Bloom Box fuel cell - "2/3rds cleaner than coal plant" ..USA Today

[JohnWxy]

I see someone posted about the 60 minutes report on the BLoom Box. I thought the 60 minuttes report was a little light on data. Here is an article in USA Today which the manufacturer says is 2/3rds CLEANER than coal fired plants.

Bloom is predicting home units for $3,000 in ten years! (Very confident.)

Interesting though.


http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-02-24-fuel-cell_N.htm

Silicon Valley start-up Bloom Energy is unveiling a fuel-cell product Wednesday that can power a small office building. It expects to have home systems within a decade that are about the size of a loaf of bread, it says.


~~
~~

Bloom CEO KR Sridhar expects home models within 10 years that cost less than $3,000. He says consumers could see the so-called Bloom boxes powering apartment buildings and housing developments before that.

Sridhar, a professor of aerospace engineering who once led a team developing technology to sustain life on Mars for NASA, says utilities could buy the boxes, too, to power neighborhoods.

With Bloom's fuel cell, air and fuel — such as natural gas, ethanol or biogas — are fed into the cell. The oxygen ions react with the fuel to produce electricity. There's no burning, so the fuel cell is two-thirds cleaner than coal-fired plants, Bloom says.
(more)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


E-Bay expects it's Bloom Boxes to pay for themselves in 3 years.

[Vogon_Glory]

1. If It Works As Cheaply And As Well As Hyped, Just Watch...

If the Bloom Box works as cheaply and as well as hyped, just watched fossil fuel corporation-funded pseudo-environmentalists sprout up like toadstools to denounce Bloom Boxes for being as efficient bird-killers as they claim wind turbines to be.

:crazy:

:tinfoilhat:

[Statistical]

2. Even better the 2/3rds number doesn't include free heat.

"Waste heat" could be used to heat hot water, and supplement home heating in the winter. Those are "free" reductions in CO2 because waste heat is used instead of burning more nat gas to heat water & home.

I ran some numbers and based on nat gas prices, electricity prices, and the $3000 cost it has a very short break even period. ROI is rather high.

Now a lot remains to be seen if they can deliver on the promise.

[bik0]

3. Ebay's Bloom boxes will "pay for themselves within three years"

A lot quicker than I calculated...

EBay's Cole expects Bloom boxes to pay for themselves within three years, given a 30% federal tax credit and a 20% subsidy from the state of California. "In a few years, we won't require subsidies to become the most affordable energy," Sridhar says.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Yeah, like I said, it was premature to do cost calculations based on the 60 Minutes story

However, one tidbit from the 60 Minutes story should be kept in mind.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/60minutes/main6221135_page3.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

...

"Why don't we talk to our first customers?" he replied.

Yes, he already has customers. Twenty large, well-known companies have quietly bought and are testing Bloom boxes in California.

Like FedEx. We were at their hub in Oakland, the day Bloom installed their boxes, each one costing $700-800,000.

One reason the companies have signed up is that in California 20 percent of the cost is subsidized by the state, and there's a 30 percent federal tax break because it's a "green" technology. In other words: the price is cut in half.

...

Now, assuming they can drive the price down (a reasonable assumption given that they're currently assembling one unit a day, by hand) that payoff may happen quicker (even without the same level of state and federal subsidies) but for now, that 3 year payback figure is artificially low.

[Zoeisright]

5. Well, 2/3 cleaner than a coal plant is still pretty damn dirty.

I'll take solar and wind power, thank you.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. But 2/3's cleaner

I'm a great fan of solar and wind power.

On the other hand, we can only roll it out so fast... In the meantime, cutting a large company's carbon footprint by 2/3's virtually overnight is nothing to sneeze at.

Would you argue (for example) that since a fluorescent light still uses electricity, it is worthless to convert existing incandescent lights to fluorescents?

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. It ought to be compared to standard natural gas electrical generation, however

since that seems to be the fuel they're testing with now. Their claim for that is that it uses about half the gas per unit of electricity.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Well yes and no

About half of the electricity on our grid is generated using coal.


So, if a company moves from coal-fueled grid power to a natural gas fueled "Bloom Box..."

[kristopher]

20. Or the company can contract with one of many existing natgas combined cycle plants

They actually can choose their source of generation - including wind or a specific natural gas combined cycle plant - both of which would provide more carbon reduction per dollar spent than the fuel cell.

