Video: The Bloom Box Lands, and the Unanswered Questions Are…

1st:  Not sure why feel like you resemble “Henry Kissinger’s love child”, but who am I to question your fantasy.  Did seem him in San Jose a few times early 80’s, maybe you are jokingly revealing classified secrets.

I did see the 60-minute segment, John Doerr, did seem strait forward that it was a risky, costly investment, development, but seemed to radiate confidence that it was a worthwhile now that a marketable product is going out the door.  I agree that a reasonably priced fuel cell for houses, business, and neighborhood power plants has been a “holy grail” dream that seems to always fall short of expectations.  NASA at AMES Research had plans to build a High Technology House and Museum back in 1980, under the Carter Administration.  Which was cancelled under the Reagan Administration before it got off the initial planning.  One of its goals of energy, water, and waste efficiency was using the magical “fuel cell” as one approach at effective low maintenance, self-sufficient living standards.  I guess I to can wait to Wednesday, maybe even to the summer for more test details, cost/efficiency details.  Hope the $3000.00 home version is out by 2013, now that would have global strategic value that even would make Henry Kissinger think deeply about. 

Keep me inform please!

Correction on my calc: EBay has 5 units.

And savings are $100K over nine months. So annualized, that’s about $130K per year.

Rest of calcs are straightforward.  So, payback is 13.5 years.

So, this is in the ballpark of solar (depending on your LCOE assumption). Solar needs more room, but is proven to 20-30 years of performance, and is on a steep price decline.

Fuel Cells? Well as Kanellos stated: they’ve been around since the 1800’s.

On the emissions intensity side of things, if their efficiency is twice what the grid would do with the same amount of natural gas, then the emissions intensity is halved. A given quantity of any fossil fuel will produce a given amount of CO2, that doesn’t change. Its the efficiency of the transformation process ( burning or fuel-cell ) that will dictate the CO2/kWh. So if their efficiency is up, their emissions/kWh are down.

/ Colm

As much as you’d like to see extensive costs and specs, you’ll not get them on 60 Minutes or blogs at this point. It’s developing technology and a business venture, so it’s naturally rather vague and secretive.  For now you’ll see what they want you to see.  The proof will be in the pudding, and not necessarily the first few versions of the pudding.  Any specific costs and specs provided will be ridiculously scrutinized by us out of context as if we have the whole picture (how clearly can one discuss the specifics of biofuels, or H2 or PEC H2 w/ this device when there’s no infrastructure for those just yet?).  In short, they have a promising device which is yet to play out and they’ve decided they want to hype it now - - nothing so terrible about that.  By the way, he said a device for the average home needs to be $3K…he didn’t say they’ll be able to do that (though he obviously is hoping for…can’t get on him for having hope).  Some company or technology could conceivably get us to that point, but we might not want to just sit around on our wallets waiting for it.

It is possible to achieve similar efficiencies to the Bloom Box using coal as the fuel. Direct Carbon Fuel Cells convert the chemical energy stored in coal directly into electricity without going through the intermediate step of burning the coal. Dr. John Cooper at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has pioneered the development of specially constructed fuel cells that run at elevated temperatures on the order of 700 to 750 degrees C to extract the chemical energy stored in coal at a demonstrated efficiency of around 80%. This is double the typical efficiency of well designed coal fired power plants which operate at efficiencies around 40%.

The following are some of the key benefits of Direct Carbon Fuel Cells

1)  DCFCs decrease emissions of carbon dioxide, which are largely responsible for global warming.
Direct Carbon Fuel Cells double the energy conversion efficiency of coal in electric power generation. You only need to produce half of the amount of CO2 to generate a given amount of electrical energy.

2)  The CO2 produced by DCFCs is quite pure compared to the exhaust stack gases of coal fired power plants. The CO2 produced by DCFCs is clean enough to economically be used as a reactant in many industrial processes. The CO2 is also nicely segregated within the fuel cell so it is easy to efficiently collect the nearly pure CO2 to permit convenient use or sequestration.

3)  DCFCs do not require expensive noble metal electrodes unlike many other fuel cell technologies. DCFC fuel cells should be scalable to very large sizes without adding greatly to proportioned costs of generating power.

4)  DCFC fuel cells avoid some of the most annoying air pollution consequences of using coal. There is no need to release large amounts of particulates into the air. DCFC fuel cells should produce significantly less sulfur and mercury contaminants relative to coal fired power plants. DCFC fuel cells do not distribute particulates containing radioactive Thorium and Uranium contaminants frequently present in western coal. The output of the DCFC fuel cell is easily used electricity although a DC to AC electrical power transformation may be required to feed the electricity into the power grid.

