.

My question is what is the primary purpose of living off the grid especially considering that it's a very expensive project to fund?

No offense, but I generally find that people who hold such views also hold views of an apocalyptic future on earth and I do not buy that argument. Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

I find that most people who want to be off the grid think it will be a lot easier and more cost effective than it really is. Or they're loud-mouthed nutjobs who think our entire society is corrupt and all it takes is good intentions and no interference from "the system". Or they're the kind of people who enjoy the project for their own sake.

I know a few people who did do their own solar installations and DID understand all the science and economics of the project. By and large, they are happy with their results. They won't tell you that it's not a project for most people to take on.

Right now, the biggest problems preventing widespread use of solar cells is cost of the cells and the lack of good enough energy storage systems for night or cloudy days.

We need to put those Chinese to work then.

Okay, I will grant your point, but it still begs the question.

Why live in a remote area where water, sewer and electricity are NOT provided?

Isn't that just another way of choosing to live off the grid?

My question is what is the primary purpose of living off the grid especially considering that it's a very expensive project to fund?

No offense, but I generally find that people who hold such views also hold views of an apocalyptic future on earth and I do not buy that argument. Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

For most of us, it may not be about living (full-time, anyway) off the grid; it's likely to be about powering a recreational property that's far from towns and power lines. It's not about an "apocalyptic vision." I actually live (most of the time) in the heart of Dallas -- not the sort of place one worried about an apocalyse chooses!

But I happen to enjoy getting away to a remote rural location in the Texas hill country a few days out of the month. Others may prefer something like a cabin in the Rockies. Neither is everyone's cup of tea. WALDT, as they say.

There's a hill with a flat mesa on the back of my property. It's at least 300 feet higher than any of the terrain within miles and offers wonderful views in all directions. But getting grid power to it might cost as much as an off-the-grid system, and could be unreliable as well. So a solar/battery/inverter system may make practical and economic sense.

Of course, one may consider that none of this is really necessary. Neither are pleasure boats, small airplanes, and ridiculously fast sports cars. For that matter, neither are diamonds and tuxedos!

Yet I imagine that a fair percentage of people here own one or more of the above.

solar/battery/inverter system may make practical and economic sense.

Of course, one may consider that none of this is really necessary. ... For that matter, neither are diamonds and tuxedos! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Sorry, "Diamonds" are a necessary, can't live without, item!

Oops, my bad!

Please don't reveal that opinion regarding diamonds to any ladies I might meet. It could land me in some serious hot water.

It's just that I spent most of my younger years trying to avoid buying 'em! (In the form of engagement rings, anyway.)

Burning coal produces only CO2, no water. Coal is mostly carbon. It can't produce much H2O, because there's little hydrogen in the original fuel. Originally Posted by GneissGuy

That's because coal is a rock which contains some hydrocarbons and a lot of other things. Hydrocarbons aren't the only things that are combustabile. You can burn pure carbon: C + O2 -> CO2 (which is part of the coal burning process). I noted that I was referring to hydrocarbons, which is relevant to the bloom box, in which case, the process for complete combustion of methane, (the main component of natural gas) with 100% efficiency is:

CH4 + 2O2 -> 2H_20 + CO2

As a reference see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion
which repeats what I said earlier:

``When a hydrocarbon burns in oxygen, the reaction will only yield carbon dioxide and water.''

... Hydrogen fuel produces only water, no CO2.

Hydrogen is not a hydrocarbon.

Natgas probably produces the least amount of CO2 from any hydrocarbon because it has the highest percentage of hydrogen in the original fuel.

Your missing the point and comparing apples to oranges. The point is that if you pick a hydrocarbon, which in the case of the bloom box, means methane, complete combustion (or 100% efficiency) produces only CO_2 and water in the proportions given above. The heat produced (or absorbed) in ANY chemical reaction depends only on the difference in binding enegies of the reactants and products.

For a hydrocarbon, that means the reactants consist of a hydrocarbon (a molecule consisting of carbon and hydrogen) and the products produced with a given amount of oxygen. If you supply enough oxygen for complete combustion (100% efficiency) you get water and carbon dioxide.

Not necessarily. Even if two devices consume the same amount of fuel and produce the same amount of the various exhaust gases, they can produce different amounts of electricity.
Even if the burner produces the same amount of heat, the electricity output can vary.

If the chemical reactions are the same (which is implied by your statement regarding the same fuel and same exhaust gases, the heat energy produced is the same whether you do it with a bloom box or a match.

However, the only thing bloom energy has made public is that methane (or whatever) goes in and electricity comes out. Therefore, the only thing one can say with any certainty is that the efficiency for the reaction of methane and oxygen can't be more than 100% efficient and for 100% efficiency, it produces the maximum amount of CO2 and water it can produce. Anything more is complete speculation.

If you follow the info they've published, the basic science is pretty clear. It's a ceramic electrolyte natgas powered fuel cell. Other people have made ceramic fuel cells before. The exact chemicals of the cathode, anode and electrolyte may be secret.

How can the science be clear without the secret information? Once you give the benefit of the doubt to the vloom box and assume the methane and oxygen is used with 100% efficiency, the secret information is the only thing relevant to any other claims about the bloom box.


Also you (I think) stated something about the bloom box not using the Carnot cycle. That makes their claims stranger still. The Carnot cycle is the most efficient process you can create without violating the second law of thermodynamics (and creating a perpetual motion machine). Other cycles can have the same efficiency, but not using the Carnot cycle is not an argument that implies the bloom box could be more efficient in not doing so.