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. gas-fired combined cycle and cogeneration plants

http://www.cogeneration.net/Combined_Cycle_Power_Plants.htm

... In Canada, there are 28 natural gas-fired combined cycle and cogeneration plants with an average efficiency of 48 %. ...

Then, there's the matter of losses due to transmission...

[kristopher]

26. So the AVERAGE is the same efficiency as the Bloom box AND

they are already their being under-utilized with their capital costs having been covered by their role in meeting peak demand.

[Statistical]

28. Exactly. Transmission losses are 7% in the US that drops plug efficiency to 44%

So gas to plug efficiency for dual cycle nat gas turbine is 48% * 93% = 44%.

The Bloom Box is 51.6% efficient. So it is 18% more efficient, lower emission per kwh than combined cycle natural gas (cleanest fossil fuel), and about 1/3 cheaper for consumer. All that for a $3000 box. I will buy the first residential unit I can get and would pay $5000 if the claims hold up.

You also have the added bonus of thousands of btu of waste heat. Run it into a heat exchanger and heat your home or hot water for free. The electricity is "cleaner" (frequency, timing) which is better on electronics and motors. Throw in the ability to keep lights on when they normally go out.

It combines all the advantages of a backup generator with lower utility bill and is "greener". Win-win-win.

[joshcryer]

34. Yes, this appears to be a more advanced concept that VW was trying to pull in Germany.

Only it's somewhat more efficient and arguably more cost effective.

[joshcryer]

37. Or they can buy up noisy generators from Germany:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=209224&mesg_id=209224

[bik0]

9. Here's a diagram of how it works...

[bik0]

10. more...

- The carbon footprint is half of the grid and twice as efficient, Bloom Energy’s CEO says.

- One fuel cell produces 25 watts. although he thinks it will be a lot more soon.

- One stack of fuel cells – 1 kilowatt, enough to power the average U.S. home 24/7, 365.

- Take the stacks and put them into a box the size of a fridge and you get a module, which creates 25 kilowatts of power, enough to power a “small Starbucks.”

- A system creates 100 kilowatts, which can power a supermarket.

- A solution (put a couple modules into a system and then get a couple of systems together) can create 250-500 kilowatts, which companies like eBay and Google currently use to power their data centers and campuses.

- “I would like to introduce to you the Bloom Energy server.” They just rolled out the big Bloom boxes.

- 3 major value propositions: lower energy costs, clean power, and reliable power.

- First point: The box has a 3-5 year payback period, and fixed energy prices for the next ten years.

- Second point: the carbon footprint is 50% cleaner than the grid and 100% renewable.

- Third point: 24/7/365 power with always-on modular architecture. If a box or unit has to be fixed, it will still generate power, like a server farm.

- They have created 11,000,000 kilowatts so far.

- Foundation partners/customers: Coca-Cola, Bank of America, eBay, Cox Enterprises, FedEx, Walmart, Staples, and Google.

http://mashable.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-launch/#

[bik0]

11. KR Sridhar

8:58AM: Sridhar takes the stage again.

“It started on Mars.” The thought of handing our children a broken planet is not what I thought we should do. 2 billion people don’t have affordable access to energy. You can’t conserve your way out of this probelm, you can’t drill or mine or burn your way out of this problem. We simply have to find a different way. We saw this as a call to our generation to make an impact. An impact that can do good and make good. The world needs accessible, affordable energy that is sustainable.

Why don’t we follow examples of success: computing — provided access in places we never dreamed 20 years ago — cell phones — you can go to a tiny village and everyone has cell phones. To wireless spread needed to be distributed and also reliable and affordable. Is that bar sufficient for energy? No. The bar is slightly higher. That bar is clean. It also had to be clean. Why clean? When you take a power plant that is hundreds of miles away putting out dirty emissions, either the dirty emissions have to go to you have to go. For energy to be distributed it had to be clean. That was our calling and we at Bloom had to play a part in that.

In the Valley companies are founded with a technology, a product, and what markets can I serve. This company was founded on we saw the problem and thought what is the product that will deliver this? The need for backyard power to be clean is a centuries old idea — we just have to go back to it. Distributed electricity — Thomas Edison had this idea. He was way before his time. The fuel cell. Yes folks, we did not invent the fuel cell — 1830s.

