
Bloom Unveils Its Game Changing Energy Box - bigsassy
http://mashable.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-launch/
======
hop
Fuel required @ rated power: 0.661 MMBtu/hr of natural gas. Rated power output
(AC): 100 kW

Figure fuel costs of $10 per MMBtu. So it pumps out 100kW/hr electricity for
$6.60.

~$0.09/kWh for electricity in Oregon (its double that for NYC). So we pay
about $9 for 100kW/hr.

Thats a 30% savings in Oregon and about 70% for the East Coast. But it still
releases a lot of CO2 - 773 lbs/MW-hr.

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

So if you ran one straight for a year and you used all its output, it would
save $20k-$40k depending on electricity prices. So if they can get the price
sub $100k and natural gas supply and price stays even, they could sell a lot
of them.

~~~
dantheman
Natural Gas Figures for US ([https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-
world-factbook/...](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/us.html))

Natural gas - production: 582.2 billion cu m (2008 est.) country comparison to
the world: 2

Natural gas - consumption: 657.2 billion cu m (2008 est.) country comparison
to the world: 1

Natural gas - exports: 28.49 billion cu m (2008 est.) country comparison to
the world: 10

Natural gas - imports: 112.7 billion cu m (2008 est.) country comparison to
the world: 1

Natural gas - proved reserves: 6.731 trillion cu m (1 January 2009 est.)
country comparison to the world: 5

~~~
timdorr
Does that say we have a little more than 10 years of natural gas left that we
know about? Or is that just in the reserve tanks?

------
SpacemanSpiff
So forgive me if this sounds jaded, but I fail to see how this technology is a
"game changer."

1\. Based on the EIA Annual Energy Review 2001 transmission losses only
account for 3.1% of total power generation in the U.S.

2\. A modern, large gas combined-cycle power plant has a quoted efficiency of
over 60% [http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-
generation/power-p...](http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-
generation/power-plants/gas-fired-power-plants/combined-cycle-power-plant-
concept/scc5-8000h-1s.htm)

3\. From the presentation: "The carbon footprint is 50% cleaner than the grid
and 100% renewable" Wait a minute, if the power generation is truly renewable,
then how can it have a carbon footprint at all (other than manufacture etc.)?
Isn't the whole point of renewable energy to have a perpetually renewing
"closed system"? By that definition then the carbon footprint would be tiny
compared to the grid.

The reason they say 50% is probably because they are thinking most people will
run the units from gas, but that's definitely not renewable. Also, I can't
imagine the efficiency of the unit is much higher than 50-60%, but maybe
there's some data on that which I have missed.

4\. "They have created 11,000,000 kilowatts so far" How much of this is from
the burning of fossil fuels versus renewable fuel sources?

I am all for fuels cells and development of renewable energy. I think what
would truly be a "game changer" is if this device could be used to store the
cyclical output from a local renewable energy power system - for example store
the energy created during the day from a PV installation for use at night. In
my opinion this is more "green washing" than green.

edit: formatting

~~~
mbreese
If you move from a central hub and spoke electricity distribution to a
decentralized model, that alone is a game changer. You don't need to worry
about the grid at all.

1\. 3.1% seems low. Another estimate from 1995 says 7.2%
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Los...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses)).
I suspect that the truth is closer to 5%. Also, the losses incurred are
dependent upon the distance. Most power plants are located pretty far away
from residential and commercial areas.

2\. The power plant you're linking hasn't been completed yet. Plus, this is a
cutting edge design. Most existing plants won't (couldn't?) be converted to
this newer efficiency. And for cost reasons, existing inefficient plants
aren't going to be shut down and replaced.

3\. The fuel cell doesn't require natural gas. It can also run on biomass,
which is completely renewable. And since this isn't based on combustion, you
don't get the carbon monoxide, sulfurs oxides, nitrogen oxides, and heavier
smog causing hydrocarbons. All of the nasties are produced with combustion.
Also, since the CO2 is clean, it can be separated easily from the H2O and
stored.

4\. Well, they aren't burning anything, so 0% has been from burning fossil
fuels. I'd guess most of it was from using natural gas as a fuel, but none of
it was burned.

One interesting thing I've read is that they are claiming that this is a
reversible process, which means it could be used to store PV energy collected
during the day and reuse it at night. But, this system produces so much more
energy than a PV cell that I'm not sure it would be of much use. You'd need a
very large (sq footage) PV installation to generate this much energy.

