Bringing hippies and survivalists together since 2010
February 23rd, 2010 | Published in general | 6 Comments
I’m very interested and excited to learn more about the Bloom Box tomorrow, purported to be the first high efficiency wireless powerplant capable of replacing our current power grid.
So far it’s only been revealed on this past Sunday’s 60 Minutes show, but apparently Google, eBay, FedEx and a few others have been using versions of the box for several months already. The details are secret, but it sounds like a material refinement of a typical fuel cell, providing twice the efficiency and able to use a wide range of fuels, from natural gas to plant rot methane. Current fuel cells use hydrogen, which has a high cost to produce and obvious logistical problems what with the explosions and all.
The wireless aspect of this is just as fascinating to me, and i wonder how that works in a practical sense. If there was, say, a neighborhood Bloom Box or one in the alley, would every house have some sort of receiver that the home fuse box connected to? It’s a little unsettling, the idea of wireless power signals flying through the neighborhood, but maybe that’s how people felt when radio was just a new idea too.
The idea of the Bloom Box inevitably makes me think of the Stirling Engine. Like the Bloom Box, it was designed to run on any fuel (way moreso than the original Diesel), including solid fuels like wood. Stirlings don’t have the sort of acceleration and power curve of the internal combustion engine, but were meant more as a more efficient version of the steam engine, used in applications where the engine runs at a relatively constant rate and power is managed with a coupling clutch. There are modern Stirling-powered generators available right now, along with a few other commercial products, but adoption has been limited to a niche market.
Still, you have to love the idea of electrical and mechanical power that are compatible with a variety of widely available fuels. A Box in every basement, a Stirling under every hood, and the on- or off-grid question won’t even make sense. It’s easy to be skeptical, but at least with the 60-Minutes piece, the skeptic they included was all about handwaving and big corporate takeovers, nothing specific (though to be fair, there aren’t any published tech specifics to attack). Count me among the very optimistic with this one.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:03 pm (#)
The “wireless” was meant to mean that it is not connected to the grid. That is, no power lines coming into your house. You would still wire the box to your electrical circuitry.
Of course, it is not fully detached. It is not “pipeless”. You would still need a connection to your utility company to supply the natural gas that fuels it.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:15 pm (#)
Yeah, that would make more sense – i was thinking ‘wireless’ in the sense of Tesla out in a field making light bulbs turn on.
Still, i wonder it it wouldn’t work out to some sort of economies of scale where individual homes wouldn’t have boxes so much as more localized neighborhood grids. On the other hand, if household units are really under $3000, they’d probably pay for themselves in about 3-4 years.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:54 pm (#)
So does this make you a hippie or a survivalist, Bill?
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:49 pm (#)
Me? I’m a bowler.
February 24th, 2010 at 7:46 am (#)
There is such a thing as wireless power transmission — it’s called an arc.
February 24th, 2010 at 12:35 pm (#)
“Fiona, now don’t play too close to the arc… remember what happened last time?”
“The soccer ball exploded?”
“Right. You don’t want that to happen to your doll, do you?”
“…”
“How about if you just play inside today, ok?”