<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bloom Energy Makes Lower Carbon Electricity From Gas in Chattanooga, Tennessee</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2010/07/07/bloom-energy-makes-lower-carbon-electricity-from-gas-in-chattanooga-tennessee/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/07/07/bloom-energy-makes-lower-carbon-electricity-from-gas-in-chattanooga-tennessee/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 19:19:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: magnetic electricity generator guy</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/07/07/bloom-energy-makes-lower-carbon-electricity-from-gas-in-chattanooga-tennessee/#comment-9677</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[magnetic electricity generator guy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 10:21:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=12487#comment-9677</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I like this blog...excellent info. Will keep it as a favorite. Is there a facebook page?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like this blog&#8230;excellent info. Will keep it as a favorite. Is there a facebook page?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr. A. Cannara</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/07/07/bloom-energy-makes-lower-carbon-electricity-from-gas-in-chattanooga-tennessee/#comment-9676</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dr. A. Cannara]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 04:49:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=12487#comment-9676</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Susan Kraemer&#039;s remarks about the Bloom Box are incorrect...



&quot;It turns natural gas into electricity with a lower carbon footprint than a gas-fired power plant (which emits between 1.3 and 1.5 lbs of CO2 per kilowatt hour) with half the emissions at only 0.8 lbs of CO2 per kwh.”



The EPA average for US fired generation, including coal, is 1.4lbs CO2 per kWHr delivered at the customer.  Gas-fired plants run well below that figure, nearer 1lb/kWHr.  In fact, Bloom&#039;s efficiency is only slightly better than the average combustion plant&#039;s 40%.  Thus, the Bloom fuel-cell design may be useful in remote areas with good gas quality, but their size &amp; cost make them a poor choice for centralized generation.



Add to this the myth that MSW gas can be easily managed &amp; burned in large quantities and we find real problems with the Bloom hype.  Remember, they&#039;ve been at it for some years and their VC (Kleiner Perkins...) is anxious to get some $ out of an IPO.



As for climate change, we can&#039;t be burning anything new and it&#039;s past time for us to get that.  See p53 here, for example...

www.copenhagendiagnosis.org



And, remember, we&#039;ve had over 100 years of warning from the father of industrial chemistry...

www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf



Time&#039;s long past to separate the fads from reality.

--

Dr.Alexander Cannara

650-400-3071]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Susan Kraemer&#8217;s remarks about the Bloom Box are incorrect&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8220;It turns natural gas into electricity with a lower carbon footprint than a gas-fired power plant (which emits between 1.3 and 1.5 lbs of CO2 per kilowatt hour) with half the emissions at only 0.8 lbs of CO2 per kwh.”</p>
<p>The EPA average for US fired generation, including coal, is 1.4lbs CO2 per kWHr delivered at the customer.  Gas-fired plants run well below that figure, nearer 1lb/kWHr.  In fact, Bloom&#8217;s efficiency is only slightly better than the average combustion plant&#8217;s 40%.  Thus, the Bloom fuel-cell design may be useful in remote areas with good gas quality, but their size &amp; cost make them a poor choice for centralized generation.</p>
<p>Add to this the myth that MSW gas can be easily managed &amp; burned in large quantities and we find real problems with the Bloom hype.  Remember, they&#8217;ve been at it for some years and their VC (Kleiner Perkins&#8230;) is anxious to get some $ out of an IPO.</p>
<p>As for climate change, we can&#8217;t be burning anything new and it&#8217;s past time for us to get that.  See p53 here, for example&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org</a></p>
<p>And, remember, we&#8217;ve had over 100 years of warning from the father of industrial chemistry&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf</a></p>
<p>Time&#8217;s long past to separate the fads from reality.</p>
<p>&#8212;</p>
<p>Dr.Alexander Cannara</p>
<p>650-400-3071</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cortney Depuy</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/07/07/bloom-energy-makes-lower-carbon-electricity-from-gas-in-chattanooga-tennessee/#comment-9675</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cortney Depuy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 06:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=12487#comment-9675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kudos for the superb ideas, It was exactly what I was searching for]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kudos for the superb ideas, It was exactly what I was searching for</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Susan Kraemer</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/07/07/bloom-energy-makes-lower-carbon-electricity-from-gas-in-chattanooga-tennessee/#comment-9673</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Susan Kraemer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:52:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=12487#comment-9673</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No, it is reduced CO2 from &lt;strong&gt;natural gas&lt;/strong&gt; when compared to a &lt;strong&gt;natural gas&lt;/strong&gt; fired plant:

&quot;It turns natural gas into electricity with a lower carbon footprint than a gas-fired power plant (which emits between 1.3 and 1.5 lbs of CO2 per kilowatt hour) with half the emissions at only 0.8 lbs of CO2 per kwh.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, it is reduced CO2 from <strong>natural gas</strong> when compared to a <strong>natural gas</strong> fired plant:</p>
<p>&#8220;It turns natural gas into electricity with a lower carbon footprint than a gas-fired power plant (which emits between 1.3 and 1.5 lbs of CO2 per kilowatt hour) with half the emissions at only 0.8 lbs of CO2 per kwh.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lawrence Weisdorn</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/07/07/bloom-energy-makes-lower-carbon-electricity-from-gas-in-chattanooga-tennessee/#comment-9671</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lawrence Weisdorn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:42:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=12487#comment-9671</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t get it.  They claim reduced CO2 from landfill gas when compared to a gas fired plant, but zero emission when compared to coal.  How can that be?



The Bloom Box is fuel-agnostic. It could be used with landfill gas, or biogas from MSW or other waste gases, to make zero carbon electricity. It turns natural gas into electricity with a lower carbon footprint than a gas-fired power plant (which emits between 1.3 and 1.5 lbs of CO2 per kilowatt hour) with half the emissions at only 0.8 lbs of CO2 per kwh.





The real carbon reductions come when it would make use of a waste gas like landfill gas in an over 90% coal-powered state like Wyoming, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia or North Dakota.  Compare it with the dominant fuel, coal, which emits 2 lbs per kwh when burned, and the improvement is dramatic – zero emissions.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t get it.  They claim reduced CO2 from landfill gas when compared to a gas fired plant, but zero emission when compared to coal.  How can that be?</p>
<p>The Bloom Box is fuel-agnostic. It could be used with landfill gas, or biogas from MSW or other waste gases, to make zero carbon electricity. It turns natural gas into electricity with a lower carbon footprint than a gas-fired power plant (which emits between 1.3 and 1.5 lbs of CO2 per kilowatt hour) with half the emissions at only 0.8 lbs of CO2 per kwh.</p>
<p>The real carbon reductions come when it would make use of a waste gas like landfill gas in an over 90% coal-powered state like Wyoming, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia or North Dakota.  Compare it with the dominant fuel, coal, which emits 2 lbs per kwh when burned, and the improvement is dramatic – zero emissions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
