Bloom Box

[Guest kawikaho]

Hey smw,

 

I somewhat disagree, and agree, that efficiencies of energy conversion don't matter in these technologies.  I say this because if the system is only able to generate 1% of free energy, it could take a thousand years (including inflation) to generate any ROI.  I've recently wrote a paper on the pros and cons of alternative energy.  This technical paper from UC Berkeley was helpful:

 

http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/PDF/csemwp176.pdf

 

I've read that solar PV isn't a durable technology.   The efficiency degrades through its lifespan.  At some point, I believe, the PV panel will break down.  So, if the efficiency of the system is so low as to not make any ROI, its money spent on energy.  This is the part I agree with you, though.  We spend money on oil, gas, and heating.  It's not free.  So why should alternative energy be completely free?  Solar PV, although inefficient, may one day be our main mode of energy.  Regardless of its inefficiencies, we need energy.

[Bastida]

Hi kawihaho, first of all I want to apologize if I came up as rude in any of my previous replies. It was not my intention at all, I'm enjoying this discussion a lot.

 

Regarding the Bloom Box fuel, the (now online) data sheet says "Natural gas, directed biogas". I think that settles the matter.

 

About hydrogen production, although that question is now an issue not directly related with the Bloom box, I totally agree that getting the H2 from water (and renewable energy sources) is much more sustainable than from NatGas. But electro-hydrolysis remains a terribly inefficient process (and includes nasty stuff like Sulphuric Acid to make the water conducting so that electrolysis can work).

 

I know there's some promising work with genetically modified bacteria that produce hydrase and feed on C02 and sunlight, and other really imaginative approaches that someday may become the mainstream way of making H2. I'm not aware of systems like the one you mention: sunlight producing hydrolysis at a cathode without electricity? Or are you referring to methods of producing electricity from sun light other than PV? thermal concentrators and that kind of stuff?

 

The Bloom Energy site states an electrical efficiency >50% (I think is safe to assume that not much more than 50). This is very good, a Capstone turbine of equivalent output (100kW) is around 30% electrical efficiency. We need more info to compare uptime, maintenance requirements, degradation, manufacturing cost... I mean, Siemens and GE have SOFCs up and running in several test sites. But they're clearly MUCH WORSE at generating marketing buzz than Mr. Doerr :-)

 

Best regards,

Bastida

 

No... I believe I read that the Bloom Box is a flex fuel system.  It can use hydrogen, natural gas, and even solar??  So, I think you're wrong here.  And, no, it's definitely not much more efficient to get hydrogen from methane than water.  The difference in bond dissociation energies to remove 2 hydrogen atoms is only about 20 kJ/mol.  Besides, water is everywhere, and it's highly renewable.  Methane, although being much more renewable than say OIL, still needs some work to renew or produce.  It's also not everywhere.

 

I believe you didn't read what I was saying.  I've already said depending on the solar conversion system, the efficiency of coupling that with a Bloom Box would drive the efficiency of the system lower.  No shit solar PV is inefficient.  I've already said the ROIs on most of these electricity producing technologies are bad.  If you read my post, you would see I was not talking about solar PV.  I was talking about newer electrodes that uses sunlight directly to do the hydrolysis.  The use of solar PV would undermine any system.

[smw397]

Hey smw,

 

I somewhat disagree, and agree, that efficiencies of energy conversion don't matter in these technologies.  I say this because if the system is only able to generate 1% of free energy, it could take a thousand years (including inflation) to generate any ROI. 

 

I think you missed my central point... I wasn't saying efficiency in terms of dollar cost per unit of energy is unimportant.  I was saying it's really the only thing that IS important.  The problem is that when people talk about PV efficiency, that figure is typically an expression not of energy but power per square meter.  An 18% efficient panel is capable of producing electrical power (in kW) equivalent to 18% of the net insolation power (in kW).  But as Bastida pointed out, full sun only exists for a small part of the time, all the rest of which even the most "efficient" panels see dramatic dropoff in the actual energy (in kWh) delivered.  Some of the lowest "efficiency" PV in terms of peak power are actually the most efficient in terms of kWh produced per dollar invested, and yes, that's over the lifetime of the system.  I was only speaking theoretically of a 1% (actual systems I'm refering to are obviously much higher), but in theory, if a 1% efficient PV is cheap enough on a $/kWh basis over the lifetime of the panel, its peak power rating is irrelevant as long as you aren't space constrained.  And the last time I flew anywhere I saw miles and miles and miles of rooftops just begging to be covered with cheap thin film PV laminates the next time they need replacement anyway.

