60 Minutes Story on "Bloom Box" (home fuel cell)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6224124n
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/60minutes/main6221135.shtml

Interesting, as I suspected, it runs on natural gas/biogas/methane.

It's not the first home fuel cell we've seen, but I believe it's by far the most compact I've ever seen.

I wonder how much waste heat it produces. Given the size, it cannot be much, which suggests to me that it's quite efficient.

[HillbillyBob]

1. Just saw that

What I also wondered aside from the fuel it takes what level of carbon dioxide does it put out and how fast can it deliver for a new load..like when the ac or the fridge comes on?

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Yeah, as I said to Lesley Stahl, "You don't want it in your basement."

It (obviously) will put out a fair amount of CO₂ and H₂O.

However, it'll put out a lot less CO₂ than a coal-fired steam plant for the same amount of current.

[drm604]

3. Is there supposed to be a video at one of those links?

It doesn't seem to be working.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. The first link appears to have video

However, try this link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6224124n&tag=api

[drm604]

5. No working video there that I can find.

No big deal, I was just curious.

Fuel cells have been around a long time. The question is, what is the fuel and is it carbon neutral?

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Complete segment is here

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n&tag=api

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. More (related) videos

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/60minutes/main6221135.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n">Full Segment: The Bloom Box
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228828n|Web Extra: The Magic Box>
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228834n">Web Extra: Plug-In Power Plant
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228836n">Web Extra: Naming The Bloom Box
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228838n">Web Extra: A Skeptic's View

[drm604]

12. None of them work either. n/t

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. I don't know what to tell you...

They all work for me.

Try updating Adobe Flash?
http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/

[drm604]

17. My flashplayer is up to date.

No big deal, I don't really care that much about seeing this video anyway. I'm just curious as to why I can't.

I don't even see a broken video or a blank box. There just aren't an obvious videos on any of those pages. :shrug:

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Well, you could try starting at the 60 minutes site...

http://60minutes.com

Are you running NoScript or AdBlock Plus or something else which may be blocking them?

[drm604]

23. None of the videos on their site even appear to be on the page.

I'm not using anything that I know of that would be blocking them. Maybe they don't work with Firefox.

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. I'm using Firefox on Linux

So... I suspect either a Firefox add-on or a firewall or...

[drm604]

27. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

If it starts happening with Youtube and other places then I'll investigate.

[drm604]

11. Nope.

I even clicked on the "Recent Segments" image labeled "The Bloom Box" but it just took me back to that same page with no video. I wonder why I'm not seeing it?

[bik0]

8. Customers are lining up...

Over the years, we've heard news and rumors on Bloom that included:

Bloom customers include eBay, Google, Lockheed, Wal-Mart, Staples and the CIA. Backlog and sales are in the $2 billion range.
There are rumors of an enormous government contract and a multi-million dollar order backlog from Coca-Cola and FedEx.

eBay ordered four of the company's 100-kilowatt units.

Adobe may have purchased some Bloom boxes.

The San Francisco Airport has Bloom fuel cells in their possession (not a rumor -- SFO told me this).

The Google fuel cell installation is 400 kilowatts. (We've reported it before, but in case you missed it, here it is.) Their first 100-kilowatt unit went to Google.

The solid oxide fuel cell firm is focusing on a new business model by engaging customers in a power purchase agreement (PPA). With this approach, Bloom might keep the fuel cell themselves (or own it in a joint venture with a utility) and sell the power. PPAs have been effective financing tools for solar, wind and some biomass/manure firms. PPAs also eliminate any fears about maintenance and upkeep.

They are due for a verdict on their DOE stimulus funds shortly.

East Tennessee will be the location of a 100-kilowatt demonstration fuel cell developed by Bloom that could be a precursor to the potential siting of a manufacturing facility in Tennessee. The system will be at the Electric Power Board HQ in Chattanooga. The project is funded through a federal appropriation as well as support from the Electric Power Board's research and development organization. The system is a 25-kilowatt unit and they put four together for a 100-kilowatt system.

The units run on natural gas, propane, biofuels or diesel which gives them about 48 percent overall efficiency.

Their revenue is significant; their profit, not so significant.

Board members and observers include John Doerr of KPCB, Vinod Khosla of Khosla Ventures, and T.J. Rodgers, the CEO of Cypress Semiconductor.

Advisors include Colin Powell and Floyd Kvamme

The CEO, K.R. Sridhar, has used his investors' considerable clout to shake every questionable politician's hand available, including President George W. Bush, Senator Ted Stevens, Senator John Ensign, and Senator Joe Lieberman.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Bloom-Energy-Revealed/

[bik0]

9. some technical info...

According to the CBS News article:

Stahl is the first journalist to be allowed into the Bloom Energy lab and factory where currently one box a day is built. The boxes create electricity by a chemical process that utilizes oxygen and fuel, but involves no combustion. Bloom's founder and CEO, K.R. Sridhar, insists all the materials in the box are cheap and available in abundance. Bloom says each large box - which can power about 100 homes - currently sells for $700-800,000. They hope within five to 10 years to roll out a smaller home version for about $3,000 a unit.

John Doerr, the Kleiner Perkins partner who invested in Bloom, has high hopes. "The Bloom Box is intended to replace the grid for its customer," says Doerr. He thinks existing utility companies should not be threatened or have a problem with Bloom Energy. "The utility companies will see this as a solution. All they need to do is buy Bloom Boxes, put them in the substation for the neighborhood and sell that electricity," he says.

But there is another hurdle says Michael Kanellos, editor-in-chief of Greentech Media. Even if Sridhar can mass produce his boxes and sell them cheaply enough, "The problem is then G.E. and Siemens and other conglomerates that can probably do the same thing. They have fuel cell patents," he tells Stahl.

A little patent searching by Mr. Kanellos yielded:

In the fuel cell mode, the methane fuel is delivered to the SORFC anode where it is reformed into hydrogen and carbon monoxide, while oxygen or air containing oxygen is delivered to the SORFC cathode. In the fuel cell mode reaction, the hydrogen and carbon monoxide are converted to water and carbon dioxide which are discharged from the SORFC and preferably stored. Because the reformation of methane during the discharge cycle is highly endothermic, only about half of the heat is generated in the overall system as would have been produced using a hydrogen fuel input. The SORFC generates power during the fuel cell mode.

And:

The present inventors have also realized that the electrochemical system produces valuable byproducts in addition to electricity and hydrogen. The byproducts can include production, consumption, and/or temporary storage of heat, methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and water. Carbon dioxide and/or other carbon containing gases emitted in a fuel side exhaust of a SORFC system of a second preferred embodiment operating in the fuel cell mode may be captured and stored rather than vented into the atmosphere. This improves the environmental friendliness of the SORFC system.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Bloom-Energy-Revealed/

[kristopher]

10. I wonder how it is better than batteries?

Moving to fuel cells that run on fossil fuels is a non starter.

That leaves biofuels or hydrogen as an input.

Biofuels from waste streams input into the fuel cell might prove a good co2 strategy, but then cost enters the picture and we have to compare it to systems that process the waste and use the output on a larger scale than home use.

The hydrogen alternative requires a comparison to batteries. With hydrogen there are more conversion steps and thus more energy loss than with batteries. You would use renewables to form Hydrogen, capture and store the H2, then run it through the fuel cell and convert it back to electricity.

Given the recent past and pending near term advances in batteries and the economic support they are getting from the auto industry, how can fuel cell systems be a credible means of storing and using renewable energy in any but niche applications?

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Well, for a starter, distributed generation using natural gas fuel cells is more efficient than

centralized distribution using natural gas turbines.

So, there's a financial saving, and a real cut in CO₂.

If, you run it on methane/biogas then you've got a real efficient conversion to electricity from biomass.

[bik0]

18. Wouldn't it make sense to create tax incentives or subsidies for areas that rely on coal

for electric generation?

[kristopher]

20. that would depend on cost.

There is a huge overabundance of central natural gas generating capacity. Given that much of it is cogen with efficiencies higher than the fuel cell, and given that the capital is already spent,that angle doesn't seem to me to be the best use of funds.

However, that really applies only while we are transitioning away from coal. When we start transitioning away from natural gas, I can envision this type of generation at the community level or even better, in the agricultural sector. Lifestock waste is a big issue and the efficiencies of equipment at that level would compare poorly to the fuel cell. That is also a sector that has to be developed so the issue of sunk cost for existing equipment is moot.

I'd put both those applications at not sooner than 10 years before demand starts ramping up.

Of course the cost hurdle has to be overcome...

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. The claim is made in the story

"It's cheaper than the grid. It's cleaner than the grid."

The claim is also made that "they use natural gas, but half as much as would be required for a traditional power plant."

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n&tag=api

[bik0]

26. Bloom is claiming 50%-100% reduction in CO2 per kW depending on the fuel

Bloom's technology enables consumers to generate their own electricity for less than they pay their utility, and to reduce their carbon emissions by 50-100% per kW depending on the fuel.

http://www.kpcb.com/team/index.php?KR%20Sridhar

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. The 100% figure is obviously referring to using some renewable source.

But, if that's a 100% cut, then using the fuel to run a steam turbine would be a 100% cut too.

[kristopher]

30. And others claim cars that run on water or air are the answer to our problems...

I hate to be so obvious about it, but there is no breakthrough here that recalibrates the cost/benefit analysis. This is just another PR puff piece on fuel cells.

[bik0]

31. No breakthrough? NY Times article on University of Tennessee test...

Over the past two and a half years, engineers at the University of Tennessee in Chattanooga have been testing a five-kilowatt Bloom box, which looks like a squat refrigerator and produces about as much electricity as a typical home requires. And at this point there seems little doubt that the idea K. R. Sridhar pitched to Kleiner in 2001 has become a high-functioning machine. “We installed one of his first units here to assess its durability and performance, to see if it matched the claims,” Henry McDonald, a professor at Tennessee who is overseeing the Bloom box, says. McDonald ran the box nonstop on natural gas for 6,000 hours, and its performance beat expectations. In everyday terms, the box was twice as efficient as a boiler burning natural gas, and its carbon emissions were 60 percent lower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/magazine/05Green-t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=3&ref=magazine

[kristopher]

33. Where is the breakthrough in that?

What I read is that they had a university test their product and it worked like most other fuel cells.

[bik0]

35. I'm curious... did you actually watch the 60 Minutes piece?

They have these systems running at Google, Ebay and Fed-X. Show me another fuel cell that's actually performing on this scale in the field.

[bik0]

42. Ebay... $100,000 in saving over 9 months

Four boxes have already powered a Google datacenter for a year and half, and used just half as much natural gas as a traditional power plant might require. And eBay's CEO told 60 Minutes that his company's five boxes have saved more than $100,000 in electricity costs over nine months. eBay's boxes run on bio-gas made from landfill trash.

http://ow.ly/19Ylv

[OnlinePoker]

43. So based on $700k per box,

They'll pay for themselves in 26 years at today's rates.

[bik0]

45. No - it would take 10.5 yrs to recoup cost today - only 9 mos to recoup in the future.

$700,000 per box with a 20% California state subsidy + 30% federal tax break = $350K per box.

Google had 4 boxes so total cost = $1.4M net cost after tax breaks and subsidies.

