Recent Comment
Share
The clean tech news of the week is going to be dominated by Bloom Energy's emergence from stealth. I can hardly believe that it was almost four years ago that I first wrote about Bloom. Reading that 2006 EcoGeek article, I'm proud to say that we got the broad picture right, but the details are still tantalizing.
Bloom Energy's current product is a relatively inexpensive and versatile fuel cell that can power roughly 100 American homes. The devices cost $700,000 a piece and are roughly twice as efficient as natural gas power transmitted through the grid. They've sold a bunch of these boxes (with hefty federal and state subsidies) to a lot of large businesses in California, including Google, eBay, FedEx, WalMart and Staples. The boxes are busy creating "clean" energy as we speak.
Bloom has finally opened the doors to its operation to the press, allowing 60 Minutes a walk-through of their facility as well as providing interviews with the CEO of eBay and former Secretary of State Colin Powell. But I put "clean" in quotation marks because, despite the fact that the words "carbon dioxide" are never mentioned, Bloom Boxes still pump CO2 into the atmosphere, albeit far less than a traditional grid-scale natural gas plant would.
Bloom's energy is certainly cleaner energy, but while they're busy comparing themselves to solar power and wind, they're not true clean energy unless they use bio-gas. I applaud them for using bio-gas when they can, but there simply isn't enough of the stuff to power Bloom Boxes on a significant scale.
But let's not spend too much time arguing about whether "cleaner" counts as "clean." In my book, this is certainly good enough.
Bloom's true potential is in super-charging the distributed power system. Bloom (very optimistically) wants to shrink its box (in size and cost) so that every American can have one in their basement for around $3000. The box would power the entire house, basically making a connection to the grid a convenience, not a necessity. This may not seem important until we realize that up to half of the power produced at a power plant is lost in transit.
Bloom Energy might also help power the developing world without expensive power infrastructure just as cell phones have created a cheap communications infrastructure.
Bloom's goals are lofty and it may be that distributed power is going to be a long time in coming if it comes at all, but while they're doing a great job of making this revelation sound more important than it is in the short term, the chance remains that this could actually be a very big deal.
Hits: 56108
Comments (41)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by 10^100, February 22, 2010
With google recently accuiring the right to sell power as a power company, I think Google is planning on selling bloom boxes or atleast working together to ship these
-
- +2
-
-
written by Doc Rings, February 22, 2010
For many of us, we have no other options for greener energy solutions. For example, I have a home with 80 foot trees to the South, blocking any chance of solar power on my roof.
My homeowner's association would never allow a 100' wind tower (plus the wind isn't that great with the trees).
So.... Bloom Energies solution is probably not only a great investment in reducing my energy costs, it will pay for itself in a relatively good period, and install out of sight in my basement.
Sounds like a winner to me, and I wish them all the best for pushing out "greener" and cheaper energy than the average grid kilowatt.
My homeowner's association would never allow a 100' wind tower (plus the wind isn't that great with the trees).
So.... Bloom Energies solution is probably not only a great investment in reducing my energy costs, it will pay for itself in a relatively good period, and install out of sight in my basement.
Sounds like a winner to me, and I wish them all the best for pushing out "greener" and cheaper energy than the average grid kilowatt.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Red Bull Of Soccer, February 22, 2010
i think this is just a spark. its highly unlikely that they will shrink it down but this is the type of stuff that sparks ideas in others.
-
- -2
-
-
written by Julian, February 22, 2010
I agree with Mr. Skeptical. We have considerable chances of ending up with a BloomBox at home in a few years... but it will say "GE" on the case.
If it's a good idea, then it will be made and it will succeed... but for the benefit (and profit) of the usual giants.
If it's a good idea, then it will be made and it will succeed... but for the benefit (and profit) of the usual giants.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jim, February 22, 2010
'So if they are "roughly twice as efficient as natural gas power transmitted through the grid" and "up to half of the power produced at a power plant is lost in transit",'
This would make them 4 times as efficient as natural gas, not equally as efficient. For easy numbers, lets say a natural gas plant produces 100W of power. Half of that is lost in transmission, so your house only gets 50W. If Bloom's fuel cell is twice as efficient, it makes 200W. In theory, it's sitting where it's needed (or nearby), so there is minimal/little power lost to transmission. 50W vs 200W.
