When almost every home in America has it's own power-plant electric companies are going to charge astronomical prices for the electricity feeding the rest of the homes.

Big business is a problem in America because they use any means necessary to make sure they keep seeing profits.

The problem with the bloom box, as you stated, is the fact that it still uses natural gas. (They taunted 6 months ago that it can use "any fuel" but I'm yet to see any evidence of that). But on top of the fact that it's a fossil fuel, is that it's something which needs to be delivered to every home, were the bloom box to become a per-house commodity. Natural gas prices would soar due to increased demand.

Two things big brother can't take away from us, though. are water and sunlight. And if these cobalt-nickel catalyst boxes can operate well enough, you'd never need to replace the water. 2Water -> H2 + 2O2 -> 2Water. But what we need to remember is that these will only ever be as efficient as the solar panels on top of them. The conversion from water to Hydrogen and Oxygen is just a way of storing of energy, and the conversion back to water releases said energy. Storage is important, but getting the energy in the first place is the main problem. Biofuels, direct solar power, wind, hydro, ALL are simply ways of retrieving stored solar energy. We just need to get better than nature at doing it (factoring in cost), then everyone can put down their pitch forks and start enjoying free energy :D

</rant>

This is WAY cool, and yet I already see detractors because it isn't "perfect" yet, its too big, costs too much... Baloney. EVERY new technology is that way, from wheels to space ships. The real point of this article is about the return on an investment.

When I was a kid back in the 1960's, there was no such thing as a fuel cell until NASA put them aboard Gemini space craft. For me, this was science fiction come to life.

Fast forward 50 years and I finally get to read a story about how that same technology can actually be used by an individual. Sure it costs, but have you priced a comparable all solar, or a back-up Diesel generator system lately?

The cool part is, if all goes well, in the not too distant future, we may finally kick the oil habit. And if we're real lucky, maybe, just maybe we can make the planet we live on better for all of us.

We can supply third world country's with individual power". To hell with third world country's, WE NEED THIS HERE. Not use our scientists to figure out how to make money by selling units for peanuts, and not giving US THE CHANCE TO POWER OURSELVES FIRST. Just like Ford with their diesel power cars in Europe that get 55 mpg, they can't sell them here because "THERE IS NO MARKET" for diesel here. Lies meant to keep us paying out the ass for stuff we developed.

These are great developments. Efficient energy storage is one of the Big Problems our society faces today, since it's one of the primary problems with most forms of clean renewable energy. Batteries just aren't good enough; pumped storage only works on a large scale and requires special geography. But fuel cells, if they are getting as good (cheap/efficient/reliable) as this news suggests, could be just the ticket.

You didn't touch on the vehicular implications — I'm curious whether one of these new fuel cells could replace the batteries in an electric car. Though I suppose H2+O2 isn't very easy to store compactly; you'd have to liquify it or compress it... perhaps some other chemistry would work better for that.

what it will take to a personal powerplant in every house? nanotechnology and 10 -20 years (if not sooner, but tech progress is quite unpredictable see, especially with volatile markets and government). The concept layed out by nocera is in no way fundamentally impossible. In fact, if anything, it is quite feasible. Its just that we have gotten into this rutt in the industrial assembly line of forgetting to cut not only the parts but aggregate through chain components. Solar cell set up can be drastically reduced with current tech with just a few minor tweaks. Fuel cells already, due to nanotech and supercapacitors, could very well, theoretically, power homes. It has been a few hurdles, such as expensive membranes and expensive processes to turn water into hydrogen, that have dissallowed this from happening already. The main bulk of the 'anchor' tech is already there. Nanotechnology has been improving solar cell tech so quickly, that many would have very likely deemend current advances very unlikely during our current timeframe of developments. We already have spray on film or glass tech that could drastically bring down the cost of solar cells, along with new organic materials that could reduce the amount used in silicon, hence the overall cost of the individual cells. With an electrochemical cell you could even convert the water into hydrgoen right on the cell, instead of using a seperate process that is powered by electricity generated by solar cells. You could have solar cells be electrochemical devices that use photos to split water with the catalysts built in.......Fuel cells are expensive due to the membrane, heating problems that reduce its lifespan, and lack of demand due to the first two. You change any of these variables with nanotech, and the whole thing changes. Fuel cells get progressively less expensive, and follow the arc of say, the personal computer (much of the same tech can be compared due to better manufacturing techniques and nanotech). Until eventually, yes, you could have a fuel cell, that uses hydrogen generated from solar cells and then turns it back into water to restart the whole process, and its efficiency gain would power most of an average's house's power needs....However, even if it only powers 20 percent or the bulk of it and its expensive so it can only be afforded through a 'neighborhood server' (not a house like nocera mentiones), it would drastically reduce greenhouse gases...why? because most of energy generated at the power plant is lost in transmission....its a very innefficient process. We are still using the same tech we used in the 1950's. If we generated part of the energy on site, even if its just 15 to 20 percent, it would drastically be more efficient and its cost savings over time would mean overall less power generated at the central (much less,m due to the aggregate of the neighborhood cells) because although the central is say, 60% efficient, the local fuel cell generator is around 80%, and so the extra net gain is significant...meaning we could very well go down to 50's levels in co2 levels as far as central power plants...

furthermore, supercapacitors could eventually be deployed to efficiently transport energy from centrals as well without the need for transport and power say...electric cars. If the house generator set up mentioned by nocera doesn't come about, which I beleive it will, we could very well combine fuel cell improvements with a larger more powerful battery in cars (enhanced with supercapacitors), which could then be powered by the fuel cells either through a neighborhood 'server' or an individual house fuel cell generator.

