Is Bloom Energy’s Secret Ingredient Zirconia?

Best description so far. Nice job.

I have confidence in John Doerr as an intelligent technology investor and doubt that he would go into a $100+ million dollar investment without surrounding him with smart people who have done their homework.  I guess we’ll see over the next 12 months if it is for real.  I’m looking forward to the launch on Wednesday.  Here are some of my thoughts on the Bloom Box and what it will mean to our future: http://blog.mapawatt.com/2010/02/20/what-is-the-bloom-box-does-it-work-bloom-energy-could-change-the-world/

I think you came off as borderline nonsensical in the 60 Minutes piece. First, you poo-poo the technology. Then, you say there’s a 20% chance (a pretty hefty chance) that most households will have one in just 5-10 years. Huh? What exactly was the point you were trying to make? And what did you have to say about the demonstrated success of the Bloom Boxes at major companies?

Powell, confidence in Doerr?  Fine, but have more confidence in his desire to cash out of his illiquid VC position.  There is nothing to suggest Bloom can deliver a cost competitive fuel cell.  Until (unless) they do they’re nothing but an expensive science project.

Zirconia as a “secret sauce”?  Are you kidding?  This “beach sand” is the basis of almost all Solid Oxide Fuel Cells.  If you don’t know what you are writing about, it may be best not to speculate.  Bloom has taken an enormous amount of money and done a really good job of engineering and process development and is now doing a credible amount of field testing to develop a strong customer base,  but so far there is nothing they have said publicly to suggest a technical breakthrough.  I am sure that zirconia is not any type of differentiator.

Thanks for the piece, Michael.

Bloom has 52 patent applications in the pipeline, and the final technology is just as likely as not to NOT be in any one of those - so it’s entirely possible that the zirconium compound is not what they are using. But yttria-stabilized zirconia (“YSZ”) is extremely common in solid oxide fuel cells, so I wouldn’t doubt it either.

By the way, zirconium is gotten from zircon sand, so folks shouldn’t think that this technology uses silicon as the electrolyte! You know, it’s really misleading of Sridhar to point out that connection (his electrolyte and sand), because it makes it sound as though his technology is cheaper than any other fuel cell technology. Well, it’s not any cheaper than the raw material used in any other solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC).

Concerning the use of “ink” for the electrodes? Well, it’s not the kind of ink you use in a pen, that’s for sure. It’s probably a material such as Lanthanum Strontium Manganate, also very commonly used for electrodes in SOFCs…and not quite so cheap as Sridhar tries to make it sound.

As for the lack of use of platinum, that’s nice, but you don’t have to heat up platinum to close to 1000oC to get it to do what needs to be done. At that temperature, you need to use expensive materials and processes for your various reactors, tubing, etc.; plus you need to heat it up, which uses energy and takes time.

I’m not implying that the Bloom technology is worse than platinum-based fuel cells, just that the benefits come with significant trade-offs. In fact, if Sridhar is right it seems that they’ve done a good job with their stack development. If he means a 60W light bulb may be lit by one cell - and giving how he misleads, it could be a 25W bulb for all I know - then the power density of the cell is on the order of 1W/cm2. That’s right up there with the very best. (If he was referring to a 25W light bulb, it’s more like 0.4W/cm2, which is respectable but no breakthrough.)

What bothers me is the spin and hype they give to the technology. Even so, I wish them luck in getting the price to $3,000 per home installation. I wonder how many kiloWatts Sridhar believes is an “average home,” because it could make the difference between $300/kW (pretty good) or $1,500/kW (not so great).

Rich

All fuel cells run at a maximum efficiency of ~50%, meaning that you obtain only 50% of the free energy of the chemical reaction that is going on.  In Bloom’s case this efficiency is lower since their ceramic separators indicate they are running significantly above ambient temperature, i.e. some of the energy is used to heat the cells to the operating temp.  Also, there will be some inefficiency in the gas consumption, i.e. not all of it will be consumed and some will pass through unreacted ( a few %).
Since they are using natural gas, the process is no greener than any furnace or water heater that also uses methane, with the exception that there is probably less carbon monoxide generated.  The CO2 output is still the same.  And if you believe Al Gore and his friends, CO2 is a killer (visualize helpless polar bear on shrinking ice drift).
The best thing hat can happen to the Bloom guy is that someone like GE buys him out.

