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."

29 of 562 comments (clear)

  1. About $2K savings per month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    1. Re:About $2K savings per month by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. 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.
    3. Re:About $2K savings per month by cgenman · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  2. Payback period? by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    1. Re:Payback period? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    2. Re:Payback period? by skirmish666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're forgetting about the seller listing & paypal fees

      --
      Sigger than your average
    3. 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.
    4. 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!
    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. 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!
    8. 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"
  3. REq by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  4. 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
  5. 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.

  6. Re:Magic by Orange+Crush · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:By my math... by McBeer · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
  8. Re:Need more details by mprinkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. 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...
  10. 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"
  11. More Information on fuel cells. by nmonsey · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  12. obligatory... by gyranthir · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  13. 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.

  14. Waiting to see what's in their secret sauce by coffeegoat · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  15. Re:Need more details by mprinkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  16. I power my Segway from a Bloom Box! by wsanders · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"