Bloom or Bust

[john5746]

Promising clean energy, boom or bust? Major announcements tomorrow...

 

How it works

 

bloom energy website

[insane_alien]

well, the big warning bell thats going off is that its powered by fossil fuels yet 'has no emissions'.

 

its true that using a fuel cell can be more efficient than a good old open flame, but it's still going to produce CO2. and it is hardly a nocel idea. fuelcell microgeneration has been a proposed solution for quite a while now.

 

from the information available, i think bust. they're trying to keep it somewhat covered up probably to drum up interest. i wouldn't be too surprised if this was a pump and dump scam.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The bit about eBay, if true, lends it a bit of credibility though. I suppose we'll have to wait to see how it works to see if they have some clever new chemistry going on, or they're just creatively omitting information from their press releases.

[Pangloss]

It's legitimate, just not as spectacular as the reporting suggests. They have installations at Google, Ebay and a number of other high-profile locations. They were featured this past week on 60 Minutes (the video can be found here). The report was pretty awful -- from the promotions and initial reporting (references to NASA and Mars) I thought it was some sort of cheap/small RTG device (Woohoo, I can put a nuclear power plant in my back yard! Where do I sign up for the beta?), and it was several minutes before I learned that it was a fuel cell. Media reporting can be such a dog when it comes to energy stories.

 

I believe the primary innovations over competing fuel cell technology are adaptability to various fuel types and size (efficiency). Nothing earth-shattering, just some good engineering that will likely have an impact on future development. In other words, business as usual, but to Leslie Stahl, pure magic.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Pangloss

[Sisyphus]

They claim that it is substantially cheaper, more efficient, and more adaptable than existing fuel cells, and that is possible (though not yet sufficiently demonstrated). It isn't just a scam, since they have units in actual use, but it isn't really clear what it's all about, either, apparently due to a combination of intentional secrecy and sensationalist reporting. Not magic, not even a fundamentally different technology, but still potentially game-changing if it can live up the hype. Or maybe it's just the Segway of electricity generators.

[john5746]

well, the big warning bell thats going off is that its powered by fossil fuels yet 'has no emissions'.

 

You called it. There is CO2 emissions, although they claim less than the grid on average. If you get your power from a nuclear site, maybe not.

 

It looks like a viable alternative or addition for increasing power needs. More details as to climate, maintenance, etc. should help determine practicality.

[npts2020]

They are using natural gas to power the ones at google and e-bay but may be doing it more efficiently than a coal fired plant. The problem is that they are pretty expensive and it looks like those companies are going to be 6-10 years at recovering their investment the way it stands now. IMO it is better than most of the technology we are now using but not by a great amount and no better than most sustainable sources.

[Moontanman]

My first thought was to use it in a car to power an electric motor. Natural gas (methane) or propane are relatively abundant and methane can be made from bio-waste. It would make fueling a electric car easier and more efficient than a battery.

[Phi for All]

The problem is that they are pretty expensive and it looks like those companies are going to be 6-10 years at recovering their investment the way it stands now.

It seems like more than that to me:

The corporate boxes cost about $700,000 to $800,000.

 

Ebay installed five Bloom Boxes nine months ago, and they fuel about 15 percent of its San Jose campus, said CEO John Donahoe in the 60 Minutes interview. “It’s been very successful thus far,” Mr. Donahoe says, adding that the company has saved $100,000 in electricity costs already.

For an investment of $3.75M, it will take a year for eBay to save $0.13M. Is electric energy expected to triple in price in the next 6-10 years?

[swansont]

Slightly different numbers quoted here, but funny math. (emphasis mine)

 

eBay CEO John Donahoe told 60 Minutes that the five Bloom Boxes installed seven months ago at the company's campus in San Jose, California, now provide almost 15 percent of eBay's electricity needs. Estimated energy savings for the seven months: $100,000.

 

At that rate, the Bloom Boxes

should pay for themselves within three years

, Donahoe told the business-news site Fast Company.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100224-bloom-box-launch-bloom-energy-press-conference-update/

 

Three years might pay for one box, unless there are some one-time issues cutting into that $100k number, and the savings accelerate dramatically. But he says "at that rate," which only makes sense if that's the savings per box. And that's not what was claimed.

