Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Installs World's Largest 'Reversible' Renewable Energy Storage System (computerworld.com)
Lucas123 writes: Boeing announced that it has installed a first-of-its-kind 50MW Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) system on a naval base in Port Hueneme, Calif. The fuel cell system, which can scale to 400KW, is unique in that it uses solar power to generate hydrogen gas from seawater, which it then stores until it releases the gas into a fuel cell stack to produce electricity, heat and water. Because the system can both store energy and produce electricity, Boeing is calling the fuel cell system "reversible." The Navy's Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center is testing the fuel cell system on a microgrid to determine its viability for use at both remote bases and during overseas military missions.
"The Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) system, which can generate 50 kilowatts (KW) of power, is the largest of its kind and can use electricity from wind or solar power to generate hydrogen gas, which it then compresses and stores."
50 kw per hour is 36 megawatts a month.
I don't think that math means what you think it means. That means 36 MWh / month. 3600 KWh / month.
If I leave on a space heater, that's 1.5KWh / h = 1080KHh / month. So 36 people could run their space heaters.
A small town needs a power plant capable of 36MW. Not 36MHw / month.
That is, if you're near a large supply of readily accessible water.
If you read TFS (not even TFA) you'll see that this has been built "on a naval base in Port Hueneme, Calif." Port Hueneme is on the West Coast of California, right next to the Pacific Ocean. Is that a sufficient supply of water for you?
Good, inexpensive web hosting
http://www.navy.mil/submit/dis...
Which seems a more fitting description for s puny 50kW installation.
Yea, we've been calling that 'Rechargeable' for the last hundred years, but the marketing gonks at Boeing go with 'Reversible' instead then like it's something novel.
Wrong. Fuel cells are already commonly referred to as "reversible" when you can run them in both directions, which is not a given. Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance, though, and helping to make Slashdot grate.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Not really. If it was, they'd stop the farmers growing Alfalfa in the California deserts, then exporting it to China. The "BIG issue" is an utterly broken antiquated system of pre-1914 water rights.
I just spent 2 weeks in the Imperial Valley in Fall 2015, and 2 more weeks in the last month. You can drive through there but you can't really appreciate how damaging that style of industrial farming is to the environment until you actually go there. They are basically farming in a dust bowl by using open canal irrigation. The pesticides and fertilizer drain into the Salton Sea, an accidentally-created manmade body of water, which is drying up. As it dries up, a lot of the salts and chemicals in the water turn into a very fine dust. I drove out to the Salton Sea itself on a windy day and it looked like something straight out of Fallout 3. I could see no difference between the landscape there now and a nuclear wasteland. It's an ecological disaster. I've been to industrial farm towns all over the USA and I've never seen industrial farming like that before. The fact that it is allowed to continue to exist in California, of all states, just boggles my mind. And I work in coal power plants.
The refrain I heard often was "we grow xx% (double digit number) of the nation's fresh fruits and vegetables!". I am not going to dispute the figures. It isn't hard to gain a huge chunk of the market if you have free/cheap water, 350 days of sun, and an endless supply of cheap immigrant labor, however. That is a rare set of circumstances, and there isn't a farmer anywhere in the US that can compete against that.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.