Talk:Bloom Energy Server

60 Minutes story
According to the counter on their web site this is getting ready to go public. This article is going to need updating.FX (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing a 60 minutes story about an Indian person with a fuel cell. Please provide the the date the story first aired in the US. Thank you. Geraldshields11 (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sridhar
Can we get a little biography of the guy? or should there be another page for this man? 58.179.137.71 (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a seprate artice for K. R. Sridhar. Geraldshields11 (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Article balance
The article does not accurately reflect the balance of the press coverage, which has been mixed. I've added sources to the feasibility section and toned down some of the glow (it really isn't necessary to list the CEO's educational degrees in the introduction), but the overall structure and most sections need a review by other experienced eyes for balance. This article was created three days ago and has had very few authors. Durova 412 01:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Then where should his education and background info be? Should there be a Sridhar page like there is a Larry Page page? 58.179.137.71 (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please put that and his University of Arizona work into a biography article. I could help you start to create one.  Durova  412 16:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this should solve it. I've created K.R. Sridhar. For starters it's basically just a cut and paste stub of a few lines that were outside the scope of the company article. The information was referenced and is very relevant for the founder's biography. Please expand pre-Bloom Energy information about Sridhar there. Thanks, Durova  412 16:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, virtually all the content so far is company data from their website or press conference, albeit much has had a quick lookover by business newsies. This is a chronic problem for our articles about privately held companies. I'm afraid we still need an NPOV tag. User:LeadSongDog come howl  18:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the NPOV tag is more appropriate than the breaking news tag, at this point? We're getting pretty near an accurate reflection of the available sources.  The sources themselves just haven't had much time and information.  Durova  412 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hydrolysis
Reposting edit summary for clarity:
 * Hydrolysis consumes energy, and simply reversing hydrolysis is not a feasible source of energy on earth because free hydrogen is lighter than air. The statement could be relevant to the CEO's biography (he may be notable to have one).

This is basic high school level chemistry and physics: free hydrogen will react with other elements or bond with itself to form H2 and escape earth gravity. The paragraph reads like an attempt to coatrack a rather loose NASA connection into the company history, based solely upon the CEO's prior University of Arizona affiliation. No objection to starting a biography about him and including something along those lines there. Durova 412 03:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarity
Please be careful about shuffling sentences and the confusion that could create for readers. A recent reordering made it appear that one of the venture capitalists was refuting a statement about fuel cell manufacturing costs with an assertion about kilowatt hour costs. Durova 412 03:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

NextCell related?
At this, this, and this we see what appear to be the same 10cm square cells five years ago. Made by NexTech Materials and marketed as "NextCell" Any relation? User:LeadSongDog come howl  20:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear User:LeadSongDog,, I am getting a 404 error when I click on the PDF links you provided. Please help with up todate links. Thanks. Geraldshields11 (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tried the Wayback machine? Anyhow, it looks as if they reorganized their website. The MSDS is still there.LeadSongDog come howl!  16:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Coffee shop?
The statement: "a single cell (one metal alloy plate between the two ceramic layers) produces enough power for a light bulb (25w) and 64 cells produce enough for a coffee shop" sets my BS detector going. Who can run a coffee shop on 1.6kW? That's enough for a single domestic coffee maker. Going full out, it could make one 250ml cup of coffee per minute. Even Starbucks isn't that slow. User:LeadSongDog come howl  21:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Might be a good idea to double check all technical paraphrases. The IP address that contributed a lot of the positive content seems to lack understanding of engineering and chemistry.  Durova  412 21:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The cited Guardian article says of the CEO "He declares that one such stack, or cell, can power a light bulb; 64 can power a coffee shop." The problem isn't the paraphrasing, it's that reporters don't always do the math.User:LeadSongDog come howl  22:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem with covering that here at en:wiki is we can't do original research. At Wikinews it's allowable.  Rather fun to skewer that kind of reporting.  If you want to start a parallel article there, drop me a link.  I have admin ops at that project.  Durova  412 22:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, good idea. I removed the coffee shop comparison. InternetMeme (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good solution. Durova  412 23:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Puffy/Bad reporting is regretable in science reporting. Consensus achieved. Geraldshields11 (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Engadget.com citations
I had started to reduce the engadget.com citations, but they seem to be spreading again. Their company profile states that they're a startup that was created a few years ago in concert with Weblogs, Inc. It's debatable whether they count as a reliable source. Please use other sources; with this much media attention better alternatives shouldn't be hard to find. Durova 412 22:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources getting updated
An IP address recently removed a mention of Google on a not in source cited basis. Turns out the San Jose Mercury News updated its story during the interim and appears to have cut that fact. Similar things might be happening with other sources used in the article. Durova 412 00:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's another reason for WP:NOTNEWS. It seems that after a day or two news publisher tend to stabilize stories. I suppose we'll have to revisit each story on Friday to validate the coverage. User:LeadSongDog come howl  02:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if the article hadn't already been at stub class this would have been much better for Wikinews. Durova  412 03:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Splitting article
The company Bloom Energy has no notability outside the subject of this article. The only other reason for splitting that section would be if it was too long to be contained comfortably in this article.

