The past few days there has been a lot written about the Bloom Box fuel cell and how wonderful it is. The articles and TV interview seem to have been uniformly done by non-technical types which probably serves Blooms purpose just fine. A couple of quotes from more technical types:
From a very interested party (a VC with money in the pot) -
“It’s a disruptive technology,” said John Doerr, a prominent venture capitalist who helped finance Bloom and sits on its board. “It works, so the hurdles are scale and cost. We’ve got to make a lot of these systems reliably, and that’s hard work.” My comment - There are thousands of technologies that could make the same claim.
From İEEE Spectrum -
If SOFC's haven't taken off it's because they produce power at higher cost than the grid, and there's no evidence that the Bloom Box will fix that.
From someone who most likely knows -
Some fuel cell experts have been blistering in their criticism of Bloom and its hypers. "I'm actually pretty pissed off about it, to be quite honest," is how Nigel Sammes, an SOFC expert at the Colorado School of Mines, expressed his emotions on the Bloom Box to National Geographic. "It really is nothing new. Go to any [SOFC] Web site and you'll see the same stuff."
The only thing technical on the web page for the Bloom Box is a technical description from the Colorado School of Mines. You would think that if they really had something they could at least make their own technical material and not use a generic writeup from a university.
İ believe they are in need of more funding!