Rich,

Great comment above.  YSZ is almost certainly the electrolyte (or part of it - one patent says they may be using scandia-stabilized ceria as well), which is not really found in sand in it’s basic form.  Zirconia is not a catalyst for this reaction - it is simply the ionic conductor.

It is hard to tell what the electrode “inks” are (the ink is just a term to describe a viscous mixture that includes the relevant active particles, which are most likely a mix of metals and ceramics, or possibly a single mixed-conducting ceramic), but from the colors, you are right, the cathode is most likely LSM and the anode almost certainly is a Nickel - YSZ composite based on its green color. 

I agree about the annoyance of the spin - the cost breakdown and analyses of emissions, etc. must be taken into consideration.  In general, the basics of the technology are well established, with hundreds of scientists (myself included) working on various focused aspects.  This is not a magic science that was “invented” by Sridhar, as 60 Minutes so incorrectly reports at the beginning of their segment.

In general, I think Bloom’s value is in developing a low-cost (lowest to date at least - it’s all relative) manufacturing method, including the balance of plant design.  Whether they can cut their costs by a factor of 10 in 5-10 years to around $1000/kW is definitely questionable. 

The hydrogen - oxygen reaction to make water is exothermic, so some of the excess heat is used to maintain the temperatures needed for stable SOFC operation, which is anywhere from 600-1000C.  Bloom has yet to say at what temperature they operate, but this in fact could clue us in to what types of materials they are using, so they may want to keep it secret. 

Lastly, Chris, re: your comment above, there are a number of types of fuel cells that have different theoretical maximum efficiencies.  SOFCs have the highest, and it eclipses 50%.  It can even reach upwards of 80% if the heat is captured for various uses.  You are correct though that there are various considerations that also affect the efficiency, such as the operating voltage, gas composition, etc.  The amount of heat used to operate at higher temperatures has nothing to do with the fundamental efficiency of the fuel cell, so you aren’t losing anything as you suggest.  In fact, it is the very fact that SOFCs run at high temperature with high-quality waste heat that gives them an advantage.  Additionally, your statement about the “greenness” of a methane-run SOFC with respect to a methane furnace is false - the CO2 output per volume of methane is the same (assuming none is captured), but that is the very point of energy efficiency - because SOFCs have a much higher efficiency than standard combustion, one obtains more energy per volume of methane, i.e. the CO2 emissions are less per unit of energy, which is what we care about.  Less is better, but CO2 emissions should still be quantified and acknowledged, because those in the scientific community (Al Gore’s friends?) understand the importance of limiting CO2 emissions.

Thanks, James. Great comment yourself.

I am not familiar with the colors of various electrode compositions, so that’s very useful to know. I only glanced through a couple of the patent applications myself, and one of them mentioned a Nickel cermet, so that is consistent with your comment.

I wasn’t so sure, from the little info given, whether their manufacturing process is / will be so inexpensive. He certainly tried to make it sound that way, anyway. I looked up the price of SOFC raw materials - well, from a fuel cell component supply house, not from the “wholesale” suppliers like American Elements, which doesn’t publish price - and it was anywhere from roughly $0.50 to $1.60 per gram for quantities of 25 kg or so, depending on what material (YSZ, LSM, GDC, etc.) one was interested in. That’s less than I thought it would be, but I’m sure the real cost comes in the processing steps necessary for highly uniform, clean, etc. production of the cells.

If they can handle higher hydrocarbons then they surely do more than internal fuel reforming, which adds a lot of cost, complexity, size, etc. The systems they’ve installed could probably either do internal reforming or only need to do incomplete reforming.

I also bring this up because of the heat balance issue…if they do steam reforming then they need much of the heat of the stack for that. But either way, once they’ve started up then yes, they have the heat they need to maintain stack temperature; by heat required I was referring to startup. Unless they keep the unit running for significant uninterrupted periods, the fuel burned to heat up the stack is a bit of a hit on the efficiency. As would be periods of low loading (perhaps nighttime) when they have to keep the stack sufficiently hot but are not getting much power from it, unless their unit is really well insulated ($...again, it’s the tradeoff thing…).

But hey, remember that that little box in the scientist’s hands is all you need to power a home… :-)

Consumer cost will be the ultimate factor in the clean renewable energy storage game.