Chemical reaction is wrong
The combustion reaction of methane, as written in the article, is not at all correct. If someone wants to show that there is a flow of electrons occurring, they should give the half reactions or just link to combustion of methane. Tarheels 100 (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Gas fired power plant efficiency
An expert at Gerson Lehrman Group, wrote that, given today's electricity transmission losses of about 7% and utility size gas fired power stations efficiency of 26-48%

Some expert. There are gas fired power stations with better generating efficiency than that. See combined cycle gas turbine. The GE Energy H System gets 60% efficiency. If you use combined heat and power you get even better energetic efficiency. The burn outputs are mostly the same (CO2, H2O). Fuel cells have their uses, you would want them in smaller sized installations where combustion would not be as efficient. But blatant lies will not help them get business. Quasarstrider (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you may be missing something here. The utility will run its most efficient units as base load, saving the less efficient units for load following. The marginal effect of adding new high efficiency distributed generation is to offload the low efficiency load follower sources, which may very well be below 48%. Thank you though for the comparative reference material, it was instructive.User:LeadSongDog come howl  06:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, utilities run the lowest cost units as base load. Natural gas units, which start up in minutes but burn an expensive fuel, are used as peaking plants.  Coal, nuclear, hydro, and oil-fired plants are used for base load.  Wind and solar are used when they're producing their intermittent output.  Natural gas turbines have good thermal efficiency, but are not the lowest cost energy sources at current fuel prices. For background, see PJM 101, the introductory course for the utility grid for the Eastern US. More than you ever wanted to know about load dispatch. --John Nagle (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, lowest marginal cost units for base load might be more to the point. Capital costs for nuclear plants, solar, and wind are high, but the marginal cost of running them as much of the time as technically possible is low. Conversely the need for peaking capacity on demand (irrespective of sunshine or wind conditions) drives the need for hydroelectric, gas-turbine, and now fuel-cell plants. Insufficient peaking capacity means either load shedding, brownouts, or blackouts, especially on hot humid summer weekday afternoons. To avoid those conditions, it is worth paying a higher cost per marginal GWh. The energy storage of hydroelectric reservoirs is a rather special case in comparison. With a full reservoir the marginal cost of operating for base load is low, but with a near-empty reservoir it rises, reflecting the potential opportunity cost of reduced peak-hour capacity. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

kw an kwh
The installed Bloom Boxes are rated at 100kw. But the electricity consumed in my house, according to my bill, is 15-18kwh per day. So what sized Bloom Box would I need for my house? 58.179.137.25 (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On average? The day has 24h, so if you use under 18/24 or 0.75kW, far too little for a 100kW unit to be economic.User:LeadSongDog come howl  05:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