9 Mos (.75 yr) of use saved $100K. 1 yr savings = $133K

$1.4M / $133K = 10.5 yrs to recoup costs.

In the video it was stated that a Bloombox which costs $700K contains 64 stacks - thats $10.9K per stack.

In the beginning of the video it was stated that it will take 2 stacks to power a U.S. home so in todays dollars that would be roughly $22K.

At the end of the video it was stated that in the future the price will come down to less than $3K for a home unit. Thats a reduction in cost by by a factor of 7.

Using the price for a home unit of $3K we can extrapolate that the Bloombox commercial unit with 64 stacks will cost around $100K (1/7 * $700K) before subsidies and tax credits.

Of course it's difficult to predict actual costs and paybacks due to changing material/labor costs, interest rates, fuel costs, tax rates etc. but there's no doubt that as manufacturing scales up costs will come down dramatically.

[kristopher]

46. That doesn't contradict Poker... But you are both wrong.

You aren't wrong in talking about the cost to a buyer, but when you say Poker is wrong for pointing out that "They'll pay for themselves in 26 years at today's rates" you are just trying to spin the facts.

The rebates reduce costs for the buyer but they do not reduce the length of time required for the system to "pay for itself".

Also, neither answer includes the cost of money, which any valid analysis must.
1.4 million at 10% for 10 years comes to a total w/ interest of about $22,200,000 and the more correct 2.8 million would double that - $44,400,000.
1.4 million at 10% for 20 years comes to a total w/ interest of about $32,424,000 and the more correct 2.8 million would double that - $64,848,000.

That isn't exactly how it would be done either, but it illustrates the significance of understanding the entire cost.

ETA:
OOOPS. That's what I get for watching KO while posting...
1.4 million at 10% for 10 years comes to a total w/ interest of about $2,220,000 and the more correct 2.8 million would double that - $4,440,000.
1.4 million at 10% for 20 years comes to a total w/ interest of about $3,242,400 and the more correct 2.8 million would double that - $6,484,800.

That's better.

[bik0]

47. Since when is the cost of money 10%??? Talk about spin!

[Statistical]

50. Exactly.

Ebay has cash on hand. Cash that likely will only yield <5% on average over next decade. Numbers would be more accurate with a 5% discount rate vs 10% one.

[bik0]

48. I'm not trying to spin anything.

Your point and Poker's point is that the Bloombox is not economically feasible. My point is that it's not as costly as you project when you factor in subsidies, tax credits and the reduction in manufacturing costs that will come with scaling up production.

There are many unknown factors that will affect the cost and savings calculation. There's no way to pin it down to the penny. That's why in my last statement I said there is no way to factor in labor, material, interest rates, fuel costs, taxes etc. - that also include the time value of money. When I mentioned interest rates that's what I was referring to. BTW - if you want to factor in the time value of money use a 10 year treasury note which has about a 3.65% yield.

The rebates reduce costs for the buyer but they do not reduce the length of time required for the system to "pay for itself".

Of course it does. How can you say something that is so patently false?

[kristopher]

49. There are two ways to look at it...

I think I was clear, but apparently not enough for you. If you evaluate it from the view of a purchaser, the technology is made more "affordable" with rebates. However that isn't the view I and many other people are interested in. I want to know how much the all-in cost is so that I can evaluate the social value of the competing technologies. For that purpose I don't care about subsidies except as they will affect future trends in overall costs by attracting manufacturing capital of encouraging private investment in R&D.

As shown excluding interest isn't a minor omission - it totally invalidates even a back of the envelope analysis like you were attempting.

Also, the 10% interest rate is reasonable. I'm not going to argue the point with you beyond this, but you aren't going to borrow money for capital improvements for a business for 3.6% interest. The interest rate for venture capital to build a generating facility without a dedicated power purchase agreement is a minimum of 18% for example. If the company uses internal cash reserves the same factors are at work and you have to consider the lost income that the purchase would have earned.

There are guidebooks on this stuff, it isn't rocket science.

[bik0]

53. 18% minimum interest rate? Where did you get this from?

The interest rate for venture capital to build a generating facility without a dedicated power purchase agreement is a minimum of 18% for example.

What does venture capital have to do with a business purchasing a Bloom Box?... and what are you referring to here?... "A generating facility without a dedicated purchase agreement". Sorry - but you got me totally confused now.

There's no interest rate for venture capital anyway. Venture capital is seed money that's taken in exchange for stock in a company so I'm not sure what your point is. If your referring to Bloom... Bloom Energy will never borrow money - period. Bloom will IPO within 1-2 years and they will have all the cash they will need to build as many manufacturing plants as they want. It will probably raise more cash than any IPO in history. And if they need more cash they will issue secondaries.

I was using the 3.65% number to compare the lost investment opportunity of cash that would be spent on a Bloom Box. Ebay and Google have no debt and are cash rich. Those cash reserves are sometimes invested in treasury notes which is the safest investment. If they were to finance the purchase I guarantee they would not be paying anywhere close to 10%. The current bond yield on a AAA rated bond is around 5.2%.

[guardian]

73. kristopher is right

Businesses cannot to borrow money for these capital equipment purchases at the unrealistically low interest rates of 3%-5%. The 10-year and 20-year Treasuries currently yield 3.69% and 4.49% respectively. The 10 & 20 year Treasuries is considered the risk free rate of return. No bank would lend at these rates as they would just buy Treasuries and have no risk if that is all return they can get.

10% is more realistic. My guess would be Prime + 350 basis points at minimum. Could be much higher depending on the amount financed, down payment, financial strength of the borrower, and whether the loan is collateralized against other assets.

Also, the payback period modeled in previous posts is too long. I'd say most lenders and companies would want a term of 3-7 years...not 10 years for this type of purchase.

[bik0]

74. I never said a bank would loan at treasury rates

Most businesses will issue bonds. A business will only borrow from a bank as a last resort.

The current yield on a 10 year AAA rated bond is 4.33%.

A ten year BBB investment grade bond starts at a 6.3% yield

https://personal.vanguard.com/us/FundsBondsMarketSummaryTable

[guardian]

80. clueless

n/t

[bik0]

84. Well clue me in genius...

Show me where I'm wrong. Show me where I said businesses can borrow at treasury rates. The first movers to take on this technology are the Googles, Ebays, Fed-exs and Walmarts of the world. They are not going to borrow from a bank at 10%. If a small business were to consider acquiring a $700K Bloom box, a bank loan would be the last resort to finance such a large capital investment. $700K is not considered a large amount for a bond but small businesses can take advantage of pooled bonds where the bond is bundled with others. My business did that when we financed a office/warehouse expansion in Ohio. I believe I read somewhere where Bloom was going to offer to install Bloom boxes where they retain ownership and sell the power like a utility. That will be another option for small business.

[bik0]

91. And a lot of these systems will be leased...

Which has a tax advantage and won't eat up a business's credit line.

[Statistical]

82. Some companies like ebay, google, microsoft, walmart have tons of cash.

Cash sitting there earning short term interest rates (<0.5%).

For those companies the cost of capital is simply the loss of interest over the repayment time period. So for ebay the capital cost isn't 10% or 18% it is the average interest rate they are going to get on cash for next decade.

[bik0]

85. That was my point also but I guess I'm clueless.

[JohnWxy]

93. Capital acquisitions should have financing that mirrors the useful life of that asset.

Prime rate is short term, not applicable to long term collateralized loans. I really doubt if anybody would borrow at 7%-7.5% (Prime plus 350 bp) in current market, for a capital acquisition.

Venture capital loan rates (as stated in cmt 49 are not applicable: "The interest rate for venture capital to build a generating facility without a dedicated power purchase agreement is a minimum of 18%."-cmt 49). Loan will be to the buyer of the Bloombox NOT the manufacturer. Also, RE: "without a dedicated power purchase agreement"?? You can't get much more dedicated than buying a Bloombox entirely for your own use!

Take a look at current corporate financing rates from Moody's:

Triple A bonds going out at about 5.26% now. see: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data/Business_day/H15_AAA_NA.txt

Baa's going out at 6.25%: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/Current/


I used Triple A rates forecasting electricity rates using historical electricity rate increase (1995-2009) and financed for 10 years: savings pays for acquisition in 12 years. Go to 20 years and investment recouped in 14 years. Spreadsheet below allows you to play with maturity/loan period.

http://sites.google.com/site/truthisstrangerthanfictionx/Proj_savings_Bloom_box_1.xls



BUT all this is sortof beside the point. Bloom is getting customers for what is a actually a pre-production model. Once they get on a production basis, techniques developed in silicon wafer production will be used and unit cost will drop dramatically making this pre-production model price irrelevant.

[bik0]

59. Your assuming the price will not come down from $2.8M

That's an unreasonable assumption. They're building these boxes by hand one at a time. When they scale up to an assembly line model the price will drop dramatically. Even assuming there will be no subsidies or rebates and using the $2.8M number - the interest expense at 5.5% (real world) would be $846K. If your not going to subtract tax credits you must at least factor in the tax deduction for interest expense. Assuming a 35% tax bracket that would bring down the finance cost to $550K over 10 years on 100% (not real world) of a $2.8M transaction. That does not invalidate the back of the envelope analysis. A 10% rate would only apply to junk bonds and high risk borrowers. Using 10% as a typical rate, financing 100% and not accounting for price reductions due to economies of scale would definitely fall under the category of spin.

[JohnWxy]

94. a venture capital loan rate is not applicable. The loan is going to the purchaser of the Bloombox

not the manufacturer. Current Corporate Aaa rates are around 5.26% - 5.45%.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/Current/

.... without "a dedicated power purchase agreement"??? power puchase agreements apply to utilities who are SELLING power, and could be taken into consideration when a utility is borrowing money to build a power plant. In this case the loan would be to the company buying a Bloombox solely for their own use. Can't get much more dedicated than that.


Payback computations using what is essentially a preproduction model are of limited value. Once Bloom gets into a production mode, techniques developed in Silicon wafer production will be applied and lead to dramatic reductions in production cost.

[kristopher]

95. So only AAA rated companies are going to use them?

Small market, isn't it?

Also you've misread my post. First, the point was to illustrate that the original idiotic analysis had simply ignored the cost of capital. I used 10% s a reasonable example, and I still maintain that across the board it IS a reasonable example. The venture capital number was to give perspective and is based on companies that are starting generating plants (of any kind) without a power purchase agreement. Also, since the unbundling of utilities, where they had to divest ownership of generation, utilities issue power purchase agreements to other companies that wish to sell power into the grid. Not all generation built gets PPAs however and the venture capital for those facilities is about ^18%.

As to your claim that "they would be buying them for their own use", that too is contradicted by a number of business models for distributed microgeneration where the power is, in fact, designed for sale to the grid.

[bik0]

96. Who said only AAA rated co's would buy Blooms?

You are the master of twisting the truth...

You can say anything you want and you do... but you never back it up with facts or a link that verifies what you say. Where are you coming up with 10% and 18% for venture capital? Repeating the same BS doesn't make it more any more believable. You just go round and round.

Here's another tale of fiction...

As to your claim that "they would be buying them for their own use", that too is contradicted by a number of business models for distributed microgeneration where the power is, in fact, designed for sale to the grid.