9:10: The core of our technology. The core of our technology simply is sand — available in plenty, on multiple continents on ocean beaches. From this sand you get zirconium oxide. Shows off flat piece of sand. We take this material and do a process we call “powder to powder.” We use mass manufacturing techniques that the semiconductor industry developed a long time ago. The uniqueness of this 4 things: affordable, the kind of fuels that we can use, we can both use as energy reducing and energy storage device, and electricity performance efficiency. No precious metals, no acids. We can use a variety of fuels, without the need for chemical plants that are complex.

In a few years how we will use it is to home energy server of the future. It simply has a solar panel and one of our Bloom Home Energy servers. Together it will give you electricity day and night and also charge your automobile. This is a product of the future — a decade or there abouts.

Twice as efficient as U.S. grid. Need half the fuel of grid. Half traditional fuels. If you use a carbon-friendly fuel you’re neutral. Isn’t that wonderful? This is 24-hour power – not when the sun shines and the wind blow. That’s how this simple piece of sand is different from others. Think of the stack as a chip. Take a bunch of the stacks, put together in a box, about the size of a refrigerator and its about the size of powering a small coffee shop.

We didn’t want to talk about a technology that so many had tried before until we had products and test points. It took 8 years and $400 million to test and make sure the fuel cell worked and get results from the customers. This is a day I’ve been looking forward to a very long time.

http://earth2tech.com/2010/02/24/live-the-bloom-energy-unveiling-event/#more-52078

[bik0]

12. Bloom website now up... more info

http://www.bloomenergy.com/

data sheet...

http://c0688662.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/downloads_pdf_Bloomenergy_DataSheet_ES-5000.pdf

http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/data-sheet/

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Thank You! That's what I was waiting for

(And I'll bet a lot of others were too!)

...

Electrical efficiency (LHV net AC) > 50%

...

[kristopher]

14. Fuel cells cannot meet the challenges of competition

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]

15. Why post the same almost completely irrelevant chart multiple times?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=232141&mesg_id=232769

We get it. We get it. You don't like fuel cells. No way, no how.

[kristopher]

16. Why post the same hype on a failed strategy multiple times...

We get it, we get it, you want people to like fuel cells no matter whether they are the best option or not...

[OKIsItJustMe]

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

Right now, you're arguing against a classic straw man.

[kristopher]

18. No, the BB is a fuel cell with all the failings of fuel cells.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. The Bloom Box is not a hydrogen fuel cell

You're arguing against a straw man.

[kristopher]

21. ROFLMAO - that silly, its properties are the same

National Geographic News

Published February 24, 2010

The Bloom Box—an as yet unbuilt in-home "power plant" designed to be about the size of a mini-fridge—could provide cheap, environmentally friendly electricity to U.S. households within ten years, according to Bloom Energy. Or not.

After days of speculation and hype, the fuel cell company unveiled their plans for Bloom Box mass production—but no prototype—at a press conference today with California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former U.S. secretary of state and Bloom Energy board member Colin Powell, among others.

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

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. I'm glad you're amused

Enjoy yourself.

[kristopher]

23. You descend into the absurd and you are surprised it is ridiculed?

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. No, I've stopped being surprised by you

You always resort to ridiculing anyone who disagrees with you. Apparently, you find it easier than reasoned argument.

I'm done playing your game.

[kristopher]

27. Wanting an "absurd argument" to be taken as a "reasoned argument" is on you, not me.

You know full well that the arguments you are making fail, that's why you try to steer the discussion away from information in full context. That is simply dishonest.

[joshcryer]

35. What's dishonest is your flipflopping on this subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=209224&mesg_id=209224

[kristopher]

40. How is that a flip flop?

I'm arguing that a distributed natural gas generator with 94% efficiency is better than central thermal generation. It was and is. The Bloom box isn't close to being 94% efficient. If they get the efficiency to 94% it would have have more applications in a distributed grid than the one that is being touted since we've been told it is 48% efficient.

[joshcryer]

43. Uh, their "94% efficient" number comes from tying it to a grid and using it for heating the house.

Your ignorance is astounding. This same technology does the same exact job as the VW generators, and it appears that is where they're going with it. (See Statistical's post downthread.)

You're hating on this purely because it is a "fuel cell."

[kristopher]

46. Right, I was abused by a nuclear powered fuel cell when I was a baby.

94% efficient is 94% efficient.

48% efficient is 48% efficient.

