I think you are not listening carefully. 60 minutes said that "no emissions" was the holy grail, NOT that Bloom Energy achieved zero emissions. In fact, Bloom themselves talk about greenhouse emissions in their materials. 60 minutes is just playing the typical bait and switch game.

So, calm down a bit, dude.

I am calm; check http://twitter.com/chebuctonian/status/9461662523

Bloom are carefully dancing around the questions, saying some outrageous things like "it can use solar". Had I spent hundreds of millions on this, I would want to make it look green too.

Part of the BusinessWeek article on Bloom from last December discusses emissions: "Though the technology consumes hydrocarbons, Sridhar says, it doesn't involve carbon-releasing combustion, so it emits only about half the greenhouse gases of conventional energy sources."

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2009/gb2009...

The carbon has to go somewhere! If it's not being converted to CO2 then what are they doing?

Please guys, read more carefully. He never claims that it releases "no emissions". He never said that it releases "no carbon". He said that it does not involve "carbon-releasing combustion". He specifically says that it releases about "half the emissions" of combustion, so there ARE carbon emissions. Nothing magically dissapears. There is less heat loss than with combustion reactions. Less heat loss = more energy density = less emissions per kW. This is fuel-cell 101.

His exact quote: "The ceramic core acts as an electrode. At high temperatures, a hydrocarbon fuel, ethanol, biodiesel, methane, or natural gas on one side of the cell attracts oxygen ions from the other. As the ions are pulled through the solid core, the resulting electrochemical reaction creates electricity. Though the technology consumes hydrocarbons, Sridhar says, it doesn't involve carbon-releasing combustion, so it emits only about half the greenhouse gases of conventional energy sources."

Also: "eBay's boxes run on bio-gas made from landfill waste, so they're carbon neutral" - so at least in this case, they specifically say there are emissions, but the net emissions are zero because if they weren't using it as fuel, the same amount of carbon would eventually be released into the atmosphere as the waste degraded.

I still don't see where the carbon is going in this process. If it's not emitted as CO2 then what?

Fuel cells can be more efficient than just burning stuff (aka. combustion) so that's where the lower CO2 comes from - it's not a magic energy machine.

Look at dandelany's posts for the technical details.

The carbon is being vented. Just a lot less of it than the equivalent in combustion systems. Why less? Because fuel cells have a lot less heat loss, and so that means more electricity for the same amount of fuel. "Half the emissions" is relative to the amount of energy produced, not the amount of fuel put into it.

"it doesn't involve carbon-releasing combustion"

The key here is to read this sentence with the emphasis on combustion. The reaction still releases carbon in the form of CO2, but it does not do so through combustion, a much less efficient process.

Oh look, someone has decided to write off a startup by extrapolating details from a fluff article and using their chemistry expertise gleaned from their undergraduate freshman coursework. Color me shocked.

Appropriate given:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1141536

If you actually did a little resarch you would realize the point here is that it not only reduces carbon output vs. combustion (and likely makes this output less polluting) but is designed for developing countries lacking a grid to have a better outlet to produce energy efficiently.

hey look, ad hominem!

For the record, that's high school chemistry, and I'm not writing off the potential of the startup. If they can bring costs down, this has potential wherever you'd normally have a backup generator, or wherever co-generation is efficient.

I do call BS on their green claims, just as I'll call BS on the developing countries bit.

Slandering a startup with a substantial amount of funding whose clients apparently include Google & eBay through knowledge you have from a fluff article is the height of arrogance and lack of self-awareness. It's disrespectful commentary like yours that gives thoughtful skepticism a bad name.

Sorry, but when you throw out the word "bullshit" after spending 5 minutes analyzing the work of people who seem to genuinely want to make a positive difference in the world, you deserve ridicule. I stand by my reply and will take the karma hit since I see negative folks like yourself as poison to a community of entrepreneurs like HN.

People who have run startups know that the know-it-all who learns about their company in a 5 minute overview and says with authority "bullshit" are the types of people you quickly remove from your life since they are not going to provide any valuable, honest criticism.

Actually I'd say this has potential to replace power plants by localizing power generation. Most of the energy savings is probably from not having to transfer electricity through long distances. Localization usually has the trend towards more efficiency, as it is evident also in food production.

Well, natural gas turns into carbon dioxide and water when it combusts. But allegedly this box can run on other kinds of fuel as well.

so find me a fuel he mentions that combines with 02 to produce no emissions.

Good luck.

Perhaps the box is larger than it appears in the photo? Or made of latex?