Where are these "business models for distributed microgeneration"? Blooms on the grid will be LESS economical due to transmission losses. Distributed generation is all about being OFF the grid. Bloom's business model is facility on-site generation - that's where it will be most efficient and make most sense.

[kristopher]

97. Get a clue...

First, interest rates. I really don't give a shit if you agree with me or not. There are a wide range of interest rates depending on the company's circumstances and needs; and those I chose are reasonable for back of the envelop calculations. ESPECIALLY since the point was that YOU had TOTALLY OMITTED interest charges in your zeal to promote fuel cells.

On the different business models, I'm guessing you haven't heard of the smart grid or don't understand what the drive for it is? Besides demand side management through information to the consumer, one of the main reasons we need it is that it allows management of microgeneration. V2G, rooftop solar and small scale storage of all kinds will be part of a system that maximizes the generating potential of all the sources expected to come online that are smaller than the system can now effectively manage.

You write "Bloom's business model is facility on-site generation - that's where it will be most efficient and make most sense", but considering you aren't familiar with the plans for the future, perhaps you might consider that you also lack a foundation for seeing where alternative business models might exist.

[bik0]

98. I not only disagree... I'm calling you a bullshitter.

You haven't backed up one statement. This whole argument is about the afford-ability and viability of Bloom boxes and you hang your whole argument against it on some phantom interest rates you pull out your ass. You talk about venture capital interest rates at 18% and it's clear to me you don't have the slightest idea how venture capital works.

[kristopher]

99. The entire discussion is about the viability of fuel cells,

"Bloom Box" is just one of many that happens to have a cool gimmicky name and a slick promotional segment on a tv news show.

That doesn't equate to a discussion on viability. I gave you a look at the characteristics by which energy technologies are evaluated in the post about challenges that fuel cells fail. Instead of reading for comprehension, you ignored the actual message of the piece and focus on irrelevancies. YOU think it is relevant whether the input is hydrogen or ethanol or a fossil fuel, but it isn't. ALL the stored energy pathways for fuel cells suffer from very real deficiencies that have pushed them largely out of the picture. What you can't grasp is that for many reasons (again having to do with the characteristics of energy carriers) hydrogen is the BEST CASE input; not a distraction from a better technology. If you want to believe in it, go right ahead. But your beliefs aren't going to make money any cheaper nor alter any of the characteristics of fuel cells or of the technologies that fuel cells are competing against.

[Statistical]

100. Bloom box is the first commercial Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC).

Not all fuel cells are created equal.

SOFC are superior to PEMFC is virtually every aspect:
* PEMFC need expensive (platnum) catalyst, SOFC do not
* PEMFC must have essentialy no CO2 in H2 fuel or they suffer from CO2 poisoning, SOFC do not
* PEMFC run on H2 so any other fuel needs to be reformed at additional energy cost, SOFC do not
* PEMFC must constantly ensure the membrane is kept hydrated or suffer membrane failure, SOFC do not

So why have SOFC taken the world by storm.

Two major problems.
a) stack will be degraded by extremely high operating temperatures. Previous prototypes ran from 5,000 to 10,000 hours. The DOE target for 2020 is 40,000 hours. The Bloom box is rated at 10 years which is 80,000+ hours. Bloom today is 200% of DOE target for 2020 in stack longevity

b) stack cost. Since the stack will need to be replaced periodically it must be produced at low cost. Previous attempts involved makin a sandwich out of 2 components. Bloom figured out a way to make anode and cathode out of ink and "pain" them onto the plates that make up the stack.

So to say Bloom is just hype and marketing is foolish.

You are wetting your pants over nanosolar who's major claim to fame is substantial cost reduction by designing a "PV ink" and printing it onto foil to reduce cost however you can't see the same sort of low cost technology could be applied to other technologies (like making plates for fuel cell stack).

[kristopher]

102. Not hype?

Post 60:
Hydrogen Production: Bloom's technology, with its NASA roots, can be used to generate electricity and hydrogen. Coupled with intermittent renewable resources like solar or wind, Bloom’s future systems will produce and store hydrogen to enable a 24 hour renewable solution and provide a distributed hydrogen fueling infrastructure for hydrogen powered vehicles.

Why are they talking about hydrogen fueled vehicles and PRECISELY what is the flow of energy from raw source and at what efficiency?

There are MANY ceramic fuel cells out there, and they are not "taking the world by storm" for very good reasons. You like promoting this niche technology because it is a shiny bauble that distracts attention and MONEY away from the real competitor for nuclear power - renewable energy.

[Statistical]

103. You are wrong. There is not a single commercially available SOFC. Not one until now.

Eventually we will need to move past fossil fuels. Nice thing about SOFC is some designs (and I suspect Bloom is one) can be run in reverse.

Pump in CO2 (from atmosphere) + H20 + electricity and you get H2 + CO + O2.
Bottle the H2.

Initially it makes more sense to have fuel cells run on natural gas but eventually someday as nat gas supplies are reduced and price rises it will become worthwhile to switch to H2.

The advantage of SOFC is flexibility. They can run on hydrogen but they also can run on light hydrocarbons with no loss in efficiency (which can't be said about PEMFC). They can also be run in reverse to REMOVE CO2 from atmosphere to make H2. As long as the electricity supply is from non emitting source of power (nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, etc) it will result in a NET REDUCTION in atmosphere CO2.

Someday you could make hydrogen at home using PV Array on your roof. Not only is it more efficient using high temperature SOFC you have the added bonus of being carbon NEGATIVE.

With large enough array you could not only power your house with solar but you could provide fuel for your vehicle too and be carbon negative (part of the solution not the problem). Of course for that to happen cost and efficiency of solar would need to increase but that will happen eventually.

[bik0]

104. M.I.T. professor Daniel Nocera & Sun Catalytix... generating H2 from PV

It's coming...

Researchers have made a major advance in inorganic chemistry that could lead to a cheap way to store energy from the sun. In so doing, they have solved one of the key problems in making solar energy a dominant source of electricity.

Daniel Nocera, a professor of chemistry at MIT, has developed a catalyst that can generate oxygen from a glass of water by splitting water molecules. The reaction frees hydrogen ions to make hydrogen gas. The catalyst, which is easy and cheap to make, could be used to generate vast amounts of hydrogen using sunlight to power the reactions. The hydrogen can then be burned or run through a fuel cell to generate electricity whenever it's needed, including when the sun isn't shining.

Solar power is ultimately limited by the fact that the solar cells only produce their peak output for a few hours each day. The proposed solution of using sunlight to split water, storing solar energy in the form of hydrogen, hasn't been practical because the reaction required too much energy, and suitable catalysts were too expensive or used extremely rare materials. Nocera's catalyst clears the way for cheap and abundant water-splitting technologies.

http://goo.gl/0OTt

Nocera's company...

http://www.suncatalytix.com/

[Statistical]

105. Yeah there are a lot of "parallel" research avenues.

Hydrogen is simply too expensive because room temperature electrolysis via electricity is a horribly inefficient conversion method.

There is also research on cracking water under extreme heat and pressure (like that found in a nuclear reactor). Under enough heat and pressure water can be made to break down into elemental components H2 + O2.

The nice thing about H2 via a "reverse Bloom" is that it is carbon negative. Eventually we need to start taking carbon out of the atmosphere. Why not making H2 while you are doing that anyways? It is at least worth exploring.

It is entirely possible that using Bloom fuel cells to make electricity from hydrocarbons will be a short (2 decades) phenomenon however we might be making H2 from electricity + CO2 + H20 via the very same boxes running in reverse for decades later.

[kristopher]

108. More of the circle jerk...

What is the efficiency of this process?

What is the efficiency of a fuel cell?

Is the combined efficiency better than Solar to batteries?


All you need to do is look at the FC efficiency to show that this isn't going to help.

[Statistical]

109. How are you going to fly a airliner on batteries?

How are you going to transport cargo across the ocean on batteries?
How are semi trucks going to run on batteries?
Hell how is someone even going to go on vacation by car more than 200 miles away with batteries?
How are locomotives going to run on batteries?

EV are great. I hope my current vehicle is that last Internal Combustion vehicle I buy but to think EV will replace 100% of transportation needs for entire world is stupid. Rural drivers will need more than 200 mile range. Heavy transportation will require an alternate form of power.

Even if 100% of electricity came from emission free sources that does nothing for the 60% of CO2 emission from NON-ELECTRIC sources.

You need some form of power which can allow longer travel lengths than 100-200 miles. You are always looking for "perfection" and miss the opportunity for good.

Hell if perfection is your goal why even use batteries? A bicycle is emission free, costs less, and has a magnitude less harmful chemicals compared to even the cleanest EV.

Fuel cells have a places as part of solution:

fuel cell in vehicle + natural gas = 60% reduction in CO2 compared to current vehicles
fuel cell in vehicle + bio gas = potentially CO2 neutral and higher efficiency than ICE
fuel cell in vehicle + H2 = while the least efficient gives up ability to decouple transportation from oil.

SOFC cell in reverse can be used to produce H2 at much lower energy cost per unit of H2. As long as fossil fuel powerplants exist SOFC could be connected to exhaust to remove CO2 concentration.

For the fuel cell to make sense ALL these solutions don't need to pan out just one of them.

[kristopher]

111. more of your harebrained hype

Actually you are bumping head on into the one area where this type of technology has potential and you aren't even seeing it.

IF you were paying attention to our energy needs you'd see that the use of batteries in the transportation sector is focused on light duty personal transportation. I've repeatedly pointed out that **liquid fuels are far too precious** to be used anywhere there are viable alternatives. What you say is true about batteries and heavy lifting like aircraft and tractors, but you totally fail to appreciate the implications.

Pickens had it right when he switched the emphasis of his plan for natural gas from running all autos to running only our heavy equipment.

Fuel cells are a viable candidate for improving efficiency in this sector. The larger challenge is this - improve performance and efficiency with interim technologies in a way that smooths the transition to later carbon free technologies. So the question would be are we able to produce enough carbon neutral biofuels to run the agricultural, construction and heavy transportation sectors?

IF this technology has a real place in a carbon free energy system, THAT is were it lies.

As to the microgeneration for a distributed grid that niche 1) doesn't exist yet and won't really gain traction until we start moving towards the end game of moving to renewables. And 2) the penetration of the fuel cell into this market as it currently exists will depend on its ability to get the price vs performance numbers to a point where they are able to compete with the microgeneration technologies that are currently out there. For the foreseeable future the fuel cell isn't even close.

The appeal to manufacturing economy of scale sounds good, but remember what I pointed out, the DEMAND for this class of product is far from mature. When it DOES mature there are going to be competitors for the input fuels and those fuels are going to be significantly more expensive in the matrix of energy options than they are now. Other options that are also in the development stage are then going to be what the fuel cell is compared against. By then, it is very probable that the lower price of solar and other renewable sources will make the economics of energy storage (biofuels are "energy storage") favor the technologies that are most compatible with quickly and efficiently storing and retrieving electrical energy.

There is no indication that fuel cells are going to prove viable in this niche.

[Statistical]

113. Even if biofuels are used in 100% of transporation they need to be converted.

Convert it to mechanical energy in an internal combustion engine = 12%-20% efficiency
Convert it to mechanical energy in a fuel cell + electrical power = 50%+ efficiency

[kristopher]

115. You must have missed the part where there aren't enough biofuels...

You must have missed the part where there aren't enough biofuels and the other part where they are a poor strategy for energy storage.

