Comments on: The Bloom Box

By: theJOBAgroup | Where Progressive Black America Blogs! » Blog Archive » The Promise of Bloom Energy

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:05:42 +0000

[...] its promise of cheap, clean energy. The company’s brick-sized ‘Energy Servers’ convert fuel into electricity through a clean electro-chemical process. Google, Wal-Mart, and other [...]

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:29:45 +0000

I’m an innovator (aerospace engineer currently working on the Polywell Fusion Reactor in my spare time). So I don’t worry a bit. I’m intimately involved in making it happen.

I can run the numbers. We are no where near being in any trouble. Lot of neat things on the horizon that will take 20 or 30 years to ramp up. If you are impatient you can give your money or time to make things happen faster.

That is what I decided to do in the 60s when we were running out of everything. At this point I’m convinced that there is more than enough stuff to get us to the next step. After that my kids can worry about it. I am raising two engineers among my brood of four.

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:21:18 +0000

Progress is the easiest thing you can get. All you have to do is make it economically attractive.

Why so little progress compared to dreams? Too much effort into bitching and not enough into engineering.

By: Wil Finley

Wil Finley — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:33:06 +0000

Yeah, I agree. I think regional solutions are oftentimes the most preferable. When you look at Iceland’s geothermal powered grid or the Hoover Dam, it’s really stunning how much energy can be captured. Every year advances in solar power make panels more efficient and less costly. Cutting edge wind farms (like in China’s wind belt) can provide a tremendous amount of energy. None of these are perfect, but they do a damn good job. It’s definitely important to not ignore the present for the future.

By: Zack Lindsey

Zack Lindsey — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:49:38 +0000

I think you’re right in that the story of next gen technology has become somewhat of a commodity. But doesn’t it seem as though we’re buying into the story more than the event? That is to say, doesn’t it feel like our potential for advancement has become more exciting than advancement itself? We’re waiting with bated breath for the next gamechanger, but I think we’re missing the forest for the trees. There are options out there. None of them are the one answer, but they are promising, if only for a certain geographic region. I’m talking about wind, tidal, geothermal, hydro, and even solar. It’s frustrating to see them written off as “springboards” or “steps in the right direction.” This perception stalls progress because none of these are global solutions. Maybe a more regional approach is needed.

By: Wil Finley

Wil Finley — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:49:12 +0000

I know what you mean, it does seem like the search for a panacea gets in the way of the adoption of incrementally improving technology. This may be a false dichotomy created by sensational reporting, as the energy landscape really is gradually improving (but writing about a 2 mpg bump in fuel efficiency makes for less interesting journalism). There is an awful lot of “hurry up and wait” surrounding many of these developments, which doesn’t help the perception that we’re making little headway either. I think lots of the energy breakthroughs we’re seeing these days have the potential to bridge the gap between where we are now and where we will need to be in 25 years in order to maintain our current growth (both in terms of technology and population). I think that this developmental model will continue to exist with the period between adoption and market maturity shrinking as time goes on. Eventually, an entirely new paradigm of energy consumption will emerge that replaces the model that has been in use since the industrial revolution. Hypothesizing what that future looks like is fun conjecture, though, and may make for an interesting article in the future. Great to hear from you, and thanks for the feedback.

By: Zack Lindsey

Zack Lindsey — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:45:53 +0000

So where do we feel this fits into the “energy revolution?” You mentioned several technologies. All seem to have some fatal error, but they are viable options. Is there going to be one global answer or do we already have the pieces to the puzzle–just not the edge pieces? I just feel like we’re wasting a lot of time searching for The Chosen One. Love the blog by the way, Wil.

By: Wil Finley

Wil Finley — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:44:44 +0000

I appreciate your point about sustainability, and agree that technological growth will compensate for many things regarded as unsustainable today. I don’t think that we can be complacent about innovation, however. If we just focus on getting by in the present, then we are not doing the necessary groundwork for creating ourselves a better future.

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:47:04 +0000

Any method for doing anything that cannot be sustained for 100 billion years minimum is unsustainable. Nothing is sustainable in the long term. So why not just focus on getting by with an eye towards future requirements?

And let me add that the things people were doing 200 years ago were unsustainable. And 200 years hence?

My definition of sustainable? Can we keep it up for about 100 years? Which is time enough to figure out what to do next.