This would make them 4 times as efficient as natural gas, not equally as efficient. For easy numbers, lets say a natural gas plant produces 100W of power. Half of that is lost in transmission, so your house only gets 50W. If Bloom's fuel cell is twice as efficient, it makes 200W. In theory, it's sitting where it's needed (or nearby), so there is minimal/little power lost to transmission. 50W vs 200W.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Bruce Y, February 22, 2010
In Omaha the city council and neighborhood association denied the right of a homeowner to install a 32 ft turbine (runs about 10,000 installed). I hope the bloom box does become obtainable on a per residence basis. 3000 is half the cost of my furnace so its not unreasonable. Fantastic.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Alejandro V, February 22, 2010
Fuel cells are like sophisticated batteries and they need charging just the same. A fuel cell in one's house will need a power source and the usual source is a gas like hydrogen or methane. Hank basically said the gas couldn't be methane for it to be a green product. However, it takes lots of energy to purify hydrogen which makes the overall system less efficient.
Andy, what Hank is saying is that the natural gas plant is twice as efficient but loses half its power during distribution. So the fuel cell is half as efficient but evens out overall as there is no transmission loss because the power is generated at the end point.
I like the power generation competition but this isn't a miracle solution by any means.
Andy, what Hank is saying is that the natural gas plant is twice as efficient but loses half its power during distribution. So the fuel cell is half as efficient but evens out overall as there is no transmission loss because the power is generated at the end point.
I like the power generation competition but this isn't a miracle solution by any means.
-
- -2
-
-
written by BruceMcF, February 22, 2010
... is lost in transit?
Transmission and distribution losses in 1995 were under 10% ... so are you claiming that in the last 15 years, these losses have risen more than six times?
Source: http://climatetechnology.gov/l...-1-3-2.pdf
I find it more likely that you are looking at figures that include ALL the losses from the fuel energy to the final delivered energy. That is, you are allocating to transmission alone all the energy losses taking place in GENERATION and transmission.
Transmission and distribution losses in 1995 were under 10% ... so are you claiming that in the last 15 years, these losses have risen more than six times?
Source: http://climatetechnology.gov/l...-1-3-2.pdf
I find it more likely that you are looking at figures that include ALL the losses from the fuel energy to the final delivered energy. That is, you are allocating to transmission alone all the energy losses taking place in GENERATION and transmission.
-
- +7
-
-
written by gmoke, February 22, 2010
I thought the 60 Minutes report was terrible. Leslie Stahl didn't understand the technology and couldn't explain it clearly. Boingboing believes the Bloom Box is an over-unity machine rather than a fuel cell, a reasonable mistake based upon the crappy reporting.
This is an interesting technology but I have many questions: is there a heat output as well that can be used for cogeneration? how reliable is it? how pure does the biogas have to be not to foul the different layers? what are the maintenance procedures?
This is certainly a step up for distributed generation and the small scale makes for a good fit with renewables to balance loads.
This is an interesting technology but I have many questions: is there a heat output as well that can be used for cogeneration? how reliable is it? how pure does the biogas have to be not to foul the different layers? what are the maintenance procedures?
This is certainly a step up for distributed generation and the small scale makes for a good fit with renewables to balance loads.
-
- +9
-
-
written by JP Dolphin, February 22, 2010
Its important to emphasis the potential for this product, the largest being the elimination of lost efficiency due to transmission. By eliminating the need for power cables, Bloom dramatically increases the opportunity and maintenance cost of other technologies in comparison. Another bonus is the ability of the technology to run with minimal start up time, most generators require creating high temperatures before they can efficiently create electricity.
The next big problem for them will be when government subsidies run out or all eliminated all together,
The next big problem for them will be when government subsidies run out or all eliminated all together,
-
- -1
-
-
written by Carl Hage, February 22, 2010
Oops, Hank, you have it backwards. The fuel cells (about 50% efficient) emit double the CO2 as existing efficient combined-cycle natural gas electric generating plants (about 80-90% efficient). [Some energy is lost in transmission, but not a huge amount. Fuel cells also lose some energy converting DC to AC.]
