The Bloom Box: An Energy Breakthrough?

[kublikhan]

Realistically combined cycle nat gas generation is going to be around 40%, and the best ceramic fuel cells are around 60%. I dunno where this one is, but at the very least it's not impossible for it to be above what combined cycle nat gas plants are at.

Combined cycle plants are well above 40%, they're often in the range of 55-60%. 40% and you're down in steam cycles.

How do the CO2 emissions compare to a conventional power plant?
According to NaturalGas.org, efficiencies for a utility scale gas fired power plant are on the order of 33% for a classic steam plant to about 55% for a combined heat and power plant. With transmission losses of about 7%, that gives net efficiencies of 26% to 48%. So the Bloom Box is at worst on a par with a conventional power plant, and at best twice as efficient.

Answering-the-Unanswered-Questions

Ick. When they claimed they were twice as efficient as natural gas they were talking about a classic steam plant not a combined cycle plant. The efficiency of this fuel cell is comparable to a combined cycle plant, slightly better if you factor in losses from transmission.

kub, that quote was from the skeptic! not the inventor! the inventor stated that the materials are plentiful!

What are the Catalysts made from?
The Bloom technology is a solid oxide fuel cell. it does not need a catalyst to work. In a solid oxide cell a ceramic membrane, usually made from zirconium oxide, allows oxygen ions to travel through it, creating electricity in the process. If you put a fuel on one side and air on the other, the fuel will create an impetus for the oxygen in the air to move through the membrane, creating an ongoing reaction. Any fuel will work for this, so long as it has enough affinity for oxygen. The Platinum that Mr. Sridhar refers to as being needed is for temperature resistance. Ceramic membranes do not start to conduct oxygen until they get hot, usually more than 1300 degrees Fahrenheit. There are very few materials that will survive at those temperatures for long periods of time. Platinum is the safest choice for this.
The inks that Mr. Sridhar shows are for the electrodes that allow for collection of the current being produced as the oxygen travels through the membrane. These need to operate at high temperatures, collect all the electricity being generated AND allow oxygen to travel through them. It's understandable that these formulations are kept very secret.

Answering-the-Unanswered-Questions

I think that answers the catalyst question. I still think these things are expensive.

[yesplease]

There’s this talk of trashing the electrical distribution grid. Fat chance. You’ll get a gas grid though.

What would happen to NG prices with widespread implementation, too? Presumably residential customers would still need gas for heating and some additional for the BBs, but the power generation sector would find itself kneecapped. I don't think they'll take something like that lying down.

Gail on TOD pointed out it's not really competitive with wholesale electricity currently for someone who is buying natural gas from a ccompany. It's currently just a way for companies to bypass the tiered electricity pricing some states have. If they reduce costs enough, it may be able to replace batteries in off-grid use, and maybe even replace natural gas power plants, but currently it's just a way for companies to avoid the higher costs associated with higher use of electricity in some places.

[TheAntiDoomer]

Realistically combined cycle nat gas generation is going to be around 40%, and the best ceramic fuel cells are around 60%. I dunno where this one is, but at the very least it's not impossible for it to be above what combined cycle nat gas plants are at.

Combined cycle plants are well above 40%, they're often in the range of 55-60%. 40% and you're down in steam cycles.

How do the CO2 emissions compare to a conventional power plant?
According to NaturalGas.org, efficiencies for a utility scale gas fired power plant are on the order of 33% for a classic steam plant to about 55% for a combined heat and power plant. With transmission losses of about 7%, that gives net efficiencies of 26% to 48%. So the Bloom Box is at worst on a par with a conventional power plant, and at best twice as efficient.

Answering-the-Unanswered-Questions

Ick. When they claimed they were twice as efficient as natural gas they were talking about a classic steam plant not a combined cycle plant. The efficiency of this fuel cell is comparable to a combined cycle plant, slightly better if you factor in losses from transmission.

kub, that quote was from the skeptic! not the inventor! the inventor stated that the materials are plentiful!

What are the Catalysts made from?
The Bloom technology is a solid oxide fuel cell. it does not need a catalyst to work. In a solid oxide cell a ceramic membrane, usually made from zirconium oxide, allows oxygen ions to travel through it, creating electricity in the process. If you put a fuel on one side and air on the other, the fuel will create an impetus for the oxygen in the air to move through the membrane, creating an ongoing reaction. Any fuel will work for this, so long as it has enough affinity for oxygen. The Platinum that Mr. Sridhar refers to as being needed is for temperature resistance. Ceramic membranes do not start to conduct oxygen until they get hot, usually more than 1300 degrees Fahrenheit. There are very few materials that will survive at those temperatures for long periods of time. Platinum is the safest choice for this.
The inks that Mr. Sridhar shows are for the electrodes that allow for collection of the current being produced as the oxygen travels through the membrane. These need to operate at high temperatures, collect all the electricity being generated AND allow oxygen to travel through them. It's understandable that these formulations are kept very secret.

