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."

Comments

About $2K savings per month

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool, they will pay for themselves in about 30 years.

Re:About $2K savings per month

[TubeSteak]

Cool, they will pay for themselves in about 30 years.

That's if you only account for direct energy savings.

One important cost consideration is that this can be used to suplement/replace backup generators. Backup diesel systems are big, expensive, and (ideally) sit around doing nothing except during maintanence checks. A fuel cell can be run 24/7, meaning every penny you save from buying a (smaller) diesel backup and on fuel should get counted towards your cost savings.

Add in a healthy dollop of Federal/State subsidies and installing such tech makes good business sense.

Re:About $2K savings per month

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:About $2K savings per month

[cgenman]

You have to count opportunity costs. 5 boxes at $700,000 dollars would cost 3.5 million dollars. Assuming safe and conservative bond / CD investments at %5, they could earn $175,000 dollars per year at very low risk. That 100k dollar 9 month "savings" is actually costing them a total net loss of 41k dollars. It's better for them to just keep the money in a bank account.

Re:About $2K savings per month

[hey!]

On the other hand ... Methane is over twenty times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. So potentially you could burn methane in this thing, and even though you're emitting more CO2 earn a carbon credit or even $$$ under a cap and trade arrangement.

It's not a simple tradeoff though. Methane decays more rapidly in the atmosphere, so you really oughtn't get a 21:1 trade of methane for CO2. If we begin to do carbon sequestration, though, this might be a bigger win. We'd be converting methane, we we aren't sequestering, into CO2, which we are.

In any case, you're comparing this to current energy prices. If your electricity comes from oil, and oil goes way up, you'll expect natural gas to go up too -- but not as much. If you are in a oil price shock situation, you can't conjure new natural gas electric plants into existence in a year or two, but you could install a few of these.

Finally there are some "free" sources of methane. Municipal landfills have to flare off methane. So you set up your fuel cell on our newly capped landfill. After a couple years the volume drops off and you cell your fuel cell to a different municipality, recouping some of the investment.

Re:About $2K savings per month

[jumpingfred]

Where are you getting 5% CD these days? I see nothing over 1.75%

Re:About $2K savings per month

[Missing_dc]

How about using this to power a farming community, using the farm waste to fuel your methane plant, and repaying them in electricity. Cow manure and agricultural waste make LOTS of methane. I have heard of farms that produce their own power(and a little extra to sell back to the grid) just off a methane based power plant fueled from the waste they produce. Once the bio-matter is properly consumed, the sludge can go back on the fields.

Seriously guys, if we are going to go green, we need to look at self-sustaining systems.

Re:About $2K savings per month

[BZ]

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

Re:About $2K savings per month

[SleazyRidr]

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.

Re:About $2K savings per month

[MichaelDelving]

I happen to work for the largest public power utility. Sorry to rain on your parade, but tranmission and distribution losses generally account for around 2-5% of power 'usage'. Probably closer to the 2% side of things when you are considering an industrial/commercial load.

Also, depending on the particular middle man you're thinking of, generally utilities' residential customers basically subsidize business customers. The utilities soak residential customers in order to give corporate rates at or slightly below costs to encourage business (and thus, residential) growth.

Businesses (esp. power intensive) decide where to locate with energy cost as a factor, human beings, not so much. So you've got to offer better industrial rates (especially to high load factor businesses such as data centers) than your neighboring utilities, otherwise the grass will be greener on the other side of your fence.

These boxes are claimed to be twice as efficient as their gas turbines equivalents. But gas turbines, while being cheap to build (comparatively!), are the most expensive to run, and are generally only brought online to meet peak demands. So half the cost of running a gas turbine might still be expensive compared to cost averaged over the entire generation mix (hydro, nuclear, and fossil being much cheaper in a variable cost sense). See also my previous comment about residential customers subsidizing commercial ones.

Finally, I wonder how 'green' these boxes really are? I mean, compared to gas turbines? Carbon goes in, so it must come back out. Maybe in a more easily sequesterable form?