Fuel cells can be more efficient than peaking turbines, though expensive (the reason peaker turbines are inefficient is that they are cheap). Also, the fuel cells could be more efficient (certainly less noisy) than the internal combustion engines used as landfill and biogas digester electric generators. Existing SOFC fuel cells need 40 hours to come up to full power, or 30 minutes from standby, so might not be a suitable replacement for peaking power.
The real payback would be combined heat and power. A SOFC fuel cell operates at very high temperatures (500-1000decC) so can create hot water or even steam with the waste heat. The fuel cells are small, so can be used in place of a boiler as a heat source, selling "waste" electricity back to the grid. Conceivably, waste heat could also be used with absorption coolers.
Stahl got it wrong in the 60 Minutes video-- Bloom didn't invent the fuel cell-- that's been around for a long time. The city next door (Santa Clara, home of Intel) had a fuel cell electric generator installed as a test, but it was taken out after a year or so. The problem with these fuel cells is that the electrodes degrade and have a short life. So to make them work, the electrodes need to be make cheaply and last long. Whoever solves that problem will make fuel cells viable.
The innovation by Bloom is the secret sauce of how to make the green and black coatings on the ceramic. The key is making it cheap, long lasting, and insensitive to impurities (as in biogas).
For more info, lookup SOFC in Wikipedia.
Also wrong in the video-- it doesn't take acres of solar panels to get usable quantities. If the eBay (or shopping center, etc.) parking lot was covered in solar panels, each parking stall would supply the total average electricity use for 1 California household. Area isn't the problem-- storage of energy is (and cost, for now). But if you have a fuel cell furnace/water-heater, then you could use the electricity to create hydrogen from water, and store it for use in the fuel cell. With current electrolysis/fuel-cell technology, you only get back 25% of the energy, or with the new "breakthrough" electrolysis, you get back 50%. Batteries would be 90% though, if they could be made cheap enough.
Ultimately, it will come down to cost. If they can make a home unit for $3000, then it could be a practical replacement for a furnace/water-heater. For Bloom, what makes sense as a business is to go after the small-scale industrial combined heat and power market.
Note that the "home" units would still need a grid connection, or else large batteries, because they would generate a steady power of 1kW (or whatever), not 10kW when you run the washer, dryer, oven, and air conditioner at the same time.
Fuel cells can be more efficient than peaking turbines, though expensive (the reason peaker turbines are inefficient is that they are cheap). Also, the fuel cells could be more efficient (certainly less noisy) than the internal combustion engines used as landfill and biogas digester electric generators. Existing SOFC fuel cells need 40 hours to come up to full power, or 30 minutes from standby, so might not be a suitable replacement for peaking power.
The real payback would be combined heat and power. A SOFC fuel cell operates at very high temperatures (500-1000decC) so can create hot water or even steam with the waste heat. The fuel cells are small, so can be used in place of a boiler as a heat source, selling "waste" electricity back to the grid. Conceivably, waste heat could also be used with absorption coolers.
Stahl got it wrong in the 60 Minutes video-- Bloom didn't invent the fuel cell-- that's been around for a long time. The city next door (Santa Clara, home of Intel) had a fuel cell electric generator installed as a test, but it was taken out after a year or so. The problem with these fuel cells is that the electrodes degrade and have a short life. So to make them work, the electrodes need to be make cheaply and last long. Whoever solves that problem will make fuel cells viable.
The innovation by Bloom is the secret sauce of how to make the green and black coatings on the ceramic. The key is making it cheap, long lasting, and insensitive to impurities (as in biogas).
For more info, lookup SOFC in Wikipedia.
Also wrong in the video-- it doesn't take acres of solar panels to get usable quantities. If the eBay (or shopping center, etc.) parking lot was covered in solar panels, each parking stall would supply the total average electricity use for 1 California household. Area isn't the problem-- storage of energy is (and cost, for now). But if you have a fuel cell furnace/water-heater, then you could use the electricity to create hydrogen from water, and store it for use in the fuel cell. With current electrolysis/fuel-cell technology, you only get back 25% of the energy, or with the new "breakthrough" electrolysis, you get back 50%. Batteries would be 90% though, if they could be made cheap enough.