Answering-the-Unanswered-Questions

I think that answers the catalyst question. I still think these things are expensive.

Good find Kub, but of course they are expensive today, they are only making one a day! As with anything, once you are cranking these out on a assembly line the price will drop substantially.

[yesplease]

Fuel cells aren't constrained by the Carnot cycle limits wrt efficiency.

Yes they are. They're limited by the gibbs free energy of the reactants, which is often simplified as the temperature of combustion. Carnot limits apply to all thermodynamic processes.

A fuel cell isn't a heat engine. It doesn't convert heat into mechanical energy. Being limited by the Gibbs free energy isn't the same as being limited by the Carnot cycle.

NOTE: This efficiency can exceed the Carnot limit because the electrochemical process of the fuel cell does not involve conversion of thermal to mechanical energy!!

As Carnot's theorem only applies to heat engines, devices that convert the fuel's energy directly into work without burning it, such as fuel cells, can exceed the Carnot efficiency.

Realistically combined cycle nat gas generation is going to be around 40%, and the best ceramic fuel cells are around 60%. I dunno where this one is, but at the very least it's not impossible for it to be above what combined cycle nat gas plants are at.

Combined cycle plants are well above 40%, they're often in the range of 55-60%. 40% and you're down in steam cycles.

Realistically you could see real world efficiency in the high forties. On average, natural gas generation in the U.S. (Total generation versus total nat gas consumption) is in the low 40s in terms of efficiency IIRC.

[mos6507]

If they have to heat the ceramics before the reaction starts then that will steal efficiency away as well as require expensive thermal shielding (which you saw some of in the 60-minutes piece). Sounds almost like a Zebra molten-salt battery.

[TheAntiDoomer]

If they have to heat the ceramics before the reaction starts then that will steal efficiency away as well as require expensive thermal shielding (which you saw some of in the 60-minutes piece). Sounds almost like a Zebra molten-salt battery.

Uh wrong again, I wonder how many of you actually watched the piece??? He specifically said the shielded was made from a inexpensive alloy.

[JJ]

If they have to heat the ceramics before the reaction starts then that will steal efficiency away as well as require expensive thermal shielding (which you saw some of in the 60-minutes piece). Sounds almost like a Zebra molten-salt battery.

Uh wrong again, I wonder how many of you actually watched the piece??? He specifically said the shielded was made from a inexpensive alloy.

I watched it. Go over to TOD and read some of the comments. Apparently many folks who are far better educated that I are less than impressed.

[shortonsense]

If they have to heat the ceramics before the reaction starts then that will steal efficiency away as well as require expensive thermal shielding (which you saw some of in the 60-minutes piece). Sounds almost like a Zebra molten-salt battery.

Uh wrong again, I wonder how many of you actually watched the piece??? He specifically said the shielded was made from a inexpensive alloy.

I watched it. Go over to TOD and read some of the comments. Apparently many folks who are far better educated that I are less than impressed.

But isn't it interesting that the WORST comments are basically "less than impressed".

There aren't any "its impossible!", or "2nd law of therm says its all a lie!", or "its so ridiculous, all it can do is power houses, cars, local sub grids and large campuses for 2 cents/ kwh more than all other systems generating electricity!".

I certainly haven't seen any claims for "peak beach sand!" thrown in just for fun either.

[mos6507]

There aren't any "its impossible!", or "2nd law of therm says its all a lie!", or "its so ridiculous, all it can do is power houses, cars, local sub grids and large campuses for 2 cents/ kwh more than all other systems generating electricity!".

Even Colin Powell conceded that it's evolutionary, not revolutionary. It's the zeitgeist of the public who is clamoring for silver bullets. They are overly eager to crown the savior of modern civilization because technofix is the only arrow left in the quiver of denial.

So it's this mania that people are trying to tamp down. It's this mania that leads to undeserved attention towards crap like Steorn Orbo or every scientific press release related to batteries or solar that wind up never making the leap from the lab to mass production. You also see these geekgasms that people have over every concept car that gets rolled onto the runway, even if it's nothing but a 3DSMax render by some flybynight trying to cash in on green hype like Zap.