[joshcryer]

48. The 94% figure comes from using waste heat, but you know that.

[joshcryer]

49. The VW generator cannot be more than 50% efficient.

[joshcryer]

50. Therefore this system is comparable, if not superior, to their system, with similar efficiencies.

[Statistical]

58. You are either an idiot or a zealot.

It is 94% efficient IS ALL CAPTURED & STORED HEAT IS USED by the Residence for heating and hot water.

Anyone with more than a 4th grade science education and capable of doing their own thinking knows it is simply impossible for a home to use that much heat in a year. It isn't even close.

THINK FOR ONCE. USE CRITICAL REASONING SKILLS.

[kristopher]

60. Yes, use critical thinking skills

Maximum efficiency on an fixed speed internal combustion engine is normally considered to be around 30% - granted. However neither the theoretical nor practical maximum is not 37%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency
We have no way of knowing the specific configuration of the unit in Der Spiegel. What we do know is that the device is referred to as "highly complex" which eliminates (IMO) the idea that it is just a basic reciprocating piston engine. That could be interpreted as confirmation of a basic ICE, but that would ignore the fact that the TDI engine uses a turbocharging system.
It is very possible, therefore, that it is some sort of a turbine possibly with with a combined cycle feature. That extends the POSSIBLE range of efficiency up to 60% of so if they have achieved some sort of breakthrough. We don't know at all so speculation on either end is just that - speculation. There is a comment stating that the "centerpiece of the new mini powerplant system is a natural-gas-powered engine used in some Volkswagen Golf models."

Channelled straight from the basements of individual houses, where Lichtblick plans on installing the mini power stations, it could then be fed into the public powergrid. Likewise, the mini stations could also provide a source of cheap thermal energy and warm water for each household.

The article clearly describes a system of distributed generation that that is designed to replace peaking plants and to assist in load following for Germany's emerging renewable energy grid. To that end the information highlights the
Yet, the next point you make regards the heat produced with the assumption that they will run 33% of the time. Again, you make suppositions of unknown variables as if they were meaningful measures when in fact, the information in the article does not give you a basis for that assumption. We have no idea of the market niche they are aiming for or how many annual hours they expect to operate their systems. It could be designed for regulation power, which is much more valuable than other types of power.

Additionally, how do you know how many homes the unit is conceptualized as providing heat for? If there is routinely significantexcess heat, wouldn't it be a as reasonable to presume they will integrate more homes and thus increase value as it would be to presume they will vent the heat?

Were does that leave us? We can look at the Bloom Box article and know a lot about the technology without resorting to the types of assumptions you've forced onto the VW system. The benefits of distributed generation are well known, and that is the concept I was arguing in the case of the 94% efficient VW system. To date the technologies associated with fuel cells are not competitive either in terms of system energy efficiency, CO2 emissions, or costs with the alternatives - I didn't need to make any assumptions to know that the Bloom Box was not going to change that equation, for the article gave us enough data to make that conclusion.

[joshcryer]

68. Bloom Box is perfectly capable of doing the same job as the VW generators.

And it can do so at a much reduced cost since it has no moving parts, and won't require regular maintenance.

[kristopher]

74. Google "microturbines"

Maybe they can. But that wasn't the system that was presented. You also need to factor in all the variables like costs. There is a tradeoff between price and performance that is going to be at work.

[Statistical]

54. The 94% includes heat capture.

Fuel cells have very high temp waste heat. No reason why it can't be captured also (exactly like the VW generator does) using a heat exchanger and heat the home.

Still the 94% is bogus marketing number. For that to be valid in real world EVERY SINGLE BTU that is capturable would need to be useful.

Average home only needs so many BTU a year in heating anything after that will be vented. So the reality is real world efficiency will be much much lower.

[Statistical]

72. It is not a hydrogen fuel cell, and it requires no reformer.

It is a SOFC (Solid Oxide Fuel Cell). While a SOFC can run on hydrogen its major advantage is it can run on any light hydrocarbon fuel directly. There is no need for an expensive external reformer. The anode properties combined with heat and steam pressure automatically reform hydrocarbons inside the fuel cell.


The major problem with current SOFC prototypes is electrolyte decay. The high temp and corrosive nature of fuels destroys the ceramic plates. Most current prototypes are only good for 10,000 hours. The DOE ambitious target is a SOFC stack that can last 40,000 hours before stack needs to be replaced.