Ultimately, it will come down to cost. If they can make a home unit for $3000, then it could be a practical replacement for a furnace/water-heater. For Bloom, what makes sense as a business is to go after the small-scale industrial combined heat and power market.
Note that the "home" units would still need a grid connection, or else large batteries, because they would generate a steady power of 1kW (or whatever), not 10kW when you run the washer, dryer, oven, and air conditioner at the same time.
-
- +11
-
-
written by Dan, February 22, 2010
Why does Ms. Stahl say it produces power wirelessly? This got picked up by other news sites as well. This isn't magic people, it's just another way of generating electricity. It's astonishing that journalists have so little knowledge of something they are reporting on.
-
- +4
-
-
written by Alex Geroulaitis, February 22, 2010
Read two articles about it, and still don't get it: it is a battery? A generator? If both, what's its primary function?
Assuming the primary function is a generator: how much more efficient it is than a modern gasoline engine? Diesel? Electrical power plant? Do tell me about transmission losses, but do NOT include them in the efficiency calculations.
In the end, here is all that matters:
The Bloom box is power generator that reduces (but does not eliminate) emissions, accepts more types of fuels, and is more (how much more?) efficient than today's generators.
That's all there is to it. Why is it so hard to spell out?
Is it revolutionary and worth the hype? Not until the details are spelled out:
1. Efficiency and how it's calculated,
2. Reduction in energy cost once there is a Bloom box in my backyard (local power station, office, etc.)
3. What's the reduction in emissions?
Until the details are clear, wouldn't it be worthwhile to at least call the thing its real name? I think so.
Assuming the primary function is a generator: how much more efficient it is than a modern gasoline engine? Diesel? Electrical power plant? Do tell me about transmission losses, but do NOT include them in the efficiency calculations.
In the end, here is all that matters:
The Bloom box is power generator that reduces (but does not eliminate) emissions, accepts more types of fuels, and is more (how much more?) efficient than today's generators.
That's all there is to it. Why is it so hard to spell out?
Is it revolutionary and worth the hype? Not until the details are spelled out:
1. Efficiency and how it's calculated,
2. Reduction in energy cost once there is a Bloom box in my backyard (local power station, office, etc.)
3. What's the reduction in emissions?
Until the details are clear, wouldn't it be worthwhile to at least call the thing its real name? I think so.
-
- +8
-
-
written by Vishal, February 22, 2010
But you still have to worry about the transmission of fuel. How efficient is the transmission of natural gas vs that of electricity? Besides fuel transmission sounds like a security nightmare when compared to electricity transmission.
-
- +0
-
-
written by IceTrey, February 23, 2010
The real solution to the power problem is Thorium based nuclear energy. Zero emissions and any waste is only hazardous for 300 years. The plants are small, work at atmospheric pressures and don't melt down, so no need for containment vessels. There is enough Thorium to last for thousands of years.
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
-
- +5
-
-
written by Daniel Magasanik, February 23, 2010
An Australian company Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited seems to be more advanced than Bloom Energy with a washing machine-sized unit independently rated at 60% electrical efficiency. It can also provide heat for hot water and space heating, increasing overall efficiency to over 80%. This company's website gives technical specs. Does Bloom energy have a website? I could not find it.
-
- +6
-
-
written by Stocks, February 23, 2010
Daniel - of course BE has a website and it's called ..... bloomenergy.com ! There's not much there except a clock but it is there and is certainly not hiding or playing hard to get.
I personally wonder if the ole Oracle of Omaha Warren Buffett will get involved he is interested in energy companies.
I personally wonder if the ole Oracle of Omaha Warren Buffett will get involved he is interested in energy companies.
