
Bloom Energy blew through billions promising cheap, green tech that falls short - prostoalex
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2020/02/13/the-forbes-investigation-how-bloom-energy-blew-through-billions-promising-cheap-green-tech-that-falls-short/#a3e33083e5fa
======
qchris
The last couple paragraphs seem like a bit of non-sequitur compared to the
rest of the article. The piece essentially is describing a company that has
been operating with losses for years, with liabilities in the billions, that
is being target by regulatory agencies for failure to clean up their hazardous
tech at the end of its lifecycle, as its CEO makes false statements to
investors and the press, while its core technology is being overtaken in many
markets by renewables like wind and solar. Not many of those are typically
considered positive or hopeful in quality.

Yet despite that (and even with the "if there's a silver lining [...]"
caveat), ending the piece on what feels like a hopeful, positive note by the
CEO founder talking about how he feels "like [he] has made a dent" just seems
like a weird way to go. It seems like there's a reasonable chance that, well,
he didn't. That the company hasn't built a sustainable model, and pulled
otherwise productive capital, talent, and time into a venture that arguably
has not in the last 12 years, and may not in the future, actually make any
sort of a dent.

While based on this one article, I wouldn't be bullish on Bloom's future, I'm
mostly just commenting on that decision in the writing of the piece. To my
mind, it fits oddly with the rest of the structure.

~~~
bayindirh
I don't understand this either.

Another example pops into my mind an article about a man who raped a fellow
student in university.

The article was ending with "X is continuing its education at Y, and he has Z
gold medals and competes for university swimming team".

This is just adding insult to injury.

------
CaliforniaKarl
This really annoys me, for a number of reasons. (And yes, this is a rant.)

I first heard of Bloom Energy seven or so years ago, when I worked in Orange
County (California). I was at a company where we had a small data center on-
site, with a large UPS, but with no generator backup. A Bloom Box would have
been perfect as a backup power source, but at the time I looked they were just
getting started.

For reference, nearby John Wayne Airport had recently built a cogeneration
plant, which provided the majority of the airport's power and air conditioning
needs, while still giving them the option of drawing full power from the
regional utility. (See [https://www.ocregister.com/2011/04/25/31-million-
power-plant...](https://www.ocregister.com/2011/04/25/31-million-power-plant-
built-at-john-wayne-airport/)) So I was very interested in exploring similar
solutions for where I worked, but at a smaller scale: The building already had
an emergency generator for essentials (security, emergency lighting, water,
and elevators); the only thing missing coverage was the data center. But Bloom
was too immature at the time.

And today, I'm lucky enough to be in an area that was not affected by PG&E's
recent Public Safety Power Shutoffs (work also was not affected), but there's
no guarantee that I'll be similarly lucky next time around. And my apartment
is all-electric, with gas being used only to provide hot water. If heating is
needed, and the power is out, them I'm stuck.

Until reading this article, I occasionally would think of Bloom Energy, and
how a Bloom Box would be nice as a temporary or last-resort thing, where a
generator might otherwise be installed. And I was getting annoyed at how some
communities banning new natural gas installations would block that, even
though PG&E is not really in a state to be trusted.

And now I read this article. And I am really annoyed. No, a Bloom Box is not
the best or most efficient technology compared to, say, wind power. But when
you have natural gas available, and an unstable electric grid, a Bloom Box
always seemed to me to be a good backup power source. Except who knows what's
going to happen to them now. Maybe someone will be able to iterate on the
technology, and hopefully not become so loaded down with funding/debt that
they feel the need to promise the stars.

~~~
toomuchtodo
[https://www.yanmar.com/global/energy/cogeneration_systems/](https://www.yanmar.com/global/energy/cogeneration_systems/)

Just an example; there are several small scale cogeneration manufacturers out
there. You’re going to be stuck with a combustion engine over fuel cells, but
they’re about as loud as a noisy dishwasher. Easily aired outside or in a
utility closet.

If you can, rooftop solar and batteries are the way to go; you can use a heat
pump water heater to efficiently and environmentally responsibly heat water
(versus gas or resistive heat).

------
forkexec
IIRC, the fuel cells wear out and better technologies are more expensive to
produce.

My mom lives in Paradise and she would've bought a FC generator with an ATS if
such a mythical creature were affordable and lasted at least as long as a
natural gas generator.

It seems like more work needs to be done to produce FC cells that last far
longer even if they're physically larger. (Holy Grail / Easier said than
done.)

PS: Xfinity (Comcast) goes out within the first 24 hours while cell phone
service remains powered in a PSPS. In a real outage, cell phone service lasts
some number of hours or a few days. There hasn't been such an event because
PG&E has a large basecamp with worker housing and equipment half-way between
Paradise and Chico on Skyway.

------
adrianN
The most interesting bit seems to be that these boxes are claimed to be more
efficient than gas fired power-plants. I find that very hard to believe, but
it would be great. Perhaps they don't take into account using waste heat for
district heating or something like that.

Making Methane is a promising storage technology for excess renewable energy.
Bootstrapping R&D into a more efficient way of turning Methane back into
electricity with a few billion dollars doesn't seem to be the worst use of
money.

~~~
qchris
I'd definitely have to look into the actual chemistry of the process, but I
don't find that claim terribly outlandish on principle. Most combustion plants
end up having decent efficiency (as you mentioned) because of their access to
heavy stationary insulation materials and co-generation/waste heat
reclamation, but one way or another, they still end up running into the Carnot
efficiency limit for heat engines.

Since fuel cells operate electrochemically, they don't have that same limit,
which means their theoretical efficiencies are often higher (and the ability
to get somewhat near those efficiencies track as well). I'm not sure if
they're comparing to full-size plants or not, but the differences between the
two tend to be more pronounced as size and weight of generator decrease, since
heavy insulation and waste re-use are more difficult, but fuel cells stay
(somewhat) the same.

I certainly agree with your observation about methane being an interesting
path forward for storage technology for excess renewables, though.

------
XnoiVeX
I've been following Bloom Energy for several years. The promises still remain
promises. Collin Powell was on the board when I took notice of them first.

~~~
lotsofpulp
What are the effects of having Collin Powell on the board?

------
jasonmp85
Dude should be in prison.

