@thejackel777 Your pros are wrong. It will not use low cost sand; materials will certainly be cheaper than platinum like that found in PEM fuel cells, but you also need a lot more ceramic material per Watt produced than the amount of platinum in a fuel cell. Also, a Bloom fuel cell will not store energy, it only generates electricity from fuels, so it's much closer to a generator than a battery.
The device is aimed at gamers and TV watchers, generating a 3D image with use of a pair of 0.7-inch OLED panels, which each display separate images, doing away with the ghost imagery that often comes along with 3D displays.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
This seems awesome, but I am sure like all the other technologies that we have seen that try to solve the energy issues this one too will have draw backs. I have started a pros and cons list about it. Let me know you thoughts http://www.proconlists.com/list/technology-science/bloom-energy-fuel-cells/6
@thejackel777 Your pros are wrong. It will not use low cost sand; materials will certainly be cheaper than platinum like that found in PEM fuel cells, but you also need a lot more ceramic material per Watt produced than the amount of platinum in a fuel cell. Also, a Bloom fuel cell will not store energy, it only generates electricity from fuels, so it's much closer to a generator than a battery.