-
- -2
-
-
written by Dr.A.Jagadeesh, February 23, 2010
Congratulations Dr.Sridhar for your wonderful innovation. Late Dr.H.J.Bhabha once commented NO POWER IS COSTLIER THAN NO POWER. As such Traditional technologies blended with modern ones are the answer to provide power at an affordable price. If you can make it affordable with indigenisation, developing countries especially rural areas will benefit most. Keep it up Inventor Dr.Sridhar.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Paul Grant, February 23, 2010
To all: Please read the comment by Carl Hage above. It is by far the most cogent and insightful of those posted to date. SOFCs have been around a long, long time, and the base technology has been in use world wide for over two decades. The Leslie Stahl 60M segment was a farce. Having been interviewed myself by 60M regarding other "alternative energy" schemes (cold fusion), I'm quite familiar with their production strategies...it's entertainment, and not sound science. Once more, please read Mr. Hage's comment. He has it exactly right.
-
- +4
-
-
written by Hamish Barker, February 24, 2010
Mr Hage is incorrect in claiming 80-90% efficiency for combined cycle power plants.
Combined Cycle gas turbine power plants have a thermal efficiency (that is, conversion of the chemical energy of the fuel to electrical energy delivered to the grid) of typically around 55-60%. 80-90% efficiency is only achieved in COGENERATION facilities, where the waste heat is also exported, such as to district heating systems. But no power plant technology in existence today achieves 80-90% fuel to electrical (i.e. thermal) efficiency. Transmission losses between the connection of power plants and final users are on average 10% in Australia, and probably similar in the US.
Combined Cycle gas turbine power plants have a thermal efficiency (that is, conversion of the chemical energy of the fuel to electrical energy delivered to the grid) of typically around 55-60%. 80-90% efficiency is only achieved in COGENERATION facilities, where the waste heat is also exported, such as to district heating systems. But no power plant technology in existence today achieves 80-90% fuel to electrical (i.e. thermal) efficiency. Transmission losses between the connection of power plants and final users are on average 10% in Australia, and probably similar in the US.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Greg, February 24, 2010
The actual efficiency (=energy output/energy input) has yet to be released. Note that a modern, large (utility size), combined cycle natural gas generator reaches 60% efficiency, which is lowered to about 55% after transmission and distribution losses (average 6.4% in USA, much higher in under developed countries--50% in Hati). This is generally the type of electrical generation installed during the last decade to handle increased peak demand.
If the Bloom Box gives 60% efficiency, with no t&d losses it could serve as direct replacement for further "peaker plant" construction. A couple of caveats: First, there's the reported $3000 cost of installation. I average 550 kWh use per month; at 13 cents per kWh (billed--half that for actual energy)that's $71 a month; the box saves me $3000 in 42 months, though my gas bill increases concomitantly, and probably at a higher cost than the utility buys it. The second is that when I run 916 kWh worth of gas through the box to get that 550 kWh of electricity, I have to dispose of the inefficient 366 kWh produced as heat. In the winter that can be used as heating, which is a really good deal; in the summer I need to dispose of it.
If the Bloom Box gives 60% efficiency, with no t&d losses it could serve as direct replacement for further "peaker plant" construction. A couple of caveats: First, there's the reported $3000 cost of installation. I average 550 kWh use per month; at 13 cents per kWh (billed--half that for actual energy)that's $71 a month; the box saves me $3000 in 42 months, though my gas bill increases concomitantly, and probably at a higher cost than the utility buys it. The second is that when I run 916 kWh worth of gas through the box to get that 550 kWh of electricity, I have to dispose of the inefficient 366 kWh produced as heat. In the winter that can be used as heating, which is a really good deal; in the summer I need to dispose of it.
-
- +3
-
-
written by harrison, February 24, 2010
To Greg,
The video on Bloom's website claims that the waste energy is used to maintain a high temperature environment for the fuel cell (which it needs to operate). Though they obviously don't say how much waste heat is generated per kWh.
The Bloom Box is certainly a cool piece of technology but I hate to see it claimed as a clean energy technology. It is cleaner (according to their claims), but should not be compared to PV, Wind, or Hydro. A quick back of the envelope calculation for energy costs gives roughly $.97/100,000 BTUs for natural gas. Converting that at 100% efficiency into kWh gives you about 30 kWh or $0.03 per kWh. That's about 5 cents less than I pay per kWh now. That's a significant improvement in cost but I doubt the conversion is near 100% efficiency.
Like all of you I would like to see some concrete numbers on the bloom box and not simply the huge amount of hype and news attention from under informed news sites.
