Slashdot Mirror


Fuel Cell Marvel "Bloom Box" Gaining Momentum

Many sources are continuing to excitedly report on the latest in a long line of startups chasing the holy grail of power sources. This incarnation, the "Bloom Box" from Bloom Energy, promises a power-plant-in-a-box that you can literally put in your backyard, and has received backing from companies like eBay, Google, Staples, FedEx, and Walmart. CBS recently aired an exclusive interview with K.R. Sridhar about his shiny new box. "So what is a Bloom Box exactly? Well, $700,000 to $800,000 will buy you a 'corporate sized' unit. Inside the box are a unique kind of fuel cell consisting of ceramic disks coated with green and black 'inks.' The inks somehow transform a stream of methane (or other hydrocarbons) and oxygen into power, when the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius. To get a view of the cost and benefits, eBay installed 5 of the boxes nine months ago. It says it has saved $100,000 USD on energy since."

14 of 562 comments (clear)

  1. Self-hosted? by ewg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anybody know if Bloom Energy eats their own dog food? Do they power their own offices, labs, and other facilities with Bloom Boxes?

    --
    org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
  2. Re:Payback period? by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well that assumes that power costs don't go up or that they don't go up as fast as the cost of natural gas.
    Also it makes you less relient on the grid so it can act as a massive UPS. For a place like EBay a backup generator is going to be a small power plant so over all it could be a huge win.
    The on thing that I wonder about is that 1000c temperature. That seems really high to me but the story is very short on details.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  3. Re:Payback period? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All that said, though, I hope money is not the only motivation why anybody would look into alternative energy sources.

    If it's not economically viable, it won't happen. The world doesn't run on good will, it runs on money.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  4. Re:Poor investment for whom? by sunking2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're also assuming that the cost given hasn't already taken that into account. This article is pure marketing, you can expect them to use every trick in the book.

  5. Re:Payback period? by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not necessarily. Many things favor central generation, including end-user distribution infrastructure, bulk buys, centralized maintenance, and -- here's a big one -- much longer lifespans than SOFCs.

    And even if that wasn't the case, and even if we assume your scenario, the payback would be *at best* 30 years (not considering the time-value of money). To get under 30 years, you have to assume that the electricity costs rise *faster* than the NG costs, not at the same speed.

    --
    Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
  6. Re:Payback period? by sunking2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The people of CA should be thrilled that while their taxes go up and state employees get furloughed they are helping to fund the energy usage of companies making huge profits. Just pointing out that tax breaks and incentives don't come from leprechauns and the end of the rainbow.

  7. Fuel Cells, better than Natural Gas Electric PWR. by jameskojiro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like this converts Natural Gas into electricity, what a lot of people don't realize is that a lot of our electrical power comes from Natural Gas being burned in motors that TURN generators. They are either Turbines or conventional large internal combustion engines that turn those generators, the conventional way of turning chemical energy into electrical energy is very poor and a lot of energy is wasted as heat energy. Sounds like these Boxes or "Heat Catalyzing Fuel Cells" could be far more efficient and if can be scaled up could be used to stretch the fossil fuel buck a whole lot more and easily be scaled to bio fuels.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  8. Re:Payback period? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, you are correct. If it's economically advantageous to individuals to make the planet uninhabitable, that is what will happen. In the same way, individual yeast in a jar of sugar water will ferment, ferment, ferment until the alcohol concentration is so high it kills them all. Each yeast is just doing what it needs to survive.

    I'm not saying it's good, this is just how it is. If you want to save the world, you have to make it more profitable to save it than destroy it.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  9. Re:Worth it? by benjamindees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Other than saving space, how is this better than solar panels which typically have a 15-20 year payoff period?

    It runs their servers when there's a rolling blackout and the sun isn't shining.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  10. Most of you are missing the point people! by nickdwaters · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ROI is a misleading concept. You can't just figure ROI based on your PG&E bill over 30 years time. With traditional energy production methods costs have historically been subsidized and not even fully account for ecologic damage. Energy production costs do not include costs associated with recovering from previous CO2 emissions. What will the full cost be? It will have to include costs associated with cleanup from radioactive waste treatment, land, homes, and other associated economic losses due to rising sea levels, and so on. Cost of energy as it currently is produced will prove to be incredibly expensive. 1) Natural gas is the most abundant and clean burning hydrocarbon on the planet. 2) It is clean burning, meaning it will not release as any waste hydrocarbons or as much CO2 into the atmosphere. ergo "green" 3) It is a new technology. As demand rises, costs will come down. My gut is telling me that true ROI all things considered would be 5-10 years, not 30.

  11. Re:Payback period? by benjamindees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Natural gas as a fuel will explode (figuratively and literally) in the next decade if there isn't a carbon tax.

    I see this repeated often and it is simply wrong. Natural gas emits carbon, yes. But it emits far less carbon than coal or oil and is far, far more abundant than any renewable energy source. So natural gas usage will go up even if there is a carbon tax because it will be the best alternative for cheap, on-demand, transportable energy.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  12. Re:About $2K savings per month by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or the cost of replacing the catalyst plates regularly. These are not forever without maintenance boxes... I know how they work and you need to replace the membranes regularly.. University of Michigan has one installed at the lakeshore facility around here. they stopped running it because of the maintenance costs. The Natural gas turbine, windmills and solar panel covered roof generates enough power for the facility right now.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  13. Re:About $2K savings per month by BZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I dare you to find a safe bond or cd yielding 5% right about now.

  14. Re:About $2K savings per month by SleazyRidr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To me that is a sign of how broken the world is. You're better off not doing anything than actually taking a proactive step.