Biofuels offer one advantage - period - highly energy dense portable energy. That comes with a premium when creating them - land use effects, low efficiencies and high costs are some of the most relevant.

You really just don't know what you are talking about.

[Statistical]

117. If not biofuels it will need to be something and that "something" will need a fuel cell.

A massive amount of "liquid energy" is used in long haul transportation.

Everything from people traveling on vacation, to RV, to cargo ships, to cruise ships, to locomotives, to semi-trucks.

None of those will ever be fueled by batteries.

Biofuels could fuel them (or at least some of them) but if not biofuels "something" will need to fuel them.

Even without risk of climate change peak oil will require us to move to a new "liquid energy".

That lidquid energy could be biofuels, or natural gas, or H2. Something will need to fuel the massive amounts of transportation needs not met by a 200 mile battery.

No matter what the fuel source ends up being a SOFC can convert it to electrical power and via electrical motor to mechanical power.

Biofuels was your argument but even without biofuels, "something" will move stuff in the future and that something can either be burned in an internal combustion engine at 12%-20% efficiency or in a fuel cell at 50%-80% efficiency.

[kristopher]

119. Are you REALLY that thick?

I'm the one that just told YOU that heavy hauling was the best potential application for fuel cells. Your contribution to this thread is a priceless view of comedic mendacity in action.

What a piece of work...

[Statistical]

120. Not just heavy hauling.

ANYTHING moving more than 200 miles from "home base". That is a large market.

So there is a massive amount of potential for fuel cells. Massive.

Except that world doesn't exist today so rather than wait till we need it companies like bloom can sell fuel cells to allow early adopters to generate power cheaper than utilities charge for it. All that development will lead to cheap and more efficient fuel cells by the time they are needed for transportation.

Glad you believe SOFC (of which Bloom Box is the first commercial product) are so useful.

[kristopher]

121. NO not ANYTHING

Just heavy equipment - maybe.

[Statistical]

122. You are going to make it illegal for individuals to own vehicles that travel > 200 miles?

Right. That isn't going to happen in America.

EV is great for commuter vehicle but people will want longer range vehicles and that requires something that can be "recharged" quickly and safely. Ever do the math to see how many amps you would need a recharging plug to pull in order to get EV battery recharge times down to say 10 minutes (if it were even possible due to limits of battery chemistry). You can't overcome physics and you are talking a seriously lethal amount of amperage necessary.

Still I am glad you accept the awesome potential of SOFC fuel cells and indirectly the potential of a company like Bloom which is the FIRST to ever release a commercial SOFC fuel cell.

[kristopher]

107. Please stop the nonsense...

Remember that picture of those guys in their garage in S.Carolina - were you one of them?

Have you got ANY idea what the energy efficiency of such a round trip process would be compared to other storage mediums? All we'd need to do is increase the amount of primary energy by about 5X what we'd need with other methods of storage.


Although CO2 is approaching 400ppm in the atmosphere it is at 400 parts per million; perhaps you could share how much air would have to process to extract the needed CO2 and how much energy it would use to pump that air?

No wonder you support nuclear...

[JohnWxy]

123. add 1% for Baa's. Blooms customers referred to on 60 Minutes & USAToday bought Bloombox for own use

(CBS) "In the world of energy, the Holy Grail is a power source that's inexpensive and clean, with no emissions. Well over 100 start-ups in Silicon Valley are working on it, and one of them, Bloom Energy, is about to make public its invention: a little power plant-in-a-box they want to put literally in your backyard.

You'll generate your own electricity with the box..."


you state:

"As to your claim that "they would be buying them for their own use", that too is contradicted by a number of business models for distributed microgeneration where the power is, in fact, designed for sale to the grid. "


Who gives a fuck about "a number of business models for distributed microgeneration" the case in point is the BLoombox talked about in the 60 Miniutes report and as discussed in the USA Today article... where the Bloom rep talked solely about customers who are purchasing for their own use ....NOT FOR SALE TO OTHERS.

The case you attempted to cost-out was E-Bay who bought the Bloombox for their own use.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=232665&mesg_id=232665">the USA Today article mentions Google who also purchased For their own use.

Your mentioning of "dedicated purchase agreements" was irrelevant and showed you didn't know how to apply what you may have read about a few minutes before you posted.

your paragraph: "The venture capital number was to give perspective and is based on companies that are starting generating plants (of any kind) without a power purchase agreement. Also, since the unbundling of utilities, where they had to divest ownership of generation, utilities issue power purchase agreements to other companies that wish to sell power into the grid. Not all generation built gets PPAs however and the venture capital for those facilities is about ^18%."

IS TOTAL BULLSHIT LAYERED ON BULLSHIT. I'm not going to waste my time dissecting it all over again(which you of course are counting on). Your use of a venture capital rate was total irrelevant nonsense. The purchaser of the Bloombox is the company who would be getting a loan (in the cost analysis you attempted) NOT the manufacturer of the Bloombox.



BTW, "micro-generation" by definition is NOT ABOUT production of power for sale to final consumers. Now, certainly purchasers of micro-generation equipment can and should consider the possibility of producing, at times, more power than they can use and then they could sell this back to the utility .. BUT THIS IS NOT THE PRIMARY REASON FOR INVESTING IN THEIR OWN POWER PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT. THey certainly are not going to be signing businesses up to supply them power with their microgeneration equipment meant to meet THEIR OWN NEEDS.

I'd like to see any business models "for distributed microgeneration where the power is, in fact, designed for sale to the grid"
(any links you'd care to share??)

"Designed" for sale "to the grid" (??) which usually means selling extra power not needed back to the utility. Microgeneration invesments would be predicated on the investors own power requirements. Yes, they could very well produce power at times which exceeds their needs and at that time it would be smart to sell it back to the utility. But this is hardly going into the power generation for sale - business (where you would encounter dedicated usse contracts"


a company investing in a Bloombox for it's own use would be a good example of entirely dedicated use. the Bloombox was put forth as a technology that would add to distributed electricity generation ... in other words an alternative to power being produced and sold to the end user. the purchasers of the BLoombox will be primarily the end user of the electricity. So you've got 100% "dedicated use".


... at any rate, applying a time to recover your investment to the acquisistion of what is actually a preproduction model is innappropriate anyway. THis is basically a hand built item. The companies who are investing in them are actually kindof jumping the gun and paying a very high price for what will be much cheaper once they get into production mode.

[kristopher]

124. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7828087

That corn liquor is going to rot your brain...

[OKIsItJustMe]

32. It's not a miracle, but I think it's more significant than you make it out to be

I've been following a number of home fuel cell efforts, most closely, http://www.plugpower.com/">Plug Power since they're based in "upstate New York" (i.e. a semi-local company.)

This appears to be quite different. The Plug Power fuel cell has enough waste heat that they market their http://www.plugpower.com/products/residentialgensys/residentialgensys.aspx">residential unit as a co-generation unit.

Since there was no similar marketing for the Bloom Box, I concluded it's a more efficient fuel cell.

[kristopher]

34. That is a pretty thin basis for such a conclusion.

But I know you like fuel cells, so, on your behalf, I hope they have beat the membrane issues and they've pushed the limits of the physics to the 99th percentile.

[OKIsItJustMe]

36. Well (since it appears you have not) I suggest you watch the video

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n&tag=api

I think the "membrane" will surprise you.

[OKIsItJustMe]

37. OK, here's a small basis for comparison

http://www.greentechmedia.com/green-light/post/whats-so-special-about-bloom-energy/

...

That matches, to some degree, descriptions Panasonic and ClearFuel Technologies give for their natural gas fuel cells. Their fuel cells are about 35 percent to 40 percent efficient if you just count the electricity they produce, but about 80 plus percent efficient when the electricity and heat can be harvested and exploited. Traditional combined cycle turbines are in the 50 percent range for efficiency.

...

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Bloom-Energy-Revealed

...

The units run on natural gas, propane, biofuels or diesel which gives them about 48 percent overall efficiency.

...

OK, so an increase in efficiency from 35-40% to 48% is not miraculous, but nothing to sneeze at.

The multi-fuel capability is also intriguing.

I wish they'd put some technical materials on their web site. There's a paucity of good information on the web at this point (as far as I can tell.)

[kristopher]

28. well that certainly is one piece of data for forming an opinon...

[drm604]

14. As you say, using fossil fuels is a non-starter.

Using waste streams isn't by itself renewable long term. Our current waste stream is produced largely via fossil fuels in one way or another. If we eventually eliminate fossil fuels then the energy from the remaining waste stream won't be enough to maintain the same amount of waste unless there is energy input from some other source.

If we have that other source, then why would we need the Bloom Box?

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Clearly, it's not a "non-starter"

It's already started.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Bloom-Energy-Revealed

[drm604]

21. I was replying to kristopher.

His full statement was "Moving to fuel cells that run on fossil fuels is a non starter." which is what I was agreeing with.

Obviously it's started being used, so I guess if you want to be literal he should have worded it differently, but his point (at least as I interpreted it) was that continuing to use fossil fuels, even in a different and possibly more efficient way, is only a stopgap and as such probably isn't worth the investment.

The ultimate issue is that we need to stop using fossil fuels.

[OnlinePoker]

39. I'm wondering what is produced as an emission from the box

They never said it on 60 minutes. If the membrane somehow cracks the natural gas so greenhouse gases aren't produced, I would have no issue using it as a fuel.

[OKIsItJustMe]

40. It's not magic.

So, it will produce CO₂.

[drm604]

41. Exactly.

If it's using a hydrocarbon fuel then, as far as I know, there's no way to have a net energy gain without having CO2 as a byproduct. If we can come up with a carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuel then this might work but then so would any number of other methods.

[Statistical]

51. Not possible.

Natural gas is hydrocarbons. You aren't going to split off H2 to run the fuel cell without producing CO2.

The only advantage is efficiencies on fuel cells in general (we don't have specifics on this model) run 50%-80%.

8kw - 30kw (residential or small business) natural gas generator runs about 12%-20% efficient. So for the same amount of power you are looking at a sizable reduction in CO2 but you will still produce CO2.

[kristopher]

52. You might want to familiarize yourself with the competition

Microturbines

by Barney L. Capehart, PhD, CEM
College of Engineering, University of Florida

Last updated: 06-19-2009
Within This Page

* Introduction
* Description
* Application
* Additional Resources

Introduction
Microturbines work like jet engines but produce electricity instead of thrust.
(Courtesy of Capstone Turbine Corp.)

Microturbines are a relatively new distributed generation technology being used for stationary energy generation applications. They are a type of combustion turbine that produces both heat and electricity on a relatively small scale. Microturbines offer several potential advantages compared to other technologies for small-scale power generation, including: a small number of moving parts, compact size, lightweight, greater efficiency, lower emissions, lower electricity costs, and opportunities to utilize waste fuels. Waste heat recovery can also be used with these systems to achieve efficiencies greater than 80%.