[Guest kawikaho]

No problem.  I don't take offense, and you did not seem rude at all.  Ok, if that's the case, that settles the matter.  I was under the impression that this system was flex fuel capable.  That's what was implied in the interviews.  Well, that's too bad.  I was hoping this could use flex fuels since that would allow all kinds of possibilities.  

 

Yes, this new technology I was referring to does direct catalytic conversion using sunlight.  There's no external energy source that feeds it electricity.  The catalyst uses the Sun directly to hydrolyze water into hydrogen gas.  

 

By the way, you know your stuff.  What do you do for a living?  I'm an engineer working in medical devices now, but I used to be a chemistry and math major.  

[smw397]

About hydrogen production, although that question is now an issue not directly related with the Bloom box, I totally agree that getting the H2 from water (and renewable energy sources) is much more sustainable than from NatGas. But electro-hydrolysis remains a terribly inefficient process (and includes nasty stuff like Sulphuric Acid to make the water conducting so that electrolysis can work).

 

snip

 

The Bloom Energy site states an electrical efficiency >50% (I think is safe to assume that not much more than 50). This is very good, a Capstone turbine of equivalent output (100kW) is around 30% electrical efficiency. We need more info to compare uptime, maintenance requirements, degradation, manufacturing cost... I mean, Siemens and GE have SOFCs up and running in several test sites. But they're clearly MUCH WORSE at generating marketing buzz than Mr. Doerr :-)

 

Best regards,

Bastida

 

I'd direct you once again to the humble NiMH battery.  Sans the platinum membrane, the chemistry is identical to the electrolysis/oxidation cycle for water.  Fully charged it has hydrogen and oxygen adsorbed into the anode and cathode of its respective matrices.  Apply a load and an electron travels through the circuit allowing oxidation to occur and you get a water byproduct.  It all happens internally and is a reversible process when a charging current is applied.  Add plumbing, external hydride storage medium, along with solar PV and you've got a completely self contained renewable system with no caustic chemicals required, and the efficiency hit is really not any greater than transmission losses in the conventional grid.  Yes, it costs more to develop at this point but we're no where near realizing the economies of scale that could be achieved in this area.

 

Capstone's efficiencies are much greater than 30% anywhere they can be put to use in combined cycle or combined heat & power applications.  The same is true for SOFC but the turbines are much cheaper and will probably continue to be far more reliable and cheaper to maintain, especially for LFG or other highly contaminated biogases.

 

My apologies for the threadjack.  This was supposed to be about the Bloom Box, but any discussion about fuel cells is going to end up either here or on microturbines or both because they're all potential parts of any solution to the same problem.

[Bastida]

By the way, you know your stuff.  What do you do for a living?  I'm an engineer working in medical devices now, but I used to be a chemistry and math major.  

 

Hi again kawikaho, I'm an industrial engineer and I also work in healthcare. Mostly IT but we also do a lot of specialized medical training with fancy simulators and gadgets (we have an ISRG DaVinci in our main training facility for example).

 

Best regards,

Bastida

[Aberhound]

I think the ROIC for the customer is 20%+ in California. One implication is that there is no longer a need for energy subsidies as the market has provided a solution. The feed in tariff policies in Germany and Ontario which provide energy at a cost of $0.40 to $0.80 per kWh look pretty silly now. BC's policy of buying remote hydro power for over $0.20 per kWh or building a power line across nothern BC also looks silly.

 

"Bloom Energy enables you to save money by lowering your electricity costs. Our customers today generate their own electricity for less than they pay their power company. The savings typically provide a 3-5 year payback on their initial capital investment."

 

 

[Bastida]

Best analysis I've read about the economics of the Bloom Box and all the buzz that has surrounded the official launch:

 

http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/bloom-box-fuel-cell-energy/756

 

Best regards,

Bastida.

[Guest kawikaho]

Wow, just a 10 yr lifespan??  That sucks.