The Bloom SOFC is rated for 10 years of operation which is about 80,000 hours. 200% of DOE year 2020 target TODAY! Even better is fact that Bloom claims using "inks" to paint on the anode and cathode they have substantially reduced the cost of the stack.

If you don't get how that is a breakthrough then you don't get it.

[joshcryer]

31. This is no different from the nat gas generators that Germany wanted to experiment with.

[joshcryer]

32. Except that it has no moving parts and is quieter.

[kristopher]

42. And 48% efficiency vs 94% efficiency.

[joshcryer]

44. Wrong.

[Statistical]

55. Come on kris. That is a freeper level of bogusness.

1) 94% if combined with heat capture. Any thermal engine (include Bloom Box) can capture heat

2) 94% is in lab only. There will be way too much heat for a home to use so any excess in vented = lost/wasted.

The more useful comparison is 30% vs 51.6% with more excess heat than the home can use.

[kristopher]

56. Do you have a source that shows 30%? It isn't in the original article.

The accusation by Josh is that I've adopted contradictory positions, that is false. The bloom box was presented as having 48% efficiency as a breakthrough technology. The NatGeo article confirms that the idea of it being a "breakthrough" is pure hype.

the article about the german system focused on a specific home system that was a combined cycle with 94% efficiency. It isn't clear the system being used, but if it comes in at 94% it has a market.

Whether or not it vents heat as you claim is not supported by any evidence. http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,647435-2,00.html


If anyone is inclined to making arguments with "a freeper level of bogusness" it is the nuclear supports as a group. I suspect that is why they rally around the fuel cell. If a hydrogen economy were to be the basis of comparison it more than doubles the cost of how much renewable energy we need to build to phase out fossil fuels.

[Statistical]

57. 30% is being generous.

It is an internal combustion engine. There are no internal combustion engines with efficiency exceeding 30%. None. Not anywhere on the planet.

I just picked 30% to be nice. Likely efficiency is lower. The theoretical max for internal combustion engine is 37% so use that if it makes you happy.

As far as not venting excess heat. The generator is 20 KW engine. Even at 37% efficiency that means 57%+ (94%-37%) converted as heat. So 27 KW of captured heat 20KWe @ 37% efficiency = 54KWt *0.54 cap tured = 30KWt Say the engine runs 8 hours a day = 240 KWht = 816,000 BTU of heat energy per day. Thats 298 million BTU of heat per year.

Per the description the heat is used to heat water in thermal tank to be used for hot water and heating.

To achieve 94% efficiency the household would need to use ALL 298 million BTU of captured heat per year. Any heat not used is wasted and thus real world efficiency will be lower.

So can a home use 298 million BTU of heat per year? Not on this planet.

That would be 2900 ccf of natural gas (or equivelent in electricity). So any home with natural gas of more than $29,000 would be able to use all 298 million BTU. If not then some heat will be wasted and thus efficiency will never be close to 94%.

[kristopher]

59. I know it is beyond you to just try to get to the truth, but let's try ...

Maximum efficiency on an fixed speed internal combustion engine is normally considered to be around 30% - granted. However neither the theoretical nor practical maximum is 37%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency

We have no way of knowing the specific configuration of the unit in Der Spiegel. What we do know is that the device is referred to as "highly complex" which eliminates (IMO) the idea that it is just a basic reciprocating piston engine. That could be interpreted as confirmation of a basic ICE, but that would ignore the fact that the TDI engine uses a turbocharging system.
It is very possible, therefore, that it is some sort of a turbine possibly with with a combined cycle feature. That extends the POSSIBLE range of efficiency up to 60% of so if they have achieved some sort of breakthrough. We don't know at all so speculation on either end is just that - speculation. There is a comment stating that the "centerpiece of the new mini powerplant system is a natural-gas-powered engine used in some Volkswagen Golf models."

Channeled straight from the basements of individual houses, where Lichtblick plans on installing the mini power stations, it could then be fed into the public powergrid. Likewise, the mini stations could also provide a source of cheap thermal energy and warm water for each household.

The article clearly describes a system of distributed generation that that is designed to replace peaking plants and to assist in load following for Germany's emerging renewable energy grid. To that end the information highlights the
Yet, the next point you make regards the heat produced with the assumption that they will run 33% of the time. Again, you make suppositions of unknown variables as if they were meaningful measures when in fact, the information in the article does not give you a basis for that assumption. We have no idea of the market niche they are aiming for or how many annual hours they expect to operate their systems. It could be designed for regulation power, which is much more valuable than other types of power; and in fact, I noted that in my comments when I said that it was modeled on the V2G concept with the benefit to the consumer being heat instead of locomotion.