And the media has such a short attention span that after the mania for one magic bullet dies down, it's on to the next magic bullet.

As long as we can be perpetually in a state of hope, then maybe we don't have to focus on our predicament.

Maybe we shouldn't be thinking about collapse by passively waiting around for someone in a black mock turtleneck to get up there like a faux preacher and sell us salvation via consumerism.

[shortonsense]

There aren't any "its impossible!", or "2nd law of therm says its all a lie!", or "its so ridiculous, all it can do is power houses, cars, local sub grids and large campuses for 2 cents/ kwh more than all other systems generating electricity!".

Even Colin Powell conceded that it's evolutionary, not revolutionary. It's the zeitgeist of the public who is clamoring for silver bullets. They are overly eager to crown the savior of modern civilization because technofix is the only arrow left in the quiver of denial.

I don't think the public is clamoring for anything other than cheap gasoline again. The people clamoring for something are either the anti's who want their apocalypse and they want it now ( and tend to discount anything other than 2 Saudi Arabia's being found each year ad infinitum, at various volume levels ) and those who want to stop all human activities which they morally, ethically, financially, religiously or psychologically disagree with.

And the media has such a short attention span that after the mania for one magic bullet dies down, it's on to the next magic bullet.

The media's foibles are an entire nother topic, and they don't appear to have even caught on to the basics, not only is a magic bullet not required, but if they were they would undoubtedly be magic bulletS, and if they paid the least bit of attention they would realize that most of them are already here, and those of us who do notice spend most of our time debating the cost, not the feasibility.

As long as we can be perpetually in a state of hope, then maybe we don't have to focus on our predicament.

I'm sure Malthus thought the same thing....yet here we are....still pretending the same wolf is at the door....which to some extent, it is. But it sure wasn't hope that got us through the last 2 centuries of the wolf being at the door, and I'm betting it won't be hope which gets us through the next 2.

[TheAntiDoomer]

@mos. I thought you were better than that putting steorn and this bloom box in the same paragraph. Shame on you for making a ridiculous comparison to make your point.

[rangerone314]

At least the Bloom Box doesn't seem pathetic as the Segway, with all of its hype.

Maybe Segway's powered by mini-Bloom Boxes will be the future of transportation!

[Graeme]

The Economics of Bloom Energy's 'Breakthrough' Fuel Cell

It appears that the unsubsidized price of the Bloom Box is about $7-8,000/kW, so their 100 kW units cost $700,000-800,000 without subsidy. As a fuel cell, it also needs fuel to run, in this case natural gas or another source of methane (such as landfill gas or biogas from anaerobic digesters).

After federal subsidies for fuel cells (they can claim the same 30% investment tax credit that solar gets) and a $2,500 California rebate, and assuming $7/mmBTU price for natural gas, a 100 kW Bloom Box unit generates electricity at 8-10 cents/kWh. That compares favorable to commercial electricity rates in many parts of the country,(the average is about 11 cents/kWh across the U.S., with higher rates in several states, including California, New York and Hawaii) so there could be a good market for the Bloom Box in distributed generation applications in a variety of places, assuming federal/state subsidies holds out.

forbes

[Windmills]

Interesting, but perhaps I need someone to explain why a different way to burn the same old stuff is revolutionary, at least in terms of energy security or sustainability. Maybe the efficiencies will allow us to postpone our problems or pawn them off on the next generation as we like to do.

I can see third world or developing countries getting excited about it. Assuming the units ever are able to ween themselves off welfare, which could be assuming a lot, these fuel cells could be similar to what cell phones are to telecommunications. You could leap-frog the need for a massive electrical infrastructure by being able to install any sized power wherever you need it, when you need it.

As a result, we'd have even more global competition as more areas of the world were energized and the global wage gradient would get even flatter. Bad news for the people at the top of that gradient. We'd continue to see more businesses flee to areas of cheaper labor as fuel cells open the up for business.

[rangerone314]

Impress me cornies, with something that is impressive. Like fusion power at $0.01/kwh or zero point energy.

What we mostly got now after more than a century of "progress" is endless variations of burning remnants of decayed plants in various putt-putt machines that fart out CO2.

[peripato]

The Economics of Bloom Energy's 'Breakthrough' Fuel Cell

It appears that the unsubsidized price of the Bloom Box is about $7-8,000/kW, so their 100 kW units cost $700,000-800,000 without subsidy. As a fuel cell, it also needs fuel to run, in this case natural gas or another source of methane (such as landfill gas or biogas from anaerobic digesters).