Because of their small size, relatively low capital costs, expected low operations and maintenance costs, and automatic electronic control, microturbines are expected to capture a significant share of the distributed generation market. In addition, microturbines offer an efficient and clean solution to direct mechanical drive markets such as compression and air-conditioning.
http://www.wbdg.org/resources/microturbines.php?r=secure_safe

This is the competition for the fuel cell. Different set of benefits and costs, but given current proven variables the price alone overwhelms the fuel cell's advantage in quietness. For despite what the fuel cell maker is hoping to do they have yet to give any evidence of a major breakthrough. The strongest argument against it being anything more than hype is the fact that they haven't provided the relevant hard data to enable an interested outsider to make a solid comparison. ANY product that has a real advantage shouts it to the market until that advantage disappears.

The home storage units are highly likely to be dominated by batteries because overall system efficiencies and costs due to the large market size associated EVs.


BTW, you might want to check out post 37 where the efficiency of the FC is pegged at 48% in comparison to similar ones on the market at 35-40%.

[kristopher]

22. Last para

"What has always been vexing, though, is understanding how to make money from a commercial fuel cell business. Very few firms, if any, have done that consistently. If Bloom has figured that out, then their take on distributed energy generation gets very interesting. And the wait just might have been worth it."

[bhikkhu]

54. I can tell you exactly how to make money in the fuel cell business

Cobble together a fuel cell that produces power, give it a "green" name, claim "new technology breakthrough", and shop it around to venture capital. Take your winnings and build a few more (of course it does cost a million per unit or so, which has always been the problem), then shop these around to the cool guys on the block, like Ebay and Google; if they'll fire them up and use them, the buzz should be enough to get you a spot on national TV.

Now here's where the money really rolls in: let things simmer a little while, then go public with the company. Hundreds of millions can be generated, and people will be knocking down the door to get in on it. You can play it out for a couple of years at least, as everyone knows unexpected technical stuff arises when trying to scale up. In the meantime, its big time Wall Street wage and bonus packages all around, not to mention stock options!

Not to be too much a skeptic, but all this happened years ago with fuel cell companies. In spite of hundreds of millions in R&D and development costs, no affordable or durable product was ever produced. Of course that didn't stop the guys involved from getting filthy rich...

[kristopher]

55. Ah, the Wharton School Model...

[Lorien]

38. Excellent! Thanks for posting this.

:thumbsup:

[Fledermaus]

44. The heat would be good for people who live in cold climates or for hot water.

[profgoose]

56. The Bloom Box: Initial Evaluations of an Energy Breakthrough

A post over at TOD has a look under the hood and aggregates the info out there...especially scroll down to Rembrandt's calculations (about halfway down the post...)

http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/6242

It's good, but it's not a panacea.

[OKIsItJustMe]

57. I think cost calculations are premature

We know they're planning on lowering the price.

It's amusing to me how supporters of just about any form of power generation (nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal...) will argue that the high costs currently associated with their favorite form of generation will always be driven down over time by economics, however, when they're arguing against some other form of power generation, they tend to produce calculations assuming that costs will remain constant, or increase over time.

A more reasonable assumption in this case would be that cost calculations (based on precious little information from one initial customer) represent the high-end of the potential cost range.

[kristopher]

58. The known information totally invalidates that evaluation.

Aside from it being of questionable design from the start, we are told above by OK quoting from the Greentech article that the efficiency for the device is 48%.

The first conclusion from Rembrandt says "Bloom Box can turn natural gas into electricity at an 80% conversion efficiency."

The OilDrum occasionally produces some good information, but my sampling tells me that about 90% of the "analysis" are really, really bad.

[bik0]

60. Unless it's a reversible fuel cell - we'll find out Wednesday.

Interesting post here... http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/is-bloom-energys-secret-ingredient-zirconia/

As a follow-up, I too found the solar comment very strange - but only in the context that the wording didn’t make any sense. I’ll explain…

First, there are a number of signs that point to the possibility that the Bloom Box is a SORFC (the R being the important distinction). This stands for solid oxide reversible fuel cell, which means that the stack can also run in reverse as an electrolysis cell. In electrolysis mode the box works exactly in reverse - it consumes electrical energy to split water and CO2 to make hydrogen and carbon monoxide (called syngas) which are fuels in and of themselves and are also precursors to a simple production method of methane called the Sabatier process. Essentially, and I believe this is where the real value of the box comes from, the system works as an energy production and storage system in one unit. At high demand it can run in fuel cell mode, and at night or in low demand, it can run in electrolysis mode to store energy in the form of a gas or liquid fuel. The value in this is that you can achieve power leveling/shaving, a very necessary aspect to future grid requirements with the addition of intermittent renewable energy sources.

One sign pointing to this is that the majority of Bloom patents describe this SORFC system and how it would work - where the different gases are stored, what application would use a reversible system, etc. Secondly, he said (in one wording or another) that it could “run on solar” which basically means you could hook up solar panels to the box and convert the solar electricity to a fuel that can be run later in the fuel cell. Granted, you don’t get solar at night, so the power leveling doesn’t necessarily work well with solar, but for wind energy it would be perfect. This also means that, assuming the round trip efficiency is greater than the difference in cost of electricity between peak and off-peak hours, if the box is connected to the grid, you could store energy at night during cheap electricity hours, and then during the day run the fuel cell on the stored energy. In this manner, one wouldn’t even need a natural gas fuel - it is simply taking advantage of time-sensitive pricing differences.

Based on Richard’s comment about the hard edit of the video, the patents, and Sridhar’s allusion to the integration of solar, my hunch is that the big reveal tomorrow will be that it is in fact an SORFC and has power leveling capabilities. I guess we’ll have to wait until tomorrow to see, but this addition would certainly add value to bring payback times down…

[OKIsItJustMe]

61. Reversible... In the 60 minute video they say

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/60minutes/main6221135.shtml

...

He says he knows it works because he originally invented a similar device for NASA. He really is a rocket scientist.

"This invention, working on Mars, would have allowed the NASA administrator to pick up a phone and say, 'Mr. President, we know how to produce oxygen on Mars,'" Sridhar told Stahl.

...

When NASA scrapped that Mars mission, Sridhar had an idea: he reversed his Mars machine. Instead of it making oxygen, he pumped oxygen in.

He invented a new kind of fuel cell, which is like a very skinny battery that always runs. Sridhar feeds oxygen to it on one side, and fuel on the other. The two combine within the cell to create a chemical reaction that produces electricity. There's no need for burning or combustion, and no need for power lines from an outside source.

...

[bik0]

62. Bloom website... will produce hydrogen in the future...

Hydrogen Production: Bloom's technology, with its NASA roots, can be used to generate electricity and hydrogen. Coupled with intermittent renewable resources like solar or wind, Bloom’s future systems will produce and store hydrogen to enable a 24 hour renewable solution and provide a distributed hydrogen fueling infrastructure for hydrogen powered vehicles.

http://www.bloomenergy.com/benefits/more-benefits-and-applications/

[OKIsItJustMe]

63. And there you have it

Sometimes speculation works!

[Joanne98]

64. Here's a LA Times article.

Silicon Valley company Bloom Energy revealed its heavily hyped and closely guarded solid oxide fuel cell on Wednesday, heralding the technology as a likely clean-tech game-changer.

Years in the making, the Bloom Energy Server can generate electricity using air and a wide range of renewable or traditional fuels through an electro-chemical process, rather than combustion.
Even more than solar and wind power – which Sunnyvale-based Bloom said can be intermittent – the new fuel cell could revolutionize fuel sources by offering clean, affordable and reliable energy, the company said. The technology can run all day, and customers can earn back the $700,000 to $800,000 cost within five years through utility bill savings.

Several major companies, including FedEx, Google, Staples and Wal-Mart, have already begun testing the technology. The trial runs have so far produced more than 11 million kilowatt-hours of energy while cutting 14 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions, Bloom said.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/02/bloom-energy-reveals-new-bloom-box-fuel-cell-technology.html

[kristopher]

65. The challenges that fuel cells fail to meet

What is the difference between energy storage and energy generation? If I have a gallon of gasoline I have X amount of energy stored in a container. If I have a charged lithium battery pack I have X amount of energy stored in a container.

If I need to use this energy for something I have to convert it to power. An internal combustion engine converts the solar energy stored chemically in the gasoline to heat and mechanical energy. The heat is largely wasted and losses to heat accounts for 70-88% ff the gasoline's energy.

If I use fuel cell, I have to run the gasoline (or natural gas etc) through a "reformer" and change the nature of the stored energy from one chemistry to a different chemistry. This results in lost energy, but now I can use a fuel cell to process the chemical energy into electricity and heat. Total losses for process in the fuel cells now on the market are around 60-80% of the energy contained in the gasoline. For the Bloom box the loss is stated to be 52%.

Another term to be familiar with is "energy carrier". That describes the portability characteristic that is associated with liquid fuels, but you should remember that liquid fuels are really stored energy. While the portability factor is the one most people focus on for gasoline, it's important to bear the fact that it is stored energy in mind because when we seek an alternative to gasoline, we are dealing with both the storage issue and with the portability issue. I can store a lot of energy cheaply in a pumped hydro system, but I can't carry that around in my car.

So the application is very important when evaluating these technologies. In the case of fuel cells, the efficiency of the fuel cell with a reformer is better than an internal combustion engine, but it still emits a lot of CO2. We can get the portability but we are using stored energy in fossil fuels and that means CO2.

An alternative is to operate a separate process that uses electricity (from fossil, renewables, or nuclear) to produce pure hydrogen. Of course, that incurs an energy loss from whatever energy state we begin with. The H2 then must be made portable. That incurs another loss. When pure H2 is used in a fuel cell, the conversion efficiency is about 50-60%, meaning we lose 40-50% as heat. But when we look at the process of getting the H2 to the fuel cell.

The alternative for automobiles (where portability is important) is the use of lithium batteries. When we track the same route for energy made portable by storage in lithium batteries as we do for fuel cells, this is what we find. Starting with 100kwh of electricity, for the two methods of making H2 portable for the fuel cell we end up with between 19-23kwh pushing the vehicle down the road; starting with the same 100 KWH for batteries we end up with 69kwh pushing the vehicle down the road - it is simply no contest.



From "Why a Hydrogen Economy Doesn't Make Sense" at http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html

This chart is 4 years old, so there are some improvements on both sides of the chart, but there is nothing that has been developed that alters the basic relationship that strongly favors batteries.

If we look for applications outside the transportation sector, we need to ask how relevant the portability factor is. If we are looking for a system for our home, business or local housing development, what are the characteristics the system must possess to best meet our needs?

I'd argue that the first point is that it should be carbon neutral. If we are not concerned about carbon, the present grid system is pretty darned good at meeting our energy needs for home use. But if we move to carbon free energy what then? The use of nuclear power fits into the present grid system so we can make the transition by building an additional 400-500 nuclear plants in the US and changing nothing else. To use that strategy throughout the world will require about 17,000 nuclear plants.

The vast majority of independent energy policy analysts do not see that as a viable strategy for a number of reasons. There are quite a few plans for making a transition away from fossil fuels and very few from outside of the nuclear industry advocate for expansion of our nuclear fleet. The particulars of that argument are not relevant for this discussion about applications for energy storage and recovery within a distributed grid system, which would be built around renewables. If we go with the nuclear option, the use of fuel cells from any maker have little value.

So (presuming you are interested in a transition to renewables) what about using fuel cells to meet needs at the home, business or local housing development level?