orders of magnitude
"The current cost of each hand-made 100 kW Bloom Energy Server is $700,000–800,000. In the next stage, which will likely be mass production of home-sized units, Sridhar hopes to more than halve the cost of each of home sized Bloom servers to under $3000." Huh? While technically, reducing 700,000 to less than 3000 IS "more than halving" it, would it not be much better to say, for instance, "reduce the cost by two orders of magnitude"? malenkylizards 151.196.92.247 (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The $700,000 unit is for an office not a home. It generates 100KW in one hour so in 24 hours or one day it generates 2400KWH. The house above shows 15-18KWH per day so (18KWH/2400KWH)*$700,000 Is $5250. Then half of that is $2625 much less than $3000. The problem is to make it smaller for about half the price. Dsmith7707 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it generates 100 kW average electrical power. Sustained for one hour, it generates 100 kW·h electrical energy. Sustained for 24h it generates 2.4 MW·h electrical energy. It also produces heat (a.k.a. "thermal energy") but that's not what you're referring to. Please be careful about these abbreviations, they mean something. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a B.S.E.E and a M. S. E. E. and do a lot of computer programming. I use k for 1024 and K for 1000. Maybe I should reverse that. I didn’t know that the h in hour should be lowercase and hyphenated. The heat is only used to keep the reaction going not for extraction. And why are you so picky this is just a discussion not the main page. Dsmith7707 (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You say "It generates 100KW in one hour". I'm so picky because I worry about editors becoming confused. While few laypeople would confuse speed with distance, it seems a great many confuse power with energy. I'd hate to have any additional editors here operating under that misconception. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Environmental Benefits
It will be nice to see a clear cut environmental benefits spelled out (maybe in table format) and what are those in comparison to. A table of input resource and output resource of Bloom product and other product-- say a conventional power plant will help that may show CO2 and other emission reductions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samamehta (talk • contribs) 00:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

produces green house gases?
"Since it uses fossil fuels, namely natural gas and petroleum derived fuels, it still produces green house gases and still contributes to global warming."

What? I thought it is a fuel cell. The output is water, heat and electricity. It is just the reverse process of separating H and O from Water by electricity.

H2 (from fuel) goes into anode which separate electrons from protons. Electrons flow out as electricity upon return from circuit go into cathode where O2 (from air) combines with the H protons and returning electrons to from H2O and heat.

What am I misunderstanding? 96.234.192.152 (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It uses Natural Gas (CH4) which produces CO2 in addition to H2O and electricity. It is not a pure H2 fuel cell, rather it is a SOFC that uses CH4 as fuel. Therefore you do get CO2 emissions through the generation process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13.2.16.152 (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Government Subsidies
Its would be interesting to have a cross perspective on subsidies vs anti-trust laws and the impact these subsidies are actually having on the economy. There is already a lawsuit against the state of Delaware but no one is connecting the dots between subsidies and unfair competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billegge (talk • contribs) 15:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Anti-trust laws have no place in this article. The discussion of the tax subsidies does have a minor place in a subsection on economics. Geraldshields11 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Could eliminate need for electrical transmission/distribution?
I'm wondering if anyone has come across a financial analysis that assumes new construction (e.g. of a residential subdivision i.e. housing tract.) A conventional subdivision would have natural gas and electrical utility service to each house. If high reliability can be assured for the Bloom device (or two independent Bloom units are installed per house) and the natural gas supply is considered reliable (as it usually is in the USA) there would not be a need for electrical distribution infrastructure within a new subdivision. (Every house would have natural gas piping, but be off the electrical grid.) I suppose one could also envision a subdivision in which every house used a micro gas turbine generator, but that wouldn't achieve the efficiency of the Bloom device, so it wouldn't be seen as green, just as a way to be off-grid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetsuo (talk • contribs) 05:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Efficiency
I'm surprised that the "Efficiency" section doesn't give the efficiency of the unit. The following "Long term business case" section gives an efficiency of 52%, but that entire section seems to be original research, or at best sourced by the company. Hard to tell since the source is 404. I came to this article looking for the efficiency, which seems to be the unit's main selling point and the first thing many people will want to know, and I still don't know. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

explanation desperately needed about why this companies technology competes as made by several with several others but is NOT the sole one used for mobility
I'm of course finding a lack of information ab out significance in this write up. Like those complaining about efficiency we are supposed to be dispelling mystery- so I nominate the fact  that that's a delta between competing technologies. Anytime you apply technology to missnamed I'd say "primary" energy, that's grid connected, including ANY form of distributed electricity generation, your efficiency gain will be minimal.

Despite being electric our rail lines are distributed combustion powered. At present pollution regulation but not carbon taxing has googling even the most portable methane not found in the shared car app easally enough. The bloom box is shipped by truck and rail fully assembled but those vehicles, that would need a tiny engine/amount-of 'alternative fuel' to get back to the factory don't bother to plug into the stacks onboard- why?

This article already aspires to dispel myths, to clarify whath a lack of balance instead fosters further myths wrongly right? Physically they are optimal for powering locomotives, and although a street legal race car 'generates' a megawatt of power (from eight cylinders!) the combustion free locomotives with on board generation (off grid but on track, third rail-less as if a 3rd one is needed) but have not messed with that business, and I can only speculate this is a tax issue if not 'national security.'