~~~
SpacemanSpiff
The points you make are good, and I agree with what you are saying. My point
was that from an environmental perspective, this device is basically on par
with available power generation in terms of efficiency, and when used with
natural gas simply moves the co2 generation from a centralized location to
many distributed locations, but doesn't cut it down significantly per unit
energy produced.

IF the device were to be used with biomass fuel, it would certainly be a huge
step forward environmentally, but I don't see where the incentive would be
outside of environmental stewardship, which some companies value but many do
not. From your reply: "...which means it could be used to store PV energy
collected during the day and reuse it at night. But, this system produces so
much more energy than a PV cell that I'm not sure it would be of much use."
This is exactly why I wouldn't call it a game changer from an environmental
standpoint. Basically we're still stuck with the fact that it's much easier to
produce power by burning, oxidizing in a fuel cell, etc. than by using solar,
wind etc. In my book a game changer would be a technology that enables a move
to truly renewable power generation while remaining practical and cost
effective. Could the energy server fit that description? Perhaps, but it
depends highly upon how it is operated.

~~~
mbreese
* that it's much easier to produce power by burning, oxidizing in a fuel cell, etc. than by using solar, wind etc*

I agree... it would be nice if it was easier to use solar, wind, anything with
zero-carbon footprint. I just don't know if they are going to be sufficiently
powerful enough to replace the current coal / gas fired plants. But, if you
could effectively use a fuel cell as a battery to produce H2 from H2O during
the day, and then consume the same H2 at night, that would be a very good
thing since the biggest problem with PV and wind isn't the technology, it's
storing the energy produced so you can deliver electricity when its cloudy.

------
tonystubblebine
Could somebody help with some background on the science?

What strikes me as odd is that you put fuel in the fuel cell. One of the
examples they give is using these to charge your hyrbid car. So, by the
transitive property, aren't you putting fuel into your car?

I guess I'm trained to think of alternative energy sources like sun and wind,
so I'm thrown off here. What's the innovation?

I can see that you're generating electricity locally, which I guess means we
could get energy to places without running power lines. But reading the
article, that doesn't seem like the point of these.

The article does claim that the energy is more efficient than what you get on
the grid. But if that's the case, why don't we just put a ton of these onto
the grid and push down the cost of electricity for everyone?

~~~
mustpax
I think they just announced a highly-efficient natural gas electric generator.
The question is just how efficient, if it's as efficient as the large
centralized power plants we now build then we don't have to waste money on
building and maintaining power transmission lines.

If I remember my thermodynamics correctly, the efficiency of a heat engine is
constrained by the internal temperature of the engine. The higher the internal
temperature, the more efficient the engine can be. This is the basic reason
why we build as large power plants as transmission loss allows. With a smaller
plant, the engine temperature is much lower for practical reasons, hence the
loss in efficiency. (Many other economies of scale reasons.)

So if this device can really beat the efficiency of our current centralized
natural gas burning plants, then this is revolutionary. If not, too bad for
Colin Powell.

~~~
randallsquared
Fuel cells are not heat engines.

~~~
mustpax
That would be exactly why this new technology might be more efficient than
centralized power plants.

------
DannoHung
The most interesting claim is that it's a reversible reaction. This explains
the "it runs on solar" comment in that it can be used in place of batteries or
a flywheel to store energy by turning the excess load back into fuel during
peak generation from solar/wind and then expend it later.

------
jws
Grinding some numbers:

The data sheet says 661000 btu/hr of fuel to run at 100kw. 100kwh is 341,230
btu, so it looks like about 50% efficiency from shipped hyrdocarbon source to
electricity on site. Very good.