Up until now DCFC fuel cells have been demonstrated in laboratories but have not been built for commercial power generation. Government should accelerate the development of DCFC technology by funding an industrial scaled implementation of the laboratory proven gravity fed DCFC fuel cells designed by Dr. John Cooper.  Building and test operating a few scaled industrial plant sized cells should reveal any remaining materials and electrode deficiencies that need addressing in the development of this promising approach to cleaner use of America’s abundant coal resources.

Direct Carbon Fuel Cells produce half the amount of CO2 Green House Gas as any other approach to using coal.

Some fuel cells have difficulty providing power to handle widely varing transient loads and can only produce power at a planned constant rate at high efficiency. It would be nice to know if the Bloom Box has this limitation.

I didn’t hear any mention of using a waste heat stream.  I’m assuming this is a co-generation system, and the efficiency claims have everything to do with using both the power and heat produced by the system…an inherent advantage over a power plant that usually cannot use the waste heat.  I imagine their net electrical efficiency might only approach that of a traditional internal combustion engine.
My best shot at an explanation is that this is new version of a solid oxide fuel cell, and they put them outside so they can run 24/7 to avoid the start-up shut down problem inherently problematic with this type of fuel cell.  Being outside allows them to relatively easily dump heat when there is no thermal demand (but diminishes economic returns during that time).

Michael,

I imagine you are having alot of fun this week.

Do you think a Rainbow Pony Logo will work out for the Bloom Box?>)

Damn that DCFC sounds interesting.  Be interesting to see if that will be a clean coal technology.

One inherent problem with the idea of a home unit is the price of gas.  While the skepticism concerning the commercial viability of the system at large is VERY valid, even if they could deliver a product that would be economically useful for a home (lets say they get a home unit for under $10,000; this is doubtful, but still…) the price of the gas has to be taken into account.  Google has 5 units, indicating a 500 kW power production… but moreover google is a multi-billion dollar entity with endless numbers of contacts in the DOE and state governments, and they’re doing a high profile greenwashing stunt.  It’s not hard to imagine that Google would be able to negotiate a similar rate for natural gas that the largest power companies pay.  However, for a typical residence, this will not be the case.
For October 09 - according to the EIA - the average power company purchased natural gas for $5.02/1000 ft3 (~$16/MWh).  The average residential rate during the same month was $11.62/1000 ft3, or ~$37/MWh.  For the sake of illustration, we’ll assume the efficiency on these boxes is 50%.  That would mean that Google was paying ~$32/MWh for its electricity generated through the box (not considering the capital costs), and the average home user would by paying ~$74/MWh for its electricity produced through the box.

If Google has saved ~$100,000 on their electricity cost after 9 months, that means that they are only saving a net ~$31/MWh (500 kW, 24 hours/day, ~270 days = 3240 MWhs).  That is less than the additional cost that a home user would be expected to pay for natural gas over what a power company or extremely large corporation could negotiate… Even if these boxes managed to achieve 50% efficiency and a capital cost of ~$3/kW- which they almost certainly will never accomplish.

Sirs,
i am interested in investing. what is the minimum acceptable for start-up?
Who is qualified to invest?
R.Pillai

Something I thought of that I haven’t seen in other comments is that the large corporate buyers for the Bloom Box could be mainly using them to help get away from stand-by diesel generators for data centers and the like. Ebay could be saving their $100k a year right there. If the reliability of the Bloom Box is very good, and maintenance costs are pretty low, I think this is a great application - getting away from the dirty, high-maintenance stand-bys that became ubiquitous after that single summer of rolling black-outs way back when . . . .

I commend your calculations, and will be the first to admit I don’t have any of my own.  But you guys are projecting costs based on prototype and beta-level systems.  I don’t recall hearing them say they had a residential scale product available.  There’s a lot to be said for price reductions based on the high-volume manufacturing that would be necessary to supply a large scale residential market.  I suspect these things can get a lot cheaper than today’s $/kw price tag.

What about the methane emissions?  I’ve heard that methane is far more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2.

@Steve,

100kW is about 100 homes consumption.  Certainly homes have peak time where they might even use 10kW, but an average home uses about 24kW per day or 1kW/hr, hence 1kW is appropriate.  Unlike solar, these produce energy 24/7, so when you sleep and your house is pulling <1kW, you make up for the times you are pulling 2kW or 3kW.  Make sense?

nobody here heard about energy efficiency?

One commenter wrote: An average home in the US uses 24 kWh a day. Wow, our house is only using 6 kWh a day!