I want to emphasize the obvious in closing this suggestion for our encyclopedia- the built boxes are ALL available for this purpose. I think all of them have a grid connected ready to take over when they get transplanted to power train wheels, to heat up mainly wheel bearings ulimately and in so doing letting that in motion continue so as if without any resistance. As a matter of merit eminent domain might  work- they should all be repurposed and much more then there construction  cost can be paid. (reimbursing the feds or funding a trust account to subsidize there replacements when and if enough are ever built to make connecting them tothe grid responsible)

The main controversy is should island power be subsidized like gridded. IN Bloom's case we subsidize UPS's which in a competitive environment enables old energy hogging equipment to have an extended life. The delta between a diesel genpak and cheap motor versus other forms of chemical propulsion rots on the ground from our silence. END IT. The green action should not be in the air, it should be in the conversion of fossil's to horsepower and any use of electricity at any poiont in that process is where the inefficiency is.....

P.S.

Some also complain about the 'debt' level this company carries after all these years from accrued investment without counting the public subsidies. The mystery I ask us to note is in part how a lack of clarity as to whether this endorsements are research in nature- that is the installed base is far from optimal but is now an overdone proof of concept  additional public sponsorship of is wrong, we get it, and now the ball is in the market court, where if set free it would first be kicked to trains allowing them to build new tracks and get freight off truck driver's backs. We get it. Additional demonstrations of this relatievely large app waste prescous not just capital but constructed 'server's adn the business model should be that of oil platforms- locomotives not owned by an company but helicoptered from track to tack not just train to train for the savingswhich is quite high per hour in present diesel expenditure. I bet for half of what is now being spent on diesel huge profits could be made leasing locomotives even ones no regular runs EVEN if that means coal trains with oportunistic refilling of low pressure methane bladders increasing there lenghth and height many fold. A small gas pipe running along the track can refill these swappable bladders every five miles or whatever distance most cost effective versus continous connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.126.36 (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What? Geraldshields11 (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * After reading this long comment and the comment about an off the grid subdivision, I realized that something was missing from the article. How does the Bloom Energy Server heat up to 1800 °F? Please could someone explain? If someone could expain, with a third party cite, then we could add that information to the article. I belive it would help balance the article. Thank you. Geraldshields11 (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

$7–800,000
"The current cost of each hand-made 100 kW Bloom Energy Server is $7–800,000" That is quite a range. I will buy the $7 one. Maybe we should avoid ranges that can be interpreted in more than one way. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Predictions need update
Some of the predictions from years past, such as the 2010 claim of a home-sized unit Real Soon Now, don't seem to have happened. The article needs updating. --John Nagle (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bloom Energy Server. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://newsreleases.sprint.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=127149&p=irol-newsArticle_newsroom&ID=1277707

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bloom Energy Server. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707205935/http://www.ballard.com/files/pdf/Spec_Sheets/PEM_FC_Product_Portfolio_docmetrics.pdf to http://www.ballard.com/files/pdf/Spec_Sheets/PEM_FC_Product_Portfolio_docmetrics.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed split
I am proposing that the corporate information be split into another article, titled Bloom Energy. Any objections? (I will leave this section open for at least 72 hours after the time stamp placed next to my signature.) Daylen (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Bloom Energy Page Updates
My name is Conner and I work in the marketing department at Bloom Energy. The current page is too narrowly focused on our CEO and the founding details of the company, rather than milestones and useful company information regarding financials and current products offerings. I would like to share a draft of a dramatically improved version that has fleshed out many key business details, milestones, product and services information, and better citations as a replacement for the current page. This is a comprehensive history that includes criticisms and praise. I was hoping a disinterested editor might take the time to take a look and let me know if they have any feedback. Conner at Bloom Energy (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply 18-MAY-2019
Regards, Spintendo  16:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The requested prose is insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. This includes the use of MOS:QUOTE material which is not properly attributed.
 * Please rephrase the text so that it is placed in your own words and phrasing or else properly attributes quoted material.


 * Hi . Thanks for bringing my attention to the Manual of Style regarding attribution for quoted material. I have updated the draft accordingly. I'm going to start a new discussion string on the draft on the actual Bloom Energy Talk page I just started, since that is the page in question. Conner at Bloom Energy (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)