At the home level the chance seems fairly low since the same efficiency issue with input is at play. In our chart above, we find the answer at the level above the end use level for we want to compare the output of the device delivering the electricty, not what the final efficiency through our refrigerator might be, right? The chart gives us an efficiency range of 21-26% for the fuel cell and 77% for the lithium batteries.

If we go to larger scale systems we are looking at the same issue, only the battery is different. For transportation lithium is best because it sores a lot of energy by weight and volume compared to other types of batteries. But for these stationary applications in the microgeneration range, there are other batteries that are very functional.

What about biofuels? They also have to go through a reformer for the fuel cell and when they do, the fuel cell compares poorly to combined cycle gas turbines in the area of efficiency.

The bottom line is that with a fuel cell because you have to go from electricity, to chemical and back to electricity, the system efficiency is too low. If we look at using the fuel cell with hydrocarbons, then it must go through the reformer, and that is even worse than if we manufacture H2.

If we use of manufactured H2 from renewable sources we have essentially no carbon carbon emissions. But there is still the low efficiency rating. We can use the same no carbon renewable sources with batteries of all sorts much more efficiently.

That's why the low cost, scalable rock battery at 72-80% round trip efficiency that can be used anywhere is a breakthough and why a new iteration of an old design of the fuel cell isn't.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/breakthrough-in-utility-scale-energy-storage-isentropic

[OKIsItJustMe]

66. OK, so, let's say you've got a liter of fuel...

It's ethanol, or biodiesel, or some other fuel you've derived in some clean fashion.

How will you use it to charge your battery?

[kristopher]

67. That's foolish, why would I use it to charge a battery?

It is already in a stored state, what advantage is there in converting it to another stored state with the attendant energy losses?

The portability characteristic is extremely valuable and if we have a liter of clean fuel, it should be used for agricultural or heavy transportation applications.

[OKIsItJustMe]

68. Well, you seem to think electricity is a good thing

A fuel cell converts fuel into electricity.

This chart is almost completely irrelevant to this discussion:


Not only is it out of date, but it supposes the fuel cell is running on hydrogen, produced by electrolyzing water, using some renewable electrical source.

At present, this fuel cell produces electricity from natural gas, or methane.

[kristopher]

69. Electricity is the most useful form of energy.

And my post directly addresses your other remarks:

What is the difference between energy storage and energy generation? If I have a gallon of gasoline I have X amount of energy stored in a container. If I have a charged lithium battery pack I have X amount of energy stored in a container.

If I need to use this energy for something I have to convert it to power. An internal combustion engine converts the solar energy stored chemically in the gasoline to heat and mechanical energy. The heat is largely wasted and losses to heat accounts for 70-88% ff the gasoline's energy.

If I use fuel cell, I have to run the gasoline (or natural gas etc) through a "reformer" and change the nature of the stored energy from one chemistry to a different chemistry. This results in lost energy, but now I can use a fuel cell to process the chemical energy into electricity and heat. Total losses for process in the fuel cells now on the market are around 60-80% of the energy contained in the gasoline. For the Bloom box the loss is stated to be 52%.

Another term to be familiar with is "energy carrier". That describes the portability characteristic that is associated with liquid fuels, but you should remember that liquid fuels are really stored energy. While the portability factor is the one most people focus on for gasoline, it's important to bear the fact that it is stored energy in mind because when we seek an alternative to gasoline, we are dealing with both the storage issue and with the portability issue. I can store a lot of energy cheaply in a pumped hydro system, but I can't carry that around in my car.

So the application is very important when evaluating these technologies. In the case of fuel cells, the efficiency of the fuel cell with a reformer is better than an internal combustion engine, but it still emits a lot of CO2. We can get the portability but we are using stored energy in fossil fuels and that means CO2.

An alternative is to operate a separate process that uses electricity (from fossil, renewables, or nuclear) to produce pure hydrogen. Of course, that incurs an energy loss from whatever energy state we begin with. The H2 then must be made portable. That incurs another loss. When pure H2 is used in a fuel cell, the conversion efficiency is about 50-60%, meaning we lose 40-50% as heat. But when we look at the process of getting the H2 to the fuel cell.

The alternative for automobiles (where portability is important) is the use of lithium batteries. When we track the same route for energy made portable by storage in lithium batteries as we do for fuel cells, this is what we find. Starting with 100kwh of electricity, for the two methods of making H2 portable for the fuel cell we end up with between 19-23kwh pushing the vehicle down the road; starting with the same 100 KWH for batteries we end up with 69kwh pushing the vehicle down the road - it is simply no contest.



From "Why a Hydrogen Economy Doesn't Make Sense" at http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html

This chart is 4 years old, so there are some improvements on both sides of the chart, but there is nothing that has been developed that alters the basic relationship that strongly favors batteries.

If we look for applications outside the transportation sector, we need to ask how relevant the portability factor is. If we are looking for a system for our home, business or local housing development, what are the characteristics the system must possess to best meet our needs?

I'd argue that the first point is that it should be carbon neutral. If we are not concerned about carbon, the present grid system is pretty darned good at meeting our energy needs for home use. But if we move to carbon free energy what then? The use of nuclear power fits into the present grid system so we can make the transition by building an additional 400-500 nuclear plants in the US and changing nothing else. To use that strategy throughout the world will require about 17,000 nuclear plants.

The vast majority of independent energy policy analysts do not see that as a viable strategy for a number of reasons. There are quite a few plans for making a transition away from fossil fuels and very few from outside of the nuclear industry advocate for expansion of our nuclear fleet. The particulars of that argument are not relevant for this discussion about applications for energy storage and recovery within a distributed grid system, which would be built around renewables. If we go with the nuclear option, the use of fuel cells from any maker have little value.

So (presuming you are interested in a transition to renewables) what about using fuel cells to meet needs at the home, business or local housing development level?

At the home level the chance seems fairly low since the same efficiency issue with input is at play. In our chart above, we find the answer at the level above the end use level for we want to compare the output of the device delivering the electricty, not what the final efficiency through our refrigerator might be, right? The chart gives us an efficiency range of 21-26% for the fuel cell and 77% for the lithium batteries.

If we go to larger scale systems we are looking at the same issue, only the battery is different. For transportation lithium is best because it sores a lot of energy by weight and volume compared to other types of batteries. But for these stationary applications in the microgeneration range, there are other batteries that are very functional.

What about biofuels? They also have to go through a reformer for the fuel cell and when they do, the fuel cell compares poorly to combined cycle gas turbines in the area of efficiency.

The bottom line is that with a fuel cell because you have to go from electricity, to chemical and back to electricity, the system efficiency is too low. If we look at using the fuel cell with hydrocarbons, then it must go through the reformer, and that is even worse than if we manufacture H2.

If we use of manufactured H2 from renewable sources we have essentially no carbon carbon emissions. But there is still the low efficiency rating. We can use the same no carbon renewable sources with batteries of all sorts much more efficiently.

That's why the low cost, scalable rock battery at 72-80% round trip efficiency that can be used anywhere is a breakthough and why a new iteration of an old design of the fuel cell isn't.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/breakthrough-in-utility-scale-energy-storage-isentropic

[OKIsItJustMe]

70. The chart is still almost completely irrelevant

The major drawback to a fuel cell (according to the chart) is that you need to convert electrical energy to chemical energy (with losses) and then back to electrical energy (with losses.)

(That's the reason for the change in colors. Yellow signifies electrical energy, Blue signifies chemical energy. The major losses, according to the chart, take place in the bi-color boxes, where the change is made.)

However, the whole chart is structured around the assumption that we're starting out with electricity, which we are not. In this case, we're starting out with a fuel. (That's why I say it's almost completely irrelevant.)

To store the energy of the fuel in a battery requires converting it to electricity (with losses) then storing it in a battery (with some minor loss) and later retrieving it from the battery (with some minor loss) when we want to use it. The most significant loss is the change from chemical energy to electrical energy.

The most efficient way to convert the fuel into electrical energy for storage in the battery is... well... to use a fuel cell...

Compare this with keeping the fuel in its original form, and running it through the fuel cell to generate electricity upon demand. (No battery-related losses, and the energy is "stored" in a more convenient form, if you store the fuel at all.)


As for the emissions (for what it's worth) the "Bloom Energy" website points out:
http://www.bloomenergy.com/benefits/more-benefits-and-applications/

...

The electrochemical reaction occurring within Bloom Energy systems generates electricity, heat, some H2O, and pure CO2. Traditionally, the most costly aspect of carbon sequestration is separating the CO2 from the other effluents. The pure CO2 emission allows for easy and cost-effective carbon sequestration from the Bloom systems.

...

[kristopher]

71. That is an absurd hypothetical that ignores the charaterists of energy carriers

There just is no case in a renewable energy infrastructure where it is desirable to convert liquid fuels to electricity via a fuel cell. The liquid fuels have their own set of issues and their production involves a completely separate analysis of the impacts and costs.

If you want to continue business as usual with a dependence on fossil fuels, then the least cost option is almost certainly diesel engines. If you want to electrify the transportation fleet the most efficient and least cost option is batteries. If you want home storage for renewables the least cost option becomes an offshot of the move to batteries in autos and it too, is batteries.

If you want larger applications then the liquid to fuel cell approach fails when compared to combined cycle gas turbines.

You are relying on attempts to confuse the issue instead of impartial analysis.

[OKIsItJustMe]

72. Straw man

If you want to argue against the Bloom Box, argue against the Bloom Box.

At this time, it is a stationary fuel cell, powered by "Natural Gas" or "Directed Biogas."

It is intended as a distributed generation solution.

[kristopher]

89. And it may have some applicability someday...

However today it isn't an improvement on other fuel cells that are available, so there is no reason to expect it to fare any better against the competition than they have.

This entire campaign of hype is something you should be ashamed of...

[bik0]

92. "applicability someday"? What are those boxes sitting in front of Google's data center?

Name another fuel cell manufacturer who has more units out in the field.

[bik0]

75. You never explain how your battery got charged.

Whatever inefficiencies are inherent in the charging device i.e. electricity from a coal powered plant or a nat gas generator... that has to be figured in. That electricity came from somewhere. Your battery isn't nearly as efficient then.

[kristopher]

76. The chart deals with that.

http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html

[bik0]

77. If you're using this chart to compare batteries with Hydrogen fuel cells then ok but...

if your trying to compare batteries with the Bloom box it's not applicable. The Bloom box doesn't need electricity. To make a fair comparison, at the top of the chart should be nat gas since the Bloom box is a direct conversion of nat gas to electricity. From nat gas to a generator to a battery on one side and nat gas to Bloom box on the other.

Why are you bringing up this illustration and argument against hydrogen fuel cells when a SOFC is totally different process?

[kristopher]

78. I have explained it clearly. What part don't you understand?

There is nothing groundbreaking about this fuel cell. The fact that it uses fossil fuels isn't a plus, it is a negative.

The challenges that fuel cells fail to meet.

What is the difference between energy storage and energy generation? If I have a gallon of gasoline I have X amount of energy stored in a container. If I have a charged lithium battery pack I have X amount of energy stored in a container.

If I need to use this energy for something I have to convert it to power. An internal combustion engine converts the solar energy stored chemically in the gasoline to heat and mechanical energy. The heat is largely wasted and losses to heat accounts for 70-88% ff the gasoline's energy.