-h
The video on Bloom's website claims that the waste energy is used to maintain a high temperature environment for the fuel cell (which it needs to operate). Though they obviously don't say how much waste heat is generated per kWh.
The Bloom Box is certainly a cool piece of technology but I hate to see it claimed as a clean energy technology. It is cleaner (according to their claims), but should not be compared to PV, Wind, or Hydro. A quick back of the envelope calculation for energy costs gives roughly $.97/100,000 BTUs for natural gas. Converting that at 100% efficiency into kWh gives you about 30 kWh or $0.03 per kWh. That's about 5 cents less than I pay per kWh now. That's a significant improvement in cost but I doubt the conversion is near 100% efficiency.
Like all of you I would like to see some concrete numbers on the bloom box and not simply the huge amount of hype and news attention from under informed news sites.
-h
-
- +1
-
-
written by Matthew Kent, February 24, 2010
Great idea that has been around for decades. Nothing new here, but new hype. What is the real break through here? The hyped decentralized distribution of electricity! Thats all, nothing else and if anyone here has lived off the grid, thats old news. Gas turbines produce 45% efficiency, but who wants one in the backyard of your home? The Bloombox is quiet and runs on natural gas for the most part, since bio-fuel is hard to get a hold of. Most fuel cells already produce (Siemens, Accumentrics and GE) 45% efficiency. The neat thing about this cell, is that it will also produce hydrogen. For 3,000 USD its not a bad deal and is a step in the right direction. We need to decentralize energy and get away from coal and oil. Not that natural gas is the solution, but its a step in the right direction.
Here is the bloombox review and documentation from the DOE:
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review09/fc_46_mitlitsky.pdf
Here is another bloom report on the DOE website:
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress09/v_i_7_mitlitsky.pdf
At least we are moving in the right direction...
Here is the bloombox review and documentation from the DOE:
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review09/fc_46_mitlitsky.pdf
Here is another bloom report on the DOE website:
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress09/v_i_7_mitlitsky.pdf
At least we are moving in the right direction...
-
- +0
-
-
written by Matthew Kent, February 24, 2010
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress09/v_i_7_mitlitsky.pdf
-
- +0
-
-
written by Joe Wein, February 25, 2010
A domestic fuel cell for $3000 will be genuinely interesting - once it becomes available at that price. For now, consumers in Japan can already buy "Enefarm", a domestic fuel cell for combined heat and power from natural gas, but it is about $38,000 before a government subsidy, about as much as a large car. Also, it remains to be seen how much maintenance it will need over a decade or so.
Others have already pointed out the mistake about transmission losses of up to 50% in the grid. Please do your research: "Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995." (see Wikipedia)
Fuel cells do have a chance to pay for themselves if you need heat throughout most of the year and can use the generated electricity as a byproduct to repay the considerable equipment costs for the fuel cell. If however you primarily need electricity and have no use for the waste heat for most of the year then the large capital cost of these units will not make them economic for you any time soon.
Others have already pointed out the mistake about transmission losses of up to 50% in the grid. Please do your research: "Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995." (see Wikipedia)
Fuel cells do have a chance to pay for themselves if you need heat throughout most of the year and can use the generated electricity as a byproduct to repay the considerable equipment costs for the fuel cell. If however you primarily need electricity and have no use for the waste heat for most of the year then the large capital cost of these units will not make them economic for you any time soon.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Garry G, February 25, 2010
Just to add to thread! Recent posts where I highlight disruptive market elements of chemical fuels and distributed power generation:
Bloom Box and the Very Disruptive Future of Distributed Energy [Video]
http://www.garrygolden.net/2010/02/23/bloom-energy-box-disruptive-future-of-distributed-energy/
Why Personal Power Systems Might be the Biggest Story in the Future of Energy
http://www.garrygolden.net/2010/02/21/future-of-portable-personal-power-via-micro-fuel-cells/
Bloom Energy CEO Interview explains 101 of Fuel cells as Bridge and Destination
http://www.garrygolden.net/2010/02/25/bloom-energy-ceo-future-of-fuel-cell-energy-101-interview/
Garry G
Brooklyn, NY
Bloom Box and the Very Disruptive Future of Distributed Energy [Video]
http://www.garrygolden.net/2010/02/23/bloom-energy-box-disruptive-future-of-distributed-energy/
Why Personal Power Systems Might be the Biggest Story in the Future of Energy
http://www.garrygolden.net/2010/02/21/future-of-portable-personal-power-via-micro-fuel-cells/
Bloom Energy CEO Interview explains 101 of Fuel cells as Bridge and Destination
http://www.garrygolden.net/2010/02/25/bloom-energy-ceo-future-of-fuel-cell-energy-101-interview/
Garry G
Brooklyn, NY
-
- +0
-
-
written by Robert Rainer, MD, February 28, 2010
The wind turbine can generate combustible hydrogen from water via electrolysis. The hydrogen can then power the bloom fuel cell. Viola! An infinite power supply without the production of CO2. GE... I hope your listening...