Payback period?

[danbert8]

Ok, so 5 units at 800,000 is 4 million. If they save 100,000/9 months, that's 133,333/year. So it'll only take them 30 years to repay the cost, assuming that money has no time value of course. Sounds like a poor investment to me.

Re:Payback period?

[Maximum Prophet]

The state of CA kicks in a few tax incentives and there are Federal incentives.

These are the first. Once production is geared up, the cost will come down, unless they are using unobtanium in the paints on the ceramic plates.

Re:Payback period?

[skirmish666]

You're forgetting about the seller listing & paypal fees

Re:Payback period?

[LWATCDR]

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.

Re:Payback period?

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Payback period?

[Rei]

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.

Re:Payback period?

[danbert8]

I'm not missing that piece... I intentionally left it out. That money comes out of the economy one way or another. Through company expenditure, the government taxing, or through inflationary spending, every dollar comes out of somebody's pocket. The government can't create value through subsidies and tax credits, they can only steal from Peter to pay Paul (not to mention some astronomical administrative costs).

Re:Payback period?

[sunking2]

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.

Re:Payback period?

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Payback period?

[John Meacham]

If it means we don't have to spend tax dollars on new power distribution infrastructure, then it can be a net win. It is entirely possible ebay's power requirements were overloading what the grid had to offer at that location.

Re:Payback period?

[Red Flayer]

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.

Great. Now I'm *really* conflicted. Most of the time I lament the tragedy of the commons, because it really does lead to ragedy. But now every time I drink a bottle-conditioned beer I'm going to *celebrate* it instead.

Here's to you, Mr. Conflicted-about-processes-leading-to-delicious-imbibables-man.

Re:Payback period?

[benjamindees]

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.

Re:Payback period?

[danbert8]

For the record, I do usually tip at about 20%. That being said, tipping is a load of crap. The problem is, it's not a tip, it's an expectation. I'd rather them advertise the actual cost upfront and pay their staff a reasonable wage rather than forcing the consumer to determine pay rates based on obligation. I mean really, if the service is bad, you won't get repeat customers, and if service is good, you'll have free advertising by word of mouth.

I mean, really, I don't get paid extra for being nice and attentive at my job, it's expected of me.

Re:Payback period?

[Sabriel]

Just off the top of my head? Pragmatic self-interest meets Pascal's wager. If there's enough people who don't care, what are the chances that together the lot of you will ruin things so fast that your life is FUBAR *before* you're gone?

REq

[binarylarry]

K.R. Sridhar's only response when questioned how it worked was: "Who run Barter Town?"

Self-hosted?

[ewg]

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

Magic

[Attila Dimedici]

They give no explanation of how it works. "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." Where have I heard claims like this before? Oh yeah from the proponents of various perpetual motion machines.
Of course, people have been turning hydrocarbons and oxygen into power at well below 1,000 degrees Celsius for a long time now. It's called a combustion engine.

Re:Magic

[Orange Crush]

Methane fuel cells are nothing new and a certainly NOT perpetual motion machines. All that's really happening is that they're yanking off the extra electrons from the chemical reaction to generate electricity directly rather than burning the fuel and using a heat engine to harness the energy. No fuel, no energy.

What's novel about this is he thinks he can make them without the use of precious metals and other high costs that keep previous fuel cell designs from being adopted more widely.

Re:Magic

[Rei]

An equivalent of the Carnot limit exists for thermochemical cycles as well -- Gibbs free energy. The Second Law is not merely constrained to heat engines. H2 + O2 has a higher entropy state than H2O (esp. if the H2O is liquid or solid). So the reaction is a reduction in entropy. It must correspond with a greater increase in entropy for the equation to be balanced -- i.e., waste heat. The maximum theoretical efficiency for a fuel cell can be calculated as described here. You'll notice that it *does* depend on the operating temperature. Also note that in practice, fuel cells don't get anywhere close to their theoretical, esp. in real-world conditions where you're not running them at low loads and where they're not being fed air rather than pure, pre-compressed oxygen as one of the feedstocks, plus all of the parasitic losses.