If I use fuel cell, I have to run the gasoline (or natural gas etc) through a "reformer" and change the nature of the stored energy from one chemistry to a different chemistry. This results in lost energy, but now I can use a fuel cell to process the chemical energy into electricity and heat. Total losses for process in the fuel cells now on the market are around 60-80% of the energy contained in the gasoline. For the Bloom box the loss is stated to be 52%.

Another term to be familiar with is "energy carrier". That describes the portability characteristic that is associated with liquid fuels, but you should remember that liquid fuels are really stored energy. While the portability factor is the one most people focus on for gasoline, it's important to bear the fact that it is stored energy in mind because when we seek an alternative to gasoline, we are dealing with both the storage issue and with the portability issue. I can store a lot of energy cheaply in a pumped hydro system, but I can't carry that around in my car.

So the application is very important when evaluating these technologies. In the case of fuel cells, the efficiency of the fuel cell with a reformer is better than an internal combustion engine, but it still emits a lot of CO2. We can get the portability but we are using stored energy in fossil fuels and that means CO2.

An alternative is to operate a separate process that uses electricity (from fossil, renewables, or nuclear) to produce pure hydrogen. Of course, that incurs an energy loss from whatever energy state we begin with. The H2 then must be made portable. That incurs another loss. When pure H2 is used in a fuel cell, the conversion efficiency is about 50-60%, meaning we lose 40-50% as heat. But when we look at the process of getting the H2 to the fuel cell.

The alternative for automobiles (where portability is important) is the use of lithium batteries. When we track the same route for energy made portable by storage in lithium batteries as we do for fuel cells, this is what we find. Starting with 100kwh of electricity, for the two methods of making H2 portable for the fuel cell we end up with between 19-23kwh pushing the vehicle down the road; starting with the same 100 KWH for batteries we end up with 69kwh pushing the vehicle down the road - it is simply no contest.



From "Why a Hydrogen Economy Doesn't Make Sense" at http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html

This chart is 4 years old, so there are some improvements on both sides of the chart, but there is nothing that has been developed that alters the basic relationship that strongly favors batteries.

If we look for applications outside the transportation sector, we need to ask how relevant the portability factor is. If we are looking for a system for our home, business or local housing development, what are the characteristics the system must possess to best meet our needs?

I'd argue that the first point is that it should be carbon neutral. If we are not concerned about carbon, the present grid system is pretty darned good at meeting our energy needs for home use. But if we move to carbon free energy what then? The use of nuclear power fits into the present grid system so we can make the transition by building an additional 400-500 nuclear plants in the US and changing nothing else. To use that strategy throughout the world will require about 17,000 nuclear plants.

The vast majority of independent energy policy analysts do not see that as a viable strategy for a number of reasons. There are quite a few plans for making a transition away from fossil fuels and very few from outside of the nuclear industry advocate for expansion of our nuclear fleet. The particulars of that argument are not relevant for this discussion about applications for energy storage and recovery within a distributed grid system, which would be built around renewables. If we go with the nuclear option, the use of fuel cells from any maker have little value.

So (presuming you are interested in a transition to renewables) what about using fuel cells to meet needs at the home, business or local housing development level?

At the home level the chance seems fairly low since the same efficiency issue with input is at play. In our chart above, we find the answer at the level above the end use level for we want to compare the output of the device delivering the electricty, not what the final efficiency through our refrigerator might be, right? The chart gives us an efficiency range of 21-26% for the fuel cell and 77% for the lithium batteries.

If we go to larger scale systems we are looking at the same issue, only the battery is different. For transportation lithium is best because it sores a lot of energy by weight and volume compared to other types of batteries. But for these stationary applications in the microgeneration range, there are other batteries that are very functional.

What about biofuels? They also have to go through a reformer for the fuel cell and when they do, the fuel cell compares poorly to combined cycle gas turbines in the area of efficiency.

The bottom line is that with a fuel cell because you have to go from electricity, to chemical and back to electricity, the system efficiency is too low. If we look at using the fuel cell with hydrocarbons, then it must go through the reformer, and that is even worse than if we manufacture H2.

If we use of manufactured H2 from renewable sources we have essentially no carbon carbon emissions. But there is still the low efficiency rating. We can use the same no carbon renewable sources with batteries of all sorts much more efficiently.

That's why the low cost, scalable rock battery at 72-80% round trip efficiency that can be used anywhere is a breakthough and why a new iteration of an old design of the fuel cell isn't.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/breakthrough-in-utility-scale-energy-storage-isentropic
(BTW, I do not advocate investing money in either technology or company as they are both, for different reasons, extremely risky.)

[bik0]

79. Clearly? I don't think so..

Please explain this without repeating the same post for the umpteenth time...

The bottom line is that with a fuel cell because you have to go from electricity, to chemical and back to electricity, the system efficiency is too low. If we look at using the fuel cell with hydrocarbons, then it must go through the reformer, and that is even worse than if we manufacture H2.

Again... the Bloom box does not use electricity. How can a SOFC be worse?

[kristopher]

81. Don't take my word for it.

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

National Geographic News

Published February 24, 2010

The Bloom Box—an as yet unbuilt in-home "power plant" ...

But fuel cell experts say that, based on the information the company made public today, the Bloom Box technology is not revolutionary, nor is it the cheapest or most efficient fuel cell system available.

"It's a big hype. I'm actually pretty pissed off about it, to be quite honest," said Nigel Sammes, a ceramic engineer and fuel cell expert at the Colorado School of Mines.

And if there was any doubt about whether this hoodoo was hype or real, get this claim from the developer:

K.R. Sridhar, CEO of Bloom Energy, said that, for one thing, the Bloom Box fuel cell system is a much better, or at least more reliable, alternative to solar power as a green energy source.

Claiming this device is "an energy source" is like claiming that a car engine is "an energy source". And in light of the fact that he used solar as the basic of his comparison, there can be no question. This device requires fuel. The fuel is the energy source, not the device. That isn't a casual mistake, for he MUST know that it is false.
No wonder Sammes is "pissed off".

[bik0]

86. As expected... you can't answer the question.

You deflect the question by posting one person's OPINION like it's gospel... supported by zero facts.

Sridhar is a salesman - BFD. But you want to argue over semantics instead of the economic and environmental impact compared to Solar. You can't deny that Bloom is cheaper per kWh. I'll give solar the edge for CO2 but the Bloombox IS more reliable, has a much smaller footprint and can be effectively used anywhere in the U.S.

[kristopher]

87. The man knows the field of fuel cells and is qualified to judge the hype.

You can't find ANYTHING that shows why Sridhar's device is in any way a technology that changes the overview I provided in my post. You selected one part of that rather long post and promptly ignored the context. The context is important - it doesn't matter whether a sofc or hydrogen is the particular fuel cell being highlighted, the information in my post demonstrates that the characteristics associated with energy products work to rule out the use of fuel cells in the primary markets that exist.


Now you demonstrate the same type of blindness by this remark, "but you want to argue over semantics instead of the economic and environmental impact compared to Solar. You can't deny that Bloom is cheaper per kWh. I'll give solar the edge for CO2 but the Bloombox IS more reliable, has a much smaller footprint and can be effectively used anywhere in the U.S."

My post FOCUSED on environmental and economic impact. You just want to pretend the realities don't exist so you can rah-rah a fuel cell.

Well, all the rah-rah cheering and hype isn't going to change the relevant factors that have moved fuel cells to the back burner of the energy field.

Maybe if you take the to read for meaning you'll actually get it, for youre confusion over the difference between solar and a fuel cell means you haven't got a clue about the relevant facts by which these technologies are judged:

The challenges that fuel cells fail to meet.

What is the difference between energy storage and energy generation? If I have a gallon of gasoline I have X amount of energy stored in a container. If I have a charged lithium battery pack I have X amount of energy stored in a container.

If I need to use this energy for something I have to convert it to power. An internal combustion engine converts the solar energy stored chemically in the gasoline to heat and mechanical energy. The heat is largely wasted and losses to heat accounts for 70-88% ff the gasoline's energy.

If I use fuel cell, I have to run the gasoline (or natural gas etc) through a "reformer" and change the nature of the stored energy from one chemistry to a different chemistry. This results in lost energy, but now I can use a fuel cell to process the chemical energy into electricity and heat. Total losses for process in the fuel cells now on the market are around 60-80% of the energy contained in the gasoline. For the Bloom box the loss is stated to be 52%.

Another term to be familiar with is "energy carrier". That describes the portability characteristic that is associated with liquid fuels, but you should remember that liquid fuels are really stored energy. While the portability factor is the one most people focus on for gasoline, it's important to bear the fact that it is stored energy in mind because when we seek an alternative to gasoline, we are dealing with both the storage issue and with the portability issue. I can store a lot of energy cheaply in a pumped hydro system, but I can't carry that around in my car.

So the application is very important when evaluating these technologies. In the case of fuel cells, the efficiency of the fuel cell with a reformer is better than an internal combustion engine, but it still emits a lot of CO2. We can get the portability but we are using stored energy in fossil fuels and that means CO2.

An alternative is to operate a separate process that uses electricity (from fossil, renewables, or nuclear) to produce pure hydrogen. Of course, that incurs an energy loss from whatever energy state we begin with. The H2 then must be made portable. That incurs another loss. When pure H2 is used in a fuel cell, the conversion efficiency is about 50-60%, meaning we lose 40-50% as heat. But when we look at the process of getting the H2 to the fuel cell.

The alternative for automobiles (where portability is important) is the use of lithium batteries. When we track the same route for energy made portable by storage in lithium batteries as we do for fuel cells, this is what we find. Starting with 100kwh of electricity, for the two methods of making H2 portable for the fuel cell we end up with between 19-23kwh pushing the vehicle down the road; starting with the same 100 KWH for batteries we end up with 69kwh pushing the vehicle down the road - it is simply no contest.



From "Why a Hydrogen Economy Doesn't Make Sense" at http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html

This chart is 4 years old, so there are some improvements on both sides of the chart, but there is nothing that has been developed that alters the basic relationship that strongly favors batteries.

If we look for applications outside the transportation sector, we need to ask how relevant the portability factor is. If we are looking for a system for our home, business or local housing development, what are the characteristics the system must possess to best meet our needs?

I'd argue that the first point is that it should be carbon neutral. If we are not concerned about carbon, the present grid system is pretty darned good at meeting our energy needs for home use. But if we move to carbon free energy what then? The use of nuclear power fits into the present grid system so we can make the transition by building an additional 400-500 nuclear plants in the US and changing nothing else. To use that strategy throughout the world will require about 17,000 nuclear plants.

The vast majority of independent energy policy analysts do not see that as a viable strategy for a number of reasons. There are quite a few plans for making a transition away from fossil fuels and very few from outside of the nuclear industry advocate for expansion of our nuclear fleet. The particulars of that argument are not relevant for this discussion about applications for energy storage and recovery within a distributed grid system, which would be built around renewables. If we go with the nuclear option, the use of fuel cells from any maker have little value.

So (presuming you are interested in a transition to renewables) what about using fuel cells to meet needs at the home, business or local housing development level?

At the home level the chance seems fairly low since the same efficiency issue with input is at play. In our chart above, we find the answer at the level above the end use level for we want to compare the output of the device delivering the electricty, not what the final efficiency through our refrigerator might be, right? The chart gives us an efficiency range of 21-26% for the fuel cell and 77% for the lithium batteries.