-
- +0
-
-
written by Malcolm W, March 04, 2010
There is already a company in the UK producing natural gas powered CHP units based on fuel cell technology. They are small, wall-mounted units which provide heating, hot water, and most of a homes electricity needs using about half of the fuel needed for hat water alone.
http://www.cerespower.com/
http://www.cerespower.com/
-
- +1
-
-
written by Michael Corder, March 22, 2010
The 60 Minutes piece was pure hyperbole. These may have some applications, but the technology is far too costly for residential, and there is no need anyhow. They are still using a fossil fuel (at 50% efficiency). SOmething the 60 minutes piece totally ignored. Here was my take on this when it was introduced:
http://energy.typepad.com/the-energy-blog/2010/02/bloom-energy-server-revealed-.html
Michael Corder - The Energy Blog (http://energy.typepad.com)
http://energy.typepad.com/the-energy-blog/2010/02/bloom-energy-server-revealed-.html
Michael Corder - The Energy Blog (http://energy.typepad.com)
-
- +1
-
-
written by tadalis, October 19, 2010
I don't understand how this thing will "replace" the grid. It still needs an energy source, doesn't it? So you still need a gas line feeding it? So it's not electrical power, but it's still a grid distribution system needed for power. How does that realistically get distributed in a remote village in India? I think it's great if it's "more efficient" energy, but the 60 minutes report seemed to be way overselling what it can actually do.
-
- +0
-
-
written by antidepressants, December 12, 2011
I am very happy to read this article..thanks for giving us this useful information.
Daniel - of course BE has a website and it's called ..... bloomenergy.com ! There's not much there except a clock but it is there and is certainly not hiding or playing hard to get.
I personally wonder if the ole Oracle of Omaha Warren Buffett will get involved he is interested in energy companies.
Daniel - of course BE has a website and it's called ..... bloomenergy.com ! There's not much there except a clock but it is there and is certainly not hiding or playing hard to get.
I personally wonder if the ole Oracle of Omaha Warren Buffett will get involved he is interested in energy companies.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Panax, January 03, 2012
I don't understand how this thing will "replace" the grid. It still needs an energy source, doesn't it? So you still need a gas line feeding it? So it's not electrical power, but it's still a grid distribution system needed for power. How does that realistically get distributed in a remote village in India? I think it's great if it's "more efficient" energy, but the 60 minutes report seemed to be way overselling what it can actually do.
-
- +0
-
-
written by panax, August 23, 2012
i think that science is a miracle and there is not impossible things unless opposite is proved
-
- +0
-
-
written by dr mustafa eraslan, August 23, 2012
The Bloom Box is certainly a cool piece of technology but I hate to see it claimed as a clean energy technology.I don't understand how this thing will "replace" the grid.
panax
panax
-
- +0
-
-
written by dr mustafa eraslan, December 04, 2012
If however you primarily need electricity and have no use for the waste heat for most of the year then the large capital cost of these units will not make them economic for you any time soon
-
- +0
-
-
written by ulia, December 04, 2012
Others have already pointed out the mistake about transmission losses of up to 50% in the grid. Please do your research: "Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995." (see Wikipedia)
thanks for information
thanks for information
-
- +0
-
-
written by panax, December 04, 2012
So it's not electrical power, but it's still a grid distribution system needed for power
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
i hope that is one of good solutions