Additionally, how do you know how many homes the unit is conceptualized as providing heat for? If there is routinely a significant excess heat, wouldn't it be a as reasonable to presume they will integrate more homes and thus increase value as it would be to presume they will vent the heat and waste a potential benefit?

Where does that leave us?

We can look at the Bloom Box article and know a lot about the technology without resorting to the types of assumptions you've forced onto the VW system. The benefits of distributed generation are well known, and that is the concept I was arguing in the case of the 94% efficient VW system. To date the technologies associated with fuel cells are not competitive either in terms of system energy efficiency, CO2 emissions, or costs with the alternatives - I didn't need to make any assumptions to know that the Bloom Box was not going to change that equation, for the article gave us enough data to make that conclusion.

In other words, you've provided us with yet another of your "freeperish" type trashing of logic and fact.

[Statistical]

61. Even crazier. If that is a turbine then I will eat my hat.

298 million BTU = 8hours per day. I just used that as a starting point. Hell even just 3 hours per day = 100+ million BTU of thermal energy which is far more than average household. The homeowner pays part of the unit costs so I doubt it is designed for sharing. Also the less hours used per day the lower the capacity factor and lower ROI. I mean 3 hours average per day would be 11% capacity factor. Yeah ROI on a powerplant is going to be what 1%, 2%?

http://www.lichtblick.de/h/schwarmstrom_288.php
Certainly looks like it is designed as one unit per household. Also it clearly is an internal combustion engine.

This is a turbine? On what planet?
If this is a turbine I will eat my hat.
http://bioage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef0120a55c98d3970b-800wi

I mean come on Kris what you are proposing doesn't even pass common sense. The 94% number is pure marketing. IT is 94% in a lab one that can use millions of BTU annually. In real world with limited heat usage not so much.

The concept isn't even revolutionary or unique.
Honda deployed it in 2005
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/04/honda_pushes_in.html

Same concept distributed Internal Combustion Engines. Supply electricity to grid and low cost heat to the consumer.

[joshcryer]

67. Yep, it is internal combustion, it won't get more than 50%. Much closer to 30%.

They derive their 94% efficiency number from heating water and the house, we discussed it in the topic.

[joshcryer]

66. The VW generator is not combined cycle.

It's not getting anywhere near large industrial combined cycle generators.

[joshcryer]

30. Seems similar to the German nat gas generations for the home.

[Statistical]

29. Efficiency is 51.6% which beats even nat gas turbines.

Nat gas turbines are 48% but you lose 7% in transmission bringing yield down to 44%.

This is more efficient, cleaner, cheaper (for consumer), provides backup power, the electricity is tighter (voltage, frequency).

That doesn't even consider the ability to trap waste heat to heat water or home.

Also not sure what hydrogen has to do with this?

[joshcryer]

33. If it got heavily adopted and we moved from fossil fuels then it would have to use hydrogen or...

...biomass. kristopher spent many pages of DU arguing for the VW natural gas generators that Germany was experimenting with: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,647435,00.html

See the topic here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=209224&mesg_id=209224

[Statistical]

36. I would want to see the electrical only efficiency. Any excess heat is wasted.

So saying 94% efficient is "true" but only if every BTU of heat is used.

Even a small plant will produce substantially more heat than a home can use. Unless you want your house to be 123 degrees in winter just to say "we got 94%" excess heat will be simply vented. That means real world efficiency will vary.

If the electrical only efficiency is lower it could be less beneficial than a fuel cell with higher electrical efficiency and still has enough excess heat to meet requirements of the home.

[joshcryer]

38. Yeah, we commented on that in various parts of that discussion.

The real point being is that Bloom Box appears to be a solid state version of what VW was experimenting with. There's nothing stopping you from tying it to the grid.

[Statistical]

39. Bloom even said they are looking at deals where they would own the box and sell power.

Imagine a scenario where an apt complex has a Bloom box installed.