After federal subsidies for fuel cells (they can claim the same 30% investment tax credit that solar gets) and a $2,500 California rebate, and assuming $7/mmBTU price for natural gas, a 100 kW Bloom Box unit generates electricity at 8-10 cents/kWh. That compares favorable to commercial electricity rates in many parts of the country,(the average is about 11 cents/kWh across the U.S., with higher rates in several states, including California, New York and Hawaii) so there could be a good market for the Bloom Box in distributed generation applications in a variety of places, assuming federal/state subsidies holds out.

forbes

The Human Race Starring

[Windmills]

A comment from Mercy Vestal at Ecogeek.org:

"According to Forbes, the actual cost is not $700K or $800K, but more like $900K or a cool million. In addition, from another NYT article the cells only last for THREE YEARS.

That's right, the system has a 10-year lifecycle but the fuel cells will need to be replaced twice. So who pays for that?"

As more details leak out, the more I'm agreeing with Mercy here. They're just trying to raise as much hype as they can so they can get another $400 million from the IPO to keep funding their R&D.

[SeaGypsy]

If it's true the cells only last for 3 years, that's a shame but doesn't kill the concept, as the cells seem to be quite cheap to manufacture and are likely to be able to be recycleable. I would gues the EROEI would be pretty good on this. The other factor of price; it makes perfect sense that these 1st units cost a fortune, there needs to be some return to investors who have so far been very patient in the R&D phase of the project. I would guess that if these gizmos take off they will come down massively in price over say 10 years. There is also the unremote possibility the patent could be sold to a mass manufacturer in China, this could accellerate price drops reverse exponentially. However, the USA desperately needs to hang on to such technologies if possible. How likely is this if the Bloom Box is all it's hyped to be?

[cephalotus]

What a hype about a typical 50% methane fuel cell at a cost of 7000US$/W!

For comparison:

Siemens is able to build GuD gas (=methane) power plants with an efficiency >60% at a fraction of that costs with an already proven and long lasting technology.

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/irsching/

The Siemens GuD is about 8.000 times more powerful, so it is able to "balance" a few hundred large wind turbines: This is exactly what we need in the future and not some super expensive small power plants at home that turn precious fossil fuel needed to balance renewable energies into another fluctuating electricity source.

[Graeme]

This from the front page:

Why is Bloom Energy Lying to Us?

Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely excited about Bloom Energy. I honestly think that their technology is a good thing for the world and that it might very well revolutionize the power infrastructure in America and throughout the world. And yes, it will create jobs and make a select few people very rich.

In fact, I think it's so revolutionary that it doesn't need to be inflated by false or misleading claims...which is why I'm a little put off by a few naughty little lies in the Bloom press release I got this morning.

Annoying press point #1: The Bloom Box "energy server" works with "nearly any fuel source." To me, "nearly any fuel source" means anything containing carbon/hydrogen compounds, ranging from gasoline to wood. The Bloom Box doesn't run on "nearly any fuel source" it runs on methane or methane or methane. That methane can be pumped out of the ground or captured from landfills, but it's still methane, and as I count it, that's one fuel source.

Annoying press point #2: Companies using the Bloom Box can "expect a three to five year payback on their capital investment." This is insane. The average cost per kW/h in California is 14 cents and Bloom promises a cost of roughly 9 cents. 100 kW multiplied by 8760 hours in a year times $0.05 per kW means 100 kW of continual electricity consumption over the course of the year will save a company a maximum of $45,000 per year. Call me crazy, but I don't see how they're going to pay for a $700,000 piece of equipment (even with a 50% government subsidy that won't last forever) over the course of three or five years by saving $45k per year.

Annoying press point #3: Probably what annoys me most about Bloom's press release is that they claim the box "provides a cleaner, more reliable, and more affordable alternative to both today’s electric grid as well as traditional renewable energy sources." Again, if it's not an outright lie, it's at least very misleading. The Bloom Box might be more reliable than both, but it isn't cheaper than the grid and it isn't cleaner than solar or wind. Marketing double-speak isn't good for anyone. If you take that sentence at face value, then you might as well cease all development of solar and wind and put 100% of the country's resources into Bloom Boxes.

Bloom Energy's technology is fantastic and exciting. It's much cleaner than our current electricity infrastructure and more practical than distributed solar. It's great, but there's no reason to make false claims when your product is this revolutionary.

ecogeek

I had a quick look at the comments. I what struck me was this comment:

The fact that their demo models cost $700,000 bears NO reflection on what their actual cost is going to be once they go into production on a large scale. When that happens, costs will come down. Then we can start getting real about whether it's going to be worthwhile.