On the american house using 1kw, that is obviously not a peak. At 8 cents/kwh,
a 1kw average use house has a $57/mo electric bill. Looking at my bills I can
only presume they counted a lot of small apartments and homeless people in
cardboard boxes in the average.

------
ableal
They really blew out all the stops in publicizing this ... Just the facts:

<http://bloomenergy.com/products/data-sheet/>

Seems the 'box' we discussed a couple of days ago does output 25 kW (I had
guessed 30 kW, based on a 10c/kW back-of-the-envelope calculation).

~~~
snewe
Interesting note:

"Includes a secure website for you to showcase performance & environmental
benefits."

------
hendler
Fuel Cells and Proton Exchange Membranes often use Platinum or Palladium as a
catalyst - which is very expensive. Bloom's box uses something cheaper. The
science/tech is used in a lot of places you might not expect, like submarines
too. It can be the most efficient way to generate and process hydrogen as
well. For example, if you put enough solar panels/wind turbines to power the
United States - you would invest so much in power lines, and so much would be
lost in transmission, that it's not economic. Fuel cells can generate hydrogen
from water at the point of generation - I believe more efficiently than
electrolysis. Then the hydrogen could be transported similarly to CNG. Then
Hydrogen can be "burned" or run the other direction through the Fuel Cell.

The politics and economics are becoming more favorable. Glad to see coverage
on Mashable.

------
m_eiman
_They have created 11,000,000 kilowatts so far._

Are they saying that they've generated 11GWh, or that they've produced cells
that continuously generate 11GW?

~~~
MaysonL
> 11 M KWH (>11 GWH), according to a slide shot on engadget's coverage

------
tocomment
So is this a breakthrough in fuel cell design? Did they discover a completely
new way to make fuel cells? Or is this rather a repackaging of existing fuel
cell technologies?

------
pkulak
They say that 1 KW will power the average US home, hu? Yeah, so long as all
heating is natural gas and no one ever turns on a hair dryer. Maybe they were
talking about averaged load? But then they seem to have left out the 4 tonnes
of lead-acid batteries you'll need.

~~~
eru
Agreed. But --- who heats with electricity? (Heat pumps can be a good idea,
though.)

~~~
pkulak
I use a heat pump. It's 55 degrees outside right now, so I'm not using much
electricity. I doubt I'd save any money heating with gas.

~~~
eru
"Sustainable Energy - without the hot air"
([http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c7/page_50....](http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c7/page_50.shtml))
also seems to favour heat pumps.

------
ashishbharthi
As they mentioned it can work on variety of fuel sources, they can probably
create Gasoline -> Fuel Cell -> Electricity -> Motor type powertrain and
create very efficient cars like 100mi/1gallon or something.

~~~
tjmc
Question for mods - why was bbot's reply here and elsewhere on this thread
killed?

Both times he's simply raised the very valid point that fuel cells don't run
backwards. There are some woefully uninformed comments on this thread already.
A little education would help.

------
dantheman
Has anyone seen anything about costs? That actually lists dollar amounts? I
know this isn't vaporware (it's running at a few companies), but I until we
know how much it costs it doesn't really matter.

~~~
blhack
$800,000 per unit.

They hope to get it to ~$3000 in the next 5 years.

~~~
clistctrl
haha, sounded like 800k was the price for the huge box (the kind ebay is
running) and $3000 is the price of one big enough to run your home.

~~~
kreneskyp
Thats what they originally stated in the 60 minutes story. $3000 isn't bad. If
what they are claiming is true then you would pay it off in less than 5 years
and then have reduced electricity afterwards.

Throw in an electric car and you've seriously reduced your fuel costs.

------
Corrado
The big question in my mind is can they make this small & portable enough to
put into my next car? _That_ would be game changing to me.

------
dnsworks
Now we know where the $400m went. Getting Colin Powell and the governator to
shill for your company must require quite a bit of capital.