Amazing

[Hatta]

A box that converts hydrocarbons to energy? What will they think of next?

60 Minutes show: Inside the Bloom Box

[Futurepower(R)]

There was a piece about that on yesterday's 60 Minutes show: A Peek Inside the Bloom Box. The story is reported by Lesley Stahl, who was her usual self: "Wow! Gee Whiz! I want you to be impressed by technology, but I personally am not really interested in it."

Re:Poor investment for whom?

[sunking2]

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.

Re:By my math...

[McBeer]

5 * ($800,000) = $4 Million. At current energy prices, saving $100,000 every 9 months would mean they recoup their initial investment in about 30 years. I'll pass.

Yeah right now the ROI (3.3%) doesn't even keep up with average anual inflation (3.4%), but I think they are cutting it some slack as it's a very new technology that has yet to benefit from mass production and innovations in the production process. Later on it could prove to be an excellent investment.

Re:Need more details

[mprinkey]

These are solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs). The catalyst is probably a little bit of nickel or some other fairly abundant metal. Platinum and/or palladium are needed as catalysts only for low temperature polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells.

Also, PEM fuel cells can be poisoned by carbon in the fuel stream. SOFCs can pretty easily oxidize CO and H2 and possibly even CH4 or C2H6 due to water-gas shift reactions.

IAA Mech Eng. I spent six years writing software to model both kinds of fuel cells.

Fuel Cells, better than Natural Gas Electric PWR.

[jameskojiro]

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.

Re:Worth it?

[benjamindees]

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.

More Information on fuel cells.

[nmonsey]

Here is a quote from the EETimes article. "The resultant Bloom Boxes are not inexpensive today— about $750,000 for a unit capable of running a household (about four to six units are needed to run a typical data center). But within five to 10 years the company promises to reduce the price to as little as $3,000" These fuel cell are not being mass produced yet. Please read about fuel cells before making any judgments about the technology. http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/online/news http://www.fuelcells.org/news/updates.html There are many other companies working on similar fuell cells for homes and vehicles that have already been in use for several years.

Regardless eBay appears to be very happy with them

[Astrorunner]

They did rate BloomBox as "A+++++++++ Would buy from again!"

obligatory...

[gyranthir]

Cubert: Your explanations are pure weapons grade balognium. It's all impossible. Professor Farnsworth: Nothing is impossible. Not if you can imagine it. That's what being a scientist is all about. Cubert: No, that's what being a magical elf is all about.

Most of you are missing the point people!

[nickdwaters]

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.

Having traveled to lots of small Pacific islands

[Aargau]

There's a decent market for low-pollution electricity generators for cells and transmission towers in the small archipelagos to serve small villages.

Re:Worth it?

[TheSync]

ROI is not the issue.

The issue is appeasing the Green God.

We used to appease the Sun God, then the son of God, now we've moved to the Green God.

Waiting to see what's in their secret sauce

[coffeegoat]

This interested me enough to actually register (finally). There is a bunch of really horrendous media coverage on Fuel Cells in general but it doesn't help that in the article they mix concepts from different types of fuel cells, different types of "green energy" and general marketing.

Fuel cells that chemically transform reactants via an electrochemical reaction to products and release bunch electric energy directly along the way. You can think of it just like a battery that you keep putting more chemicals into. All fuel cells transform hydrogen and other hydrocarbons into electric energy with a little heat, all of them, they're solid state energy conversion devices not magical boxes. The big thing about solid oxide fuel cells is that they run at ridiculously high temps (600-1000C) so their reaction kinetics are tremendously faster than other kinds of fuel cells, they can self reform various fuels (natural gas, diesel, JP8, and they are tolerant to most containments (except usually sulfur and chromium).
However, the high temperature comes with a price, their interconnects degrade extraordinarily fast, sealing is a problem because of huge thermal expansion mismatches, and finally at 1000 degrees materials stability is a big problem.

