Greetings
118 views and no comments as of yet, wow!I wonder why. Where are the so called Environmentalist, have they nothing to say?,then I'll make the first comment.

I think this technology has the potential to be successful for the following reasons:

1. Natural gas is plentiful in the Canada and the USA and fairly cheap, and bio gas production is on the rise
2. Compared to coal, which produces much of our electricity(USA)it would extract energy more efficiently. With coal you burn it, heat water to produce steam, use steam to turn an alternator, transmit the power over long transmissions lines. Only 20% to 30% of the energy actually arrives in your home from coal(USA)
3. Fuel cell produces electricity directly from fuel eliminating the multiple thermodynamic transfers and inherent inefficiencies.
4. The 10% transmission line loss can be reduced significantly if the energy server could be in a neighborhood or substation
5. This fuel cell appears to be unique in that a) it uses no expensive metals like most other commercial fuel cells,(Ballard Power Systems Inc, http://www.ballard.com/) b) the materials that make up the fuel cells and associated anodes and cathodes have consistent thermal expansion coefficient properties over a wide range of temperatures to improve reliability, c) There is no excess heat generated (and associated loss) as with other high temperature fuels cells. They(BLOOM) have figured out how to reuse the heat to generate even more power (I don't believe this has been done before). d) other types of low temperature fuel cells have to have fuel reformers to use multiple fuels creating complexity and inefficiency.

I don't think this is an end-all, be-all product, but It seems to have the potential to improve our overall energy efficiency/reduce GHG's as a nation by significant percentage points if widely adopted.

GROUNDPOUNDER

10 cents a kwh (industrial sized unit) is good but will this also work efficiently in a house ? Fuel efficiency is said to be 50 to 55 percent. But it looks easy to vandalize those million dollar 100 kw industrial units. Terrorists could easily destroy them. Sure beats nuclear power
though. Seems to me a methane economy instead of a hydrogen economy is the way to go. Maybe Syncrude-Oil should become Syncrude-Syngas and make syn-gas instead of oil from that oil-sand gunk ! And we can all then use syn-gas in our cars and homes via fuel=cells.
And we shouldn't bury the sequestered/captured C02, instead convert it to methane by adding hydrogen to it.
Thus methane would become a RENEWABLE resource just like wind, water, waves, geothermal power, solar, fire wood, bio-diesel etc.