Bloom Energy

[Jammrock]

I'm somewhat shocked that Doc hasn't posted this yet.

http://bloomenergy.com/

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/live-from-the-bloom-box-press-event/

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=17770

US TV news show 60 Minutes did a bit on Sunday about a new fuel cell technology from a startup called Bloom Energy that has caught on like wildfire online. The founder is a former NASA engineer who had started the design as a way to provide energy on the planned Mars base, but when the project was scrapped he brought his idea to the private sector.

Some key promises...

1. Affordable. A home "Bloom Server" could run as low as $3k USD in the next "5-10 years."

2. Inexpensive, easily found materials. They use beach sand for the ceramic plate and two custom "inks" to create the two fuel cell layers. No platinum needed. The "ink" ingredients are classified.

2. Can have a zero carbon emission when used with non-fossil fuels (like algae and ethanol).

3. More efficient since every home has their own power plant, so there is no grid loss.

4. Consistent operation as long as the fuel source does not run dry.

5. Ten year lifespan. At that point it is assumed that only the fuel cell plates need to be replaced.

Bloom Energy has already had $400 million in funding and has working product providing power at major corporations in California. Including Google, eBay, FedEx, Coca-Cola, Staples, Walmart, and Bank of America.

If this pans out, and an eco-friendly inexpensive fuel solution can be readily made/found/used, this could be huge. Can't wait to see.

[Dr Mordrid]

Doc's impressed, but wants to see more efficiency numbers. It does seem to be a major breakthrough if they can get that unit price down to the $3k target. Would certainly revive fuel cell cars given how easy LPG is to store.

[Evildead666]

Looks good too....

Would like to see it work ....

How big would one have to be to power a starship?

[Dr Mordrid]

Start thinking fusion rockets for that, the end goal for the VASIMR plasma rocket that tests on ISS in a couple years.

[KRSESQ]

What I found of interest was that the conference hall was powered by a bloom server during the presentation. It brought to mind this Simpsons episode (relevent portion begins at 17:45).

Still interesting. I'd agree to do a residential beta test if they asked politely.

Kevin

[Marshmallowman]

reading around (slashdot i think), some one managed to find some figures, they say 60% efficent.

That sounds very impressive given it uses cheap materials, and the pilot plants have been working well for 18 months. If they can prove reliabilty and get costs down they certainly on a winner.

First thing I though about is going out camping, they would make a sweet genset replacement.

and it might also be an excellent addition to and electric car

:add

anandtech says 65- 70 % efficient

[Jammrock]

I assume efficiency would depend on the type of fuel source and the age of the cells. 60% is what the Bloom slides list. Refined versions of the product and fuel could yield better results I'm sure, but not by too much more I think.

Though I wonder how big a Bloom Server I would need to power my house plus big stereo and lots of computer equipment. Damn American consumerism I know. If I were to go completely off grid I would get a mini-transformer for my stereo to handle sudden power draw and a whole house UPS system.

http://www.richardgrayspowercompany.com/Products.aspx?productