Export thread

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/24/tech/main6238340.shtml?tag=topnews

This is actually pretty cool. So you can use almost any fossil fuel on it and air to generate electricity.

Edit:

Now you can also make a house out of plastic materials!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8534212.stm

Double win!

Holy shit! Are we looking at the future end of the large power companies? *crosses fingers*

Ohhh the future is now.

Dave said:

Holy shit! Are we looking at the future end of the large power companies? *crosses fingers*

Click to expand...

well... possible. I mean the large company can afford those $700,000 units (that one that Ebay, Google, and FedEx are using) I mean if the scales are correct, it is pretty impressive stuff. If natural gas works, I would be MORE than happy to install one of those in my house (I have natural gas line into my home for heating)

That looks awesome. This would work well for Colleges and Universities too. They're high investement and long payoff, but schools have the money and time to see it through.

Present a reasonable home model and I'm with Chibi.

Is this the secret PQRS project Steven Spielberg is working on?

Bitches be scared cause bitches don't know about my personal fusion reactor in the basement.

Not to be confused with Boom Blox.

Eh, I'm trying to be impressed. But it's just a stacked fuel cell. It reminds me of when everyone was saying the Segway would change everything, and it turned out to be a self-propelled hand truck. I mean, I see the applications, but it still uses fossil fuels, and still produces greenhouse gas.

Blog comments make my brain hurt. Like the guy who said that this would "bunch up power where it wasn't needed, leading Obamites to decommission power plants blah blah heehaw". That's so self-defeating it's not even funny, since the very situation he described is one on of the worse features of our current power system--overproduction of unused energy.

fade said:

Eh, I'm trying to be impressed. But it's just a stacked fuel cell. It reminds me of when everyone was saying the Segway would change everything, and it turned out to be a self-propelled hand truck. I mean, I see the applications, but it still uses fossil fuels, and still produces greenhouse gas.

Blog comments make my brain hurt. Like the guy who said that this would "bunch up power where it wasn't needed, leading Obamites to decommission power plants blah blah heehaw". That's so self-defeating it's not even funny, since the very situation he described is one on of the worse features of our current power system--overproduction of unused energy.

Click to expand...

I am impress that is has a smaller carbon footprint. While using a whole new energy would be "awesome" but alas, the rest of the world still depend on fossil fuel (look at the cars) at least this way it is a step up I think. The invention can use a lot of fuels to power it, maybe in the future can expand (if it takes off) to use more cleaner fuels or even non-fossil fuels (I can dream can I?)

I've given this whole situation a great deal of thought. I think we need to focus less on the power source, and more on the ways we turn energy into motion. The internal combustion engine is a very primitive design. So is the current electric motor. In 2009, we're still hammering pistons around in circles with explosions, losing oodles of energy to the very process of explosion and conversion from linear to angular motion in the crankshaft. We're still using consumable brushes in most electric motors. We need to rethink the whole idea from the ground up.

fade said:

I've given this whole situation a great deal of thought. I think we need to focus less on the power source, and more on the ways we turn energy into motion. The internal combustion engine is a very primitive design. So is the current electric motor. In 2009, we're still hammering pistons around in circles with explosions, losing oodles of energy to the very process of explosion and conversion from linear to angular motion in the crankshaft. We're still using consumable brushes in most electric motors. We need to rethink the whole idea from the ground up.

Click to expand...

Yea. I totally agree. The whole problem (from what I see anyways) is that the big wigs (the auto industry, the oil industry, and well the market really) don't WANT to get rid of the old stuff since it is there and making money. When I first saw that two of the U.S. Car company was going to die, I thought cool! let the nature of free market sort them out and maybe we can finally do something innovative, but NOOOO. the government had to bail them out (but that is another thread) The main issue of making new tech of any level is adaptability from the old tech.

I mean look at wireless. Europe and Asia are exploding with new type of wireless while the U.S. are lagging behind (like wireless transaction grocery, vending machine and such unlike China and Japan) cause we are still using the old wired lines. China has no previous infrastructure and willing to invest in new tech in the outer rim.

Also, I just realized it's 2010.

fade said:

I've given this whole situation a great deal of thought. I think we need to focus less on the power source, and more on the ways we turn energy into motion. The internal combustion engine is a very primitive design. So is the current electric motor. In 2009, we're still hammering pistons around in circles with explosions, losing oodles of energy to the very process of explosion and conversion from linear to angular motion in the crankshaft. We're still using consumable brushes in most electric motors. We need to rethink the whole idea from the ground up.

Click to expand...

Fade, in this house WE OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS! Away with you and your logic! But seriously, I'm pretty sure that engineers are always coming up with innovative ideas, just those ideas have to be cheap and simple enough for mass scale use. Internal combustion and dynamos are pretty much the cheapest way to power shit. I mean look at nuclear reactors. All that amazing technology: harnessing the power of the atom. To do what? Make steam and turn a big wheel.

See, you hit it on the head! I always HATED that about nuclear reactors. Instead of harnessing all that energy directly, we friggin' use it for a steam engine. How inefficient is that?