Consider ERRA Incorporated http://www.errainc.com

ERRA Incorporated, San Antonio, Texas is Chaired by Bernard Reznicek, the former president and CEO of Boston Edison and Omaha Public Power. Regarding ERRA’s YESS (Your Energy Storage Solution) Battery, Mr. Reznicek states: “This is simply the most cost effective energy storage battery module on the planet! Not to be confused with nickel metal hydride batteries which were famous for their high self discharge rates, internal corrosion problems, and relatively short lives, this Ni/H technology has completely compartmentalized the hydrogen in a solid state separate from the battery itself, resulting in no self discharge or corrosion of any kind. The technology is tried and proven, and is based on the same electrochemistry of the batteries that have been powering our satellites in outer space, through hundreds of thousands of charge/discharge cycles, without fail, for over forty years. We feel we are potentially on the brink of being able to largely displace lead acid, nickel metal hydride and lithium ion technologies. This battery is competitive with lead acid in cost, with nickel metal hydride and lithium ion in energy density and is inherently safer than any other known battery technology! This battery has no risk from the thermal runaway issues plaguing the lithium ion technologies. Finally, and equally important, our technology is 100% clean, and fully scalable from AAA sized batteries up through several MW’s of storage capacity.”

ERRA’s latest Press Release announces the appointment of Ret. USAF Lt. General Dierker as ERRA’s COO, further ERRA has announced that it’s environmentally friendly YESS Energy Storage Battery would be in commercial production within a year and will be targeted for the emerging electric and hybrid electric vehicle markets; uninterruptible power supply for the grid and non-grid connected telecommunications markets; wind and solar energy storage (which make this technology fully dispatchable for the first time); utility load-leveling; as well as material handling and mobility markets.
The YESS Battery will enter commercial production with between 90Wh/kg to 125Wh/kg depending on application, packaging and voltage requirements. Perhaps the most important attribute of the YESS battery is that it will posses energy densities equal, or superior to lithium ion technologies, yet be cost competitive with lead acid batteries on a life cycle cost basis!
General Dierker states “In my opinion, this company has the potential to finally break the grip of big oil and positively shift the world’s energy markets toward clean, renewable, and sustainable energy like no other company that has come before it.”
Following is a link to ERRA Incorporated’s latest Press Release entitled: ERRA Incorporated “The Clean Technology Company” Appoints Retired USAF Lieutenant General Robert R. Dierker as its Chief Operating Officer
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/01/prweb3469734.htm
Other recent ERRA Press Releases:
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/11/16/485166.html
http://www.green-energy-news.com/arch/nrgs2009/20090096.html

Greentech Media is a trusted resource—and I always appreciate the insights here!  But I’m not feeling the long-term skepticism here w/ fuel cells. 

We’ve all been following this through the hype cycle but it seems that there are more reasons these days to be more optimistic and confident.  I remember when Bloom was Ion America - thinking - they could do it.  B/c they preserve the ‘fuel’ model and work to deliver non-grid solutions.  Obviously there is a lot that can go wrong - but I think we are close to the first stage of development—and am happy to see Bloom Energy spread its wings:

http://www.garrygolden.net/2010/02/23/bloom-energy-box-disruptive-future-of-distributed-energy/

http://www.garrygolden.net/2010/02/21/future-of-portable-personal-power-via-micro-fuel-cells/ 

Garry G
Brooklyn, NY
Former Editor of The Energy Roadmap.com

Hi Garry,

You wrote (at one of the links):

“Low cost, highly reliable distributed power generation systems are disruptive because they open up a new ecosystem for non-grid based power generation that can bypass the incumbents entrenched business model.”

All very well and good, but Bloom hasn’t proven to me that they are either low cost or highly reliable. And there are a number of other fuel cell products out there that have shown great reliability and probably only need to get their production numbers up for the cost to get quite reasonable.

As an aside, would anyone want to venture to guess in what way the “Bloom Box” uses solar energy as a fuel? Perhaps I lack imagination, but it’s not coming to me at this point.

Rich

You know when Sridhar mentioned solar power there was a hard edit in the video.  I think she actually asked him if it could run on solar and he said yes and then probably went into solar fuels (or maybe solar -> H2) but that was edited out.