If we go to larger scale systems we are looking at the same issue, only the battery is different. For transportation lithium is best because it sores a lot of energy by weight and volume compared to other types of batteries. But for these stationary applications in the microgeneration range, there are other batteries that are very functional.

What about biofuels? They also have to go through a reformer for the fuel cell and when they do, the fuel cell compares poorly to combined cycle gas turbines in the area of efficiency.

The bottom line is that with a fuel cell because you have to go from electricity, to chemical and back to electricity, the system efficiency is too low. If we look at using the fuel cell with hydrocarbons, then it must go through the reformer, and that is even worse than if we manufacture H2.

If we use of manufactured H2 from renewable sources we have essentially no carbon carbon emissions. But there is still the low efficiency rating. We can use the same no carbon renewable sources with batteries of all sorts much more efficiently.

That's why the low cost, scalable rock battery at 72-80% round trip efficiency that can be used anywhere is a breakthough and why a new iteration of an old design of the fuel cell isn't.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/breakthrough-in-utility-scale-energy-storage-isentropic

I do not advocate investing money in either technology or company as they are both, for different reasons, extremely risky

[bik0]

90. Show me another fuel cell system that's has as many units in the field producing power.

The proof is in the market place and acceptance by those who buy and use the systems. If there's a cheaper, more efficient fuel cell out there as your expert claims, why didn't Google, Ebay, Fed-ex and Walmart buy it? I'll make a prediction here... you won't answer the question because there isn't another cheaper, more efficient fuel cell that's available. What's revolutionary about it is it does not use platinum or other precious metals and they have overcome the problem of the anode, cathode and electolyte expanding at different rates in the fuel stack due to high temperature.

But fuel cell experts say that, based on the information the company made public today, the Bloom Box technology is not revolutionary, nor is it the cheapest or most efficient fuel cell system available.

"It's a big hype. I'm actually pretty pissed off about it, to be quite honest," said Nigel Sammes, a ceramic engineer and fuel cell expert at the Colorado School of Mines.

Your post focused on the difference in a battery and hydrogen fuel cell and you've posted it for the umpteenth time after I and others pointed out how irrelevant it was. You keep going around in circles and reposting the same drivel, the same irrelevant nonsense. Why are you incapable of engaging in a serious discussion and refuse to answer my questions?

My post FOCUSED on environmental and economic impact. You just want to pretend the realities don't exist so you can rah-rah a fuel cell.

Well, all the rah-rah cheering and hype isn't going to change the relevant factors that have moved fuel cells to the back burner of the energy field.

Maybe if you take the to read for meaning you'll actually get it, for youre confusion over the difference between solar and a fuel cell means you haven't got a clue about the relevant facts by which these technologies are judged:

[Statistical]

101. You are aware this is a SOFC. The first commercial SOFC right?

As such you stupid H2 chart misses the point.

If you use this in a static location you don't need the expensive H2 cycle.
You use natural gas (or biogas, or waste methane from landfill) and produce power.
There is no reformer. The high temps that SOFC operate allow it to "reform within the anode" using waste heat that would be discarded anyways. Actually reforming is preferable because it is endothermic and thus cools the stack.

If you use this in a vehicle it would be STUPID to fill the vehicle up with H2. The stack can run on natural gas, methane, or biogas directly. You fill the vehicle up with natural gas.

Now you may say wait that is a fossil fuel however we will be using fossil fuels in some capacity for long time (try running a jet engine or semi truck on batteries).

Using natural gas via a SOFC would be a 60% reduction in both CO2 and cost ($$) per mile compared to gasoline and 40mpg vehicle.

12,000 miles / 40mpg = 300 gallons gasoline anually * 19 pounds = 5900 pounds of CO2.

12,000 miles / 4 miles per kwh = 3000 kwh = 10.2MBTU output.
At 51.6% efficiency that is 19.8MBTU input = 19,500 cu ft of natural gas * 0.12 pounds of CO2 = 2300 pounds of CO2.

[kristopher]

106. Explain post 62.

Actually you are bumping head on into the one area where this type of technology has potential and you aren't even seeing it.

IF you were paying attention to our energy needs you'd see that the use of batteries in the transportation sector is focused on light duty personal transportation. I've repeatedly pointed out that **liquid fuels are far too precious** to be used anywhere there are viable alternatives. What you say is true about batteries and heavy lifting like aircraft and tractors, but you totally fail to appreciate the implications.

Pickens had it right when he switched the emphasis of his plan for natural gas from running all autos to running only our heavy equipment.

Fuel cells are a viable candidate for improving efficiency in this sector. The larger challenge is this - improve performance and efficiency with interim technologies in a way that smooths the transition to later carbon free technologies. So the question would be are we able to produce enough carbon neutral biofuels to run the agricultural, construction and heavy transportation sectors?

IF this technology has a real place in a carbon free energy system, THAT is were it lies.

As to the microgeneration for a distributed grid that niche 1) doesn't exist yet and won't really gain traction until we start moving towards the end game of moving to renewables. And 2) the penetration of the fuel cell into this market as it currently exists will depend on its ability to get the price vs performance numbers to a point where they are able to compete with the microgeneration technologies that are currently out there. For the foreseeable future the fuel cell isn't even close.

The appeal to manufacturing economy of scale sounds good, but remember what I pointed out, the DEMAND for this class of product is far from mature. When it DOES mature there are going to be competitors for the input fuels and those fuels are going to be significantly more expensive in the matrix of energy options than they are now. Other options that are also in the development stage are then going to be what the fuel cell is compared against. By then, it is very probable that the lower price of solar and other renewable sources will make the economics of energy storage (biofuels are "energy storage") favor the technologies that are most compatible with quickly and efficiently storing and retrieving electrical energy.

There is no indication that fuel cells are going to prove viable in this niche.

[Statistical]

110. There is nothing to explain in post #62.

There is nothing to explain in post #62. The Bloom box CAN use H2. It also CAN be used in reverse to make H2 however it doesn't require an H2 economy to be practical.

fuel cell + natural gas = practical (less emissions per unit of energy than ICE or turbines)
fuel cell + biogas = practical (more efficient than ICE)
fuel cell + methane from landfill = practical (currently they are either burned
fuel cell + H2 = potentially practical

The idea *you* personally (or anyone) can pick the ultimate winners and losers is silly. That is why we have parallel research because nobody knows where the next big break comes from. The first PV panels (at $4000 per watt and limited lifespan) weren't very promising however research continued. Had people used your logic in 1960s we simply would have focused all energy into making coal more efficient. Nobody knows which technology will be the most effective in the long run because nobody knows where the end game goes.

Maybe the Bloom box tops out at 51.6% efficiency and never gets better. Maybe it hits 80%. 80% vs 51.6% would change a lot of metrics. The reality is we will still be using fossil fuels in some form or another for next century. If not the United States then at least some portion of the world. If Bloom box can extract 3 times as much usable energy per unit of hydrocarbons than that reduces emissions.

Bloom doesn't need H2 it can run on nat gas, or biogas, or methane. The company is simply showing all the potential uses. Most of them will never pan out that is why they are a venture capital company at this point.

You believe biofuels as energy storage will be cheaper. Maybe they will be. Guess what? You still need to convert that liquid fuel into usable (electrical or mechanical) energy. You can do it in an internal combustion engine and get 12% - 20% usable energy or you can use the same exact fuel in a fuel cell and get 50%+ effective energy. Even if all vehicles run on biofuels someday it would make a lot more sense to use the more effective energy conversion tool (fuel cell vs ICE). The same amount of biofuel could power 3x to 4x as many vehicle.

That is the advantage of a fuel cell that runs of hydrocarbons without external reforming: flexibility. Who knows what ends up being the final solution but there a dozens of multiple outcomes in which fuel cell are part of it.

[kristopher]

112. Yes there is...

Actually you are bumping head on into the one area where this type of technology has potential and you aren't even seeing it.

IF you were paying attention to our energy needs you'd see that the use of batteries in the transportation sector is focused on light duty personal transportation. I've repeatedly pointed out that **liquid fuels are far too precious** to be used anywhere there are viable alternatives. What you say is true about batteries and heavy lifting like aircraft and tractors, but you totally fail to appreciate the implications.

Pickens had it right when he switched the emphasis of his plan for natural gas from running all autos to running only our heavy equipment.

Fuel cells are a viable candidate for improving efficiency in this sector. The larger challenge is this - improve performance and efficiency with interim technologies in a way that smooths the transition to later carbon free technologies. So the question would be are we able to produce enough carbon neutral biofuels to run the agricultural, construction and heavy transportation sectors?

IF this technology has a real place in a carbon free energy system, THAT is were it lies.

As to the microgeneration for a distributed grid that niche 1) doesn't exist yet and won't really gain traction until we start moving towards the end game of moving to renewables. And 2) the penetration of the fuel cell into this market as it currently exists will depend on its ability to get the price vs performance numbers to a point where they are able to compete with the microgeneration technologies that are currently out there. For the foreseeable future the fuel cell isn't even close.

The appeal to manufacturing economy of scale sounds good, but remember what I pointed out, the DEMAND for this class of product is far from mature. When it DOES mature there are going to be competitors for the input fuels and those fuels are going to be significantly more expensive in the matrix of energy options than they are now. Other options that are also in the development stage are then going to be what the fuel cell is compared against. By then, it is very probable that the lower price of solar and other renewable sources will make the economics of energy storage (biofuels are "energy storage") favor the technologies that are most compatible with quickly and efficiently storing and retrieving electrical energy.

There is no indication that fuel cells are going to prove viable in this niche.

[Statistical]

114. You keep posting the same nonesense.

Fuel cells especially SOFC are NOT incompatible with biofuels.

Biofuel needs to be converted to mechanical energy. It can be done with horrible inefficiency in an internal combustion engine or with high level of efficiency in a fuel cell.

As far as micro-generation being a niche it is only a niche because product runs haven't ramped up yet. Today (not tomorrow, not in a decade, today) A bloom box produces power at cheaper rate than what can be bought by utilities or generated by solar power. If you don't think there is a market for that you are kidding.

The added bonus of tighter power (frequency, and voltage) and ability to run even in blackout is just an added bonus.

[kristopher]

116. That's because you are ignoring what I wrote and talking to yourself.

Resorting to straw men seems to come easily to you.

[Statistical]

118. So what will power transportation in 30 years?

Sure EV work close to home (commuter vehicles, etc) but what about all the long range travel and transportation?

"Something" will need to fuel it. That something will need a mechanism to convert chemical energy into mechanical energy.

Fuel cells can be that mechanism for that conversion since they are far more efficient than internal combustion engines.

It doesn't matter if the "something" is biogas, synthetic methane, natural gas, or H2. They can all be converted to usable energy via a fuel cell.

[Nederland]

83. Your post makes no sense

The OP is about the Bloom box, which generates electricity for buildings, not transportation.

Talk about a strawman...

[kristopher]

88. And my post is about the characteristics of energy...

And my post is about the characteristics of energy; which guides how we choose the various technologies for different applications. The inclusion of the transportation sector is because that was thought to be the primary market for fuel cells for the past 30 years, the reasons they lost in that market help place their chances in other markets into context.

Poor feller ain't got a clue...