The point is this...hydrogen is flammable and tricky, hence expensive to transport, that is mainly why it hasn't taken off as a fuel, along with the expense of rpoducing it...if you produce the fuel onsight, either at the neighborhood or the house, then its cost of production dramatically decreases, both due to autonomy and no transport, and solar cell and catalytic efficiency gains allowing it to be produced more inexpensively...That combination could easily allow hydrogen to be used in a fuel cell to generate electricity for an electric car, and even if a battery that lacks the density for significant range is not found, supercapacitors in research labs right now, could very well be used to 'replace charges' in a car without you having to actually power it up. In other words, the supercapacitor 'charge' is powered up at a fuel cell station at your neighborhood or house, or even at a central power plant which is then distributed to gas stations, and you go to the station and simply replace your old supercapacitor or battery with a new one, which you then send back again to get your old one back, which will by then be charged..

hence in reality, the technology is already there...The problem has been coordination of all these technologies to 'spontaneously appear' and re-enforce the existance of all the individual parts, which by themselves would be too expensive to justify. If you get an entrepreneur or some smart howard hugues you put it all together, this could be done today. But it simply does not have the critical mass as investors put it, to be appetizing when it comes to risk. Nanotech and innovative set ups of already existant tenchnology combined in a creative way, will bring down the cost and the 'feel' and 'look' for these shy investors to come into the market. Once you get the technology in place and the investors seeing the big picture and game, there really is no stopping this tech.

I give it 15 years for all the pieces to fall in place and for nanotech to really enhance the whole thing so it takes off..After that...we may very well have individual power plants in our houses and use the grid less and less (maybe going off completely, technology is quite unpredictable like that). Also, the recent discovery of a very energetic material created under atmospheric pressure with a diamond anvil could also be used as a replacement in the long term for natural gas, that is now used to power many convenient devices, namely pools, jacuzzis, and barbecues with no harm to the environment. We could see power plants being used as simply charge up stations for super energetic batteries or fuels which are then shiped to individual locales. These technologies could eliminate co2 from the house and car all together and actually bring down the price of electricity and fuel ...

Even power plants are seeing a revolution in design, right now, not in the far or even close future, although their implementation is a bit far off because of lackluster demand. But that can change rather quickly with demand from citizens and the fed gov. Nuclear power plants could produce zero co2 and nuclear waste if a laser nuclear fusion-fision hybrid system was set up. You would use the fusion in a nuclear fusion plant to irradiate the fissile material in the nuclear fission plant with neutrons..this would accelerate the process at the end, and consume the very last embers of the fissile material...leading to greater efficiency, and zero nuclear waste. Such set up is theoretical, but well whithin current technology already. Then once we have this backbone set up, we could slowly drift to renewables and nuclear fusion with further advances in technology, perhaps space based solar power and be completely off a finite resource for energy, with its consumption being slowed down due to drastic efficiency gains by taking consumption off the grid and to individual neighborhoods, cities and homes, which would generate energy from the sun, with a set up similar to the one described by nocera. Then all we would need is advances in space technology, such as a space elevator or a cool scramjet, or just genius innovative cost reductions such as those attempted by spacex, and we can access orbit much cheaper to allow us to eventually mine minerals from asteroids, making our mineral consumption sustainable. Hell, the same technologies used in these things (nanotech) could then translate to dirt chear desalinators through lab on a chip technologies, avoiding future water shortages, and the same nanotech could then be used in material science to create more flexible and durable materials for scramjets to sustain heat during escape velocity and rentry and perhaps even yield the space elevator. We already, can go to space for dirt cheap, with current tech. Space loop, space fountain, project orion. They all could put us in space cheaply, but one is very controversial, and the other two are megaprojects, perhaps reaching in the hundreds of billions if not trillions, so if push comes to shuve, we could definitely blast ourselves with nuclear bombs into space if absolutely necessary.

We are simply waiting for cheaper better solutions. I know I seem very optimistic, but I really am not. You are asking if this COULD and can power the future. And the answer is absolutely. It is possible right now. Its just that the techs have not converged into one set up or other and the nanotech may be 15 years away. But all of what these people say is possible is very likely. Whether it will happen or not is another question entirely, but is it possible? can it power the future? certainly. Especially if the cost of oil continues to increase, alternatives start becoming more attractive, investment usually goes up...some get burned, but the aggregate effect is greater technological benefit.

in one, the tax payer loses, the other, the investor. I rather the investor, I don't know about you. We let them take the risks..those that jump the gun, get burned, those that do it just right, get rewarded. I think thats a fair trade.

btw, putting moratoriums on the oil rigs I thought would be counter-productive, because it could hamper economic growth at a crucial time where the economy is trying to recover. Those things would be smart when the economy is doing well, and even then, only in moderation, you don't want to put too much strain and then you raise the price of production and hence the technologies and innovation that will allow these things to happen...i say just let things run their course...in 20-25 years, if we have not found a solution, then lets start thinking about changing our way of life, but until then, its not very wise to jump the gun.

"Man's CHOSEN purpose is to explore and discover and it's getting more exciting what his reason -for being- is becoming!

This technology already exists! Search the name Mike Strizki, and you'll find a man who has built his whole house to run on such a system. The combination of fuel cells and solar power have been powering his home for years! This is no concept...we're already there!