A prospective Bloom customer told me he was trying the device because it was small enough to fit in the parking lot, didn’t make too much noise or heat and allowed them to circumvent utility mark-up for generation and transmission.  Its not as efficient as combine cycle gas, but allows them to generate their own power cheaper than wholesale purchase.  The factors to learn about are operating cost and maintenance.

Rich,

As a follow-up, I too found the solar comment very strange - but only in the context that the wording didn’t make any sense.  I’ll explain… 

First, there are a number of signs that point to the possibility that the Bloom Box is a SORFC (the R being the important distinction).  This stands for solid oxide reversible fuel cell, which means that the stack can also run in reverse as an electrolysis cell.  In electrolysis mode the box works exactly in reverse - it consumes electrical energy to split water and CO2 to make hydrogen and carbon monoxide (called syngas) which are fuels in and of themselves and are also precursors to a simple production method of methane called the Sabatier process.  Essentially, and I believe this is where the real value of the box comes from, the system works as an energy production and storage system in one unit.  At high demand it can run in fuel cell mode, and at night or in low demand, it can run in electrolysis mode to store energy in the form of a gas or liquid fuel.  The value in this is that you can achieve power leveling/shaving, a very necessary aspect to future grid requirements with the addition of intermittent renewable energy sources.

One sign pointing to this is that the majority of Bloom patents describe this SORFC system and how it would work - where the different gases are stored, what application would use a reversible system, etc.  Secondly, he said (in one wording or another) that it could “run on solar” which basically means you could hook up solar panels to the box and convert the solar electricity to a fuel that can be run later in the fuel cell.  Granted, you don’t get solar at night, so the power leveling doesn’t necessarily work well with solar, but for wind energy it would be perfect.  This also means that, assuming the round trip efficiency is greater than the difference in cost of electricity between peak and off-peak hours, if the box is connected to the grid, you could store energy at night during cheap electricity hours, and then during the day run the fuel cell on the stored energy.  In this manner, one wouldn’t even need a natural gas fuel - it is simply taking advantage of time-sensitive pricing differences.

Based on Richard’s comment about the hard edit of the video, the patents, and Sridhar’s allusion to the integration of solar, my hunch is that the big reveal tomorrow will be that it is in fact an SORFC and has power leveling capabilities.  I guess we’ll have to wait until tomorrow to see, but this addition would certainly add value to bring payback times down…

Bloom Energy was Ion America: http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2004/11/17/kleiner_perkins_stealth_and_ion_america.html

Look at what I found on the interwebs!!
“Kaori will supply hotboxes — a key component of solid-oxide fuel cells (SOFC) — to Bloom Energy”
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2009/07/10/2003448313

Now, somebody please tell me what a hotbox is!

SC, must be a mistake; all that’s needed is the little box that the CEO was holding, right? :-)

A hotbox is the chamber that holds the fuel cell stacks, which are the so-called “Bloom boxes” at the heart of the SOFC. Since the SOFC operates very hot, they call the chamber a hot box.

James, good catch. I hadn’t noticed the “R” that crept in between the “O” and the “F”... Nifty concept, regenerative SOFC. I wonder if they catch the CO2 from the stack exhaust / afterburner and then store it, or take it from the air (at only 3%).

Looking up Sabatier on Wikipedia, it looks as though they don’t need the CO2 to get changed to CO via precious electrons (a process that NASA reported was “under development” in 2005) to make CH4. In fact, if they are electrolyzing water to hydrogen anyway, why do they need to make methane again? And why bother with capturing and storing a gas? On first blush it seems much easier to just deal with water.

I really ought to look at the patent applications (and all will become clear :-) )

I’d get more excited if a home unit was commercially available in less than 5 years at a cost of $2,000. and be twice as efficient using natural gas for power generation….........But I’m really hoping on Blacklight Power producing a 250kw hydrogen fuel cell…. producing electricity at a cost of $.02 per kwh   maybe a prototype this year…......and on the electrical storage front…......perhaps EESTOR   or   ERRA   or   Ecolocap   will deliver on their promises of commercial production this year of their electrical storage breakthroughs

I was right - each cell can power a 25W light bulb, not a 60W bulb. (See http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/a-secretive-start-up-raises-the-curtain/)

So the output of each cell is good, but not world-shattering by any means.