As far as what they mentioned in the article, the "inks" are just catalyst layers, every fuel cell manufacturer and university uses those, everyone has their secret sauce. The "beach" is probably YSZ, or yttrium stabilized zirconia, which is the standard. The metal interconnects are coated with some conductive interconnects, no one would think of using platinum interconnects, they use that for catalysts on PEM fuel cells, it's totally unneccesary for SOFCS.

And if you're wondering, I'm doing graduate work on SOFCs, so we see this marketed crap in our field all the time, hopefully Bloom Energy has solved some of those problems I mentioned.
Other companies to check out: CFCL, Ceres Power

Slashdot Pundits Know ALL (once again...)

[Required Snark]

Well, it's great to see how the all knowing Slashdot Pundits can completely dismiss a technology with almost no information. I hate to be spoil sport but let's look at what we do know. (Actually I LOVE being a spoil sport on Slashdot, but never mind.)

-------

Look at the initial client list: eBay, Google, Staples, FedEx, and Walmart. Clearly a bunch of looser companies with no technical expertise who can easily be taken in by a smooth talker who is selling a fake product that will never deliver. (Sarcasm.)

The inventor: "Mr. Sridhar originally invented a similar device when he was working for NASA designing infrastructure for a prospective Mars colony". I know you all have an irrational hatred of NASA, but they do send spacecraft all over the solar system and help keep the ISS manned and in orbit. So it is at least possible that Mr. Sridhar is a smart guy who has done something interesting.

The technology: "The discs are produced from baked sand and then painted on each side with the special ink. In between the discs an inexpensive metal (not platinum) is placed." So just maybe he has figured out how to reduce costs by using materials less expensive then semiconductor grade silicon an precious metals. This obviously leads to the Slashdot consensus that he is wrong.

Current cost vs. long term cost: "Mr. Sridhar hopes the funding that's being virtually thrown at him and his enigmatic box will help drive down costs to below $3,000 for a residential unit within 5 to 10 years." The current "useless" price of $800,000 for an industrial unit means he has failed, and his projection of better prices in the future with mass production and further development is unfounded. Clearly decreasing prices of newly introduced technology never occur, according to Slashdot Pundits .

Yep, the Slashdot Pundits are 100% right in trash talking this effort. The could do something much better themselves, but they are all far to busy doing the impotant business of living in their parents basements, playing WoW and posting on Slashdot.

Re:Need more details

[mprinkey]

Expensive to install. Reliability is a huge concern because they are ceramic and hence naturally brittle. But they also have rather large temperature gradients in them (part of what I was studying). Those gradients produces thermal stress which could really shorten the life of these things...you are talking about electrodes and electrolytes with thickness measured in 10s of microns, being heated by activation and ohmic losses on the inside, and cooled by reactant flows on the outside. Reliability, especially under transient loads, used to be a real concern. I'm sure that they have worked around many of the problems, either with careful control logic or special materials or both.

Also, sealing these things was a real PITA too. Leaks from one reactant stream into the other turned the fuel cell into a combustor. There were other problems...someone above mentioned sulfer poisoning, so the syngas or whatever needs to be scrubbed. Also, ion migration was a problem. Due to the high temperature, the various ions in the electrodes and catalysts could redistribute themselves, not unlike what can happen in ICs that are run too hot or at too high a voltage.

It is a new technology. DOE dumped a ton of money into research under the SECA program about 8-10 years ago. Their target was development of these little component units that could be deployed a few at a time or ganged together into a massively parallel power plant configuration. I'm glad to see someone at least got something out to market.

I power my Segway from a Bloom Box!

[wsanders]

It's not about paying for itself, it's about eating your own dog food. Bloom Energy, Google, Yahoo, Segway, all financed from the same cabal of VCs, and the way you score revenue in that business is to trade each other your stuff and then count the trades as revenue in both directions. Kind of like two real estate guys selling each other the same two condos, until the price is bid up to a level worthy for sale to some suck^H^H^H^H other investor. Hey, it worked in 1999, why not now?