So the bloom box providing power to our house could be 1/4 the size of an average US home. But I can do the same with a 1,6 kW solar system (in MA) that would cost around $7000 after subsidies, working for over 25 years without maintenance (exept the inverter).

A passive house (see http://www.passivehouse.us) is using even a lot less.

The bloom box is very cool. But go the efficiency way first.

Diego

I agree with Diego - put efficiency first. Solar has great potential. If more people would consider doing what they can to move toward self sufficient living (http://www.selfsufficientlivingblog.com)we could see a huge change.

By understanding the nature of the situation we can conclude a goal and future structure of this “new” Green Energy. The investors want to make money, first. The biggest investor when asked if 100 million was a lot of money to invest said, “The Green Energy market will see trillions of dollars in the 21st century.” AND “I plan to see this Bloomboxes in existing electrical plants.”

1. The investors stated their plan is to sell the Bloombox to electric companies. The individual house units are are not being built and would not be as profitable. The electric companies are going to try and stop the individual placements of these units, because they would lose billions of dollars.

2. I do believe Bloomboxes are good for the large corporations who require a small power plant, but several states are using deep earth drilling to tap into steam to fuel electric plants. I believe this is the most efficient means and produces almost zero pollutants.

3. The idea of using water for fuel is also a very clean and economical. There are common engines which have been easily converted to run off water fuel cells. One company advertises that if you run out of fuel you could stop by a river, scoop up some water, pour it in the tank and be on your way. This method requires electricity to start the engine, but once the engine is turning it produces electricity.

4. To save electric costs FIRST look at your home and see where you make changes like florescent bulbs, proper installation and install efficient appliances. The hot-water heater is one of the biggest electrical users. By installing an inexpensive solar hot-water heater could save up to 30% of your electrical bill.

5. The inventor said that the material he uses is very cheap and accessible. Why not share it with the world? The answer is because they are in it to make money. It is great technology for the environment, but don’t think the company is in it to save you money.

6. My Grand-Dad taught me to see the intentions of people and not to rely on someone with selfish intentions especially when money is involved. There are a lot of individuals experimenting with low-cost green energy and our willing to share the information for free.

7. What is the carbon foot print to produce Bloomboxes? Are there hazardous materials involved?

In conclusion, after many years of research in this field, wisdom tells me to stay with the people who are sincere to find a solution and have no motive to profit. There are better cheaper solutions that people are using now available for free. A person can buy a 650 watt wind turbine off Ebay for under $250. 250W solar panels are going for about $600.

By understanding the nature of the situation we can conclude a goal and future structure of this “new” Green Energy. The investors want to make money, first. The biggest investor when asked if 100 million was a lot of money to invest said, “The Green Energy market will see trillions of dollars in the 21st century.” AND “I plan to see this Bloomboxes in existing electrical plants.”

1. The investors stated their plan is to sell the Bloombox to electric companies. The individual house units are are not being built and would not be as profitable. The electric companies are going to try and stop the individual placements of these units, because they would lose billions of dollars.

2. I do believe Bloomboxes are good for the large corporations who require a small power plant, but several states are using deep earth drilling to tap into steam to fuel electric plants. I believe this is the most efficient means and produces almost zero pollutants.

3. The idea of using water for fuel is also a very clean and economical. There are common engines which have been easily converted to run off water fuel cells. One company advertises that if you run out of fuel you could stop by a river, scoop up some water, pour it in the tank and be on your way. This method requires electricity to start the engine, but once the engine is turning it produces electricity.

4. To save electric costs FIRST look at your home and see where you make changes like florescent bulbs, proper installation and install efficient appliances. The hot-water heater is one of the biggest electrical users. By installing an inexpensive solar hot-water heater could save up to 30% of your electrical bill.

5. The inventor said that the material he uses is very cheap and accessible. Why not share it with the world? The answer is because they are in it to make money. It is great technology for the environment, but don’t think the company is in it to save you money.

6. My Grand-Dad taught me to see the intentions of people and not to rely on someone with selfish intentions especially when money is involved. There are a lot of individuals experimenting with low-cost green energy and our willing to share the information for free.

7. What is the carbon foot print to produce Bloomboxes? Are there hazardous materials involved?

In conclusion, after many years of research in this field, wisdom tells me to stay with the people who are sincere to find a solution and have no motive to profit. There are better cheaper solutions that are being used now for the individual. Go buy a propeller and 650kw generator off Ebay for $250 or 250kw solar for $600 and these units produce zero emissions. Although the production of these units still produce pollution it is a “greener” solution than a Bloombox.