[john5746]

Maybe they had a buy two get three free sale. Big, rich companies tend to get deals like that.

[Phi for All]

Three years might pay for one box, unless there are some one-time issues cutting into that $100k number, and the savings accelerate dramatically. But he says "at that rate," which only makes sense if that's the savings per box. And that's not what was claimed.

We also don't know what the replacement factors are. What's the longevity of a Bloom Box? Do its internal elements decay or need replenishing, similar to photovoltaic encapsulation degradation? I just don't see how they arrive at those numbers for investment recovery.

[swansont]

We also don't know what the replacement factors are. What's the longevity of a Bloom Box? Do its internal elements decay or need replenishing, similar to photovoltaic encapsulation degradation? I just don't see how they arrive at those numbers for investment recovery.

 

They do mention a 10-year maintenance contract, but don't say what that entails or how that might fudge the numbers, which need fudging at this point.

[Mr Skeptic]

This appeared on New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18584-innovation-bloom-didnt-start-a-fuelcell-revolution.html

 

The key is not just efficient production of electricity, it is that you can do it at a small scale in your own home, where the waste heat produced can be used to heat your house or water. This means it is effectively almost 100% efficient if you need the heat. The price will have to go down before I would use one though. Also, it only makes sense if natural gas is cheaper than electricity.

[swansont]

The price will have to go down before I would use one though. Also, it only makes sense if natural gas is cheaper than electricity.

 

It might be. Some electricity is generated from gas, but turbines are ~40% efficient, and you have transmission losses. So if the fuel cell is more efficient, say 50%, (higher if it uses the waste heat) then that's a few points for the fuel cell.

 

edit: of course, the electricity you buy has the amortized cost of the turbine included, and the economy of scale is probably in its favor.

Edited March 1, 2010 by swansont

[Moontanman]

I think it's important to think of this as a beginning. The box is small, it can use gases other than hydrogen (methane is both a fossil fuel and renewable) think of how expensive a hand held calculator was 40 years ago, then think of them being givin away free as promotional items a decade ago with a business card printed on the back of a wafer thin calculator.

 

Never underestimate the power of mass production on the cost of an item. 20 years from now it's very likely the cost will be low enough that we can use them to power a bio-fuel electric car. There are lots of advantages to a car powered by fuel cells not the least of which is simplicity, lower pollution levels is a given.

 

A fuel cell that gives off just H2O, CO2 and electricity would be a wonderful replacement for the complex, expensive, (not to mention polluting), internal combustion engine. Think of how expensive it would have been to build what we use in our cars now 40 years ago, the internal combustion engine has increased in complexity many fold in the last few decades.

 

The idea of a home based electrical source just might be the least of it's important contributions to our civilization. Combine CO2 sequestering technology and or methane production from bio-fuel and the "Bloom Box" and they just might have discovered the savior of our civilization.

[waitforufo]

Think more along the lines of hybrid power generation. Pairing solar and fuel cell power generation along with batteries provides a reliable 24 hour power source. One could also switch to local DC power distribution eliminating wasteful AC-to-DC adaptors . As mentioned, air and water could be warmed with waste heat. Most other heating and cooking could be done by burning gas directly, which is generally efficient and can be made very efficient. I would guess that gas distribution is cheaper (not certain) than AC power distribution. Also in many if not most locations, the gas infrastructure is in place. Also, one could use propane or some other bottled gas. In most locations propane is already cheaper than power grid electricity for heating.

 

So if Bloom can produce fuel cells at the proper scale and price, they have produced a path to better efficiency. If It’s cheaper just to burn gas however, few people will switch.

 

If you are hoping for a solution that doesn’t consume hydrocarbons at all, I hope you are a very patient person.

[Mr Skeptic]

methane is both a fossil fuel and renewable

 

Ah, that makes a difference. I was thinking of methane the fossil fuel, which would have to go up in price. In that case, it would be a case of a technology that is not ready yet due to price but with no future. Still, the price of methane might go above the price of electricity even as a renewable.