Jump to content

Talk:Home fuel cell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are no "Advantage" "Disadvantage" sections for this. I'm used to seeing this in other articles, and feel it would be very useful here as well. Tomburtonyahoocom (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page does not explain what a 'home fuel cell' actually is (which it surely ought to do) - it just reads like an advert. Anguswalker (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. This page reads almost exactly like an advert with many catch phrases and little explanation or substantiated facts. 130.39.202.154 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article reads like an advert. At least explaining how this tech works would make it clear that there are emissions.

Nonsense

[edit]

This page claims that a home fuel cell can generate "1-4 kW annually", which to me is nonsensical. One typically refers to having generated or consumed a total quantity of something over a period of time, so it would be more sensible to quote an energy amount (ie kWh) instead of a power quantity (ie kW). Of course, we won't know what was meant, since no source seems to be cited! Anonymous, 16:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right, Anon -- it's a shame you didn't make the correction when you spotted it 8 months ago. I don't know if it was the result of sloppiness -- or just plain ignorance. Technology articles like this should be edited with great care to avoid such bonehead mistakes. At any rate (pun intended), I've fixed the problem (just deleted the word "annually"). Cgingold (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 'Environmental Impact' section: I disagree that CHP fuel cells are 'by definition' 100% efficient. Is there any manufacturer who would claim this? All machines have losses. CHP is often regarded as around 80% efficient (see Cogeneration). The definitions of fuel cell in Wiktionary and OED do not mention efficiency. I will correct this section in a few minutes. Tomphills (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fool cell from viessmann costs $22k euro and produces 750 watt of electricity with claimed efficency 37%. combined cycle gas plants have effictiency about 60% and cost about 10 times less per watt. all this article is one big lie 85.238.97.234 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poor

[edit]

I read the lead of this article and I still had no idea what the heck a "Home fuel cell" was. After reading the lead, the reader should have a general idea of what the article is about. After reading through the article, it seems like this is talking about solar energy? Why doesn't it state that in the lead, in plain English? I didn't make the change because I'm still not sure. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with solar PV

[edit]

The comparison with solar PV appears to consist mainly of unreferenced opinions of the author(s) based on their personal creed. For example, "However, these systems are not directly comparable because solar power is a renewable resource and natural gas is not."

If these two systems are to be directly compared, then the elephant in the room would seem to be dispatchability - That the fuel cell can produce energy on demand, whereas the solar array cannot. This doesn't seem to be mentioned at all. --Anteaus (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is nonsense. fool cells are not dispatchable, they require high temperature to work. comparison with solar is indeed full of lies, because solar produces electricity for free, while fool cells burn natural gas to produce a lot of heat and tiny bit of electricity and they compared heat from fool cells vs electricity from panels. in reality you will waste all produced electricity running air conditioner to cool excess heat from fool cell. you know what else burns natural gas to produce heat and electricity? any ICE generator with installed cost few hundred bucks per kw. so fool cell is like ng-fueled generator with less noise and no oil changes, but about 100 times more expensive 85.238.97.234 (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Home fuel cell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Home fuel cell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Specifics" Section

[edit]

I do not believe that a bullet point list belongs in any article, unless it is within a section and the bullets make logical sense together. This page's first section had three random "Facts", most missing citations. I translated those bullet points into cohesive sentences and moved them to the best places within the article. Still needs some work on language - most of this article still needs citations and still needs the proposed "Advantages" and "Disadvantages". Trifecta64 (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Research/Research%20Foundation/Research%20Foundation%20reports/Electrical/rfsmartgridreport.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Home_fuel_cell&oldid=1258609555"