Benefit for residents:
cheaper electricity
blackout protection
tighter electricity

Benefits for apt complex:
selling point "the lights don't go out at xyz place"
monthly revenue from bloom

Benefits for Bloom:
They get approval to be peaking power provider. Wholesale peak loads generally command very high prices ($0.10 to $0.15). Their distributed network is tied into the wholesale auction system and provides excess capacity whenever wholesale price is high enough to turn a profit

Benefit for utilities and other consumers:
No need for blackouts durring peak loads.
More grid stability.

Kinda a win-win-win-win. :)

[joshcryer]

41. Yeah, it should be easier to do it, too.

No moving parts means much less maintenance.

[kristopher]

45. Not true. CC natural gas plants "approach 60%" efficiency

"Industrial gas turbines have efficiencies approaching 40% and 60% for simple and combined cycles respectively."

http://www.cogeneration.net/Combined_Cycle_Power_Plants.htm


And the plants already exist so there is no additional capital cost.

[joshcryer]

47. CCPP cannot be used to heat your home or your water heater. Therefore it is less efficient than this

[joshcryer]

51. 53% is the average efficiency overall.

http://www.claverton-energy.com/the-difference-between-lcv-and-hcv-or-lower-and-higher-heating-value-or-net-and-gross-is-clearly-understood-by-all-energy-engineers-there-is-no-right-or-wrong-definition.html

[joshcryer]

52. With transmission line loses Bloom Box may well come in above the average CCPP.

[joshcryer]

53. But being able to use waste heat to heat your house and water, makes this better.

[Nederland]

62. Jesus Christ, again?

The Bloom Box is not for transportation, it generates electricity for buildings. The chart is complete irrelevant, as is most of your post.

[kristopher]

63. The chart fits is an integral part of understanding the situation regarding our energy choices.

You don't approve? Who gives a damn.

[joshcryer]

64. Your choice of using that chart is incoherent nonsense.

[joshcryer]

65. Your approval of the VW generators but not this shows your hypocrasy.

[kristopher]

69. Bullshit.

This is hyped as something it isn't - a major innovation in fuel cell technology. Its designer is DELIBERATELY conflating the fuel cell with solar energy in order to lead the gullible to into believing this is some magic answer to our energy problems. It is as if I pointed to a cars engine and said it is a terrific source of power that is better than solar - it is ridiculous on it face.

I'm not at all surprised you find joy in defending it.

[joshcryer]

70. I find joy in spotting dishonest contridictions. I hate natural gas in all its forms.

We can't have the country running on these things, though natural gas suppliers are likely giddy at the prospect.

[Statistical]

71. Nobody approves.

The chart shows the energy loss from electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity. This is well known and understood but has absolutely nothing to do with natural gas.

What you also seem clueless about is this is NOT A HYDROGEN FUEL CELL.

There is no reformer. SOFC (Solid Oxide Fuel Cells) are able to operate on hydrocarbon fuels directly without a reformer.

The largest disadvantage to existing SOFC is degradation of the ceramic electrolyte. The high operating temperature destroys the ceramic stack. The DOE 2020 target is 40,000 operating hours before ceramic stack needs to be replaced. Most prototype currently are achieving 10% of that. Running 24/7 a 40,000 hour stack would need to be replaced in about 4 years.

Bloom is claiming
a) the stack is good for 10 years which is 250% of the DOE target for year 2020.
b) be using an ink printing process for "painting" the cathode and anode onto a low cost ceramic electrolyte plate they have substantially reduced the cost of the stack.

This is a key breakthrough. Not just for power.

Take the Chevy Volt for example. It is a EV with gasoline generator. The Volt can travel 40 miles on 8kWh of energy in the battery pack or about 0.2kWh per mile. The "generator" (currently an internal combustion engine) needs to replace power from the battery pack at a rate equal to or faster than average consumption to avoid the battery pack from being depleted. If you electronically limited the car to 80mph you could use a 16KW SOFC fuel cell that runs off of gasoline directly (no need for expensive hydrogen conversion). The current "generator" on the Volt is a 53KW Internal Combustion Engine. Replacing it with a 16KW SOFC fuel cell would reduce gasoline consumption by 60%.

[kristopher]

75. I thought I was on your ignore list...

[Nederland]

73. The chart is an idiotic distraction from the discussion

You did a decent job defending your ideas in later posts once you dropped the transportation aspect and compared the Bloom box to natural gas turbines, but your initial post was completely off. I suspect you know this, but because you are psychologically incapable of ever admitting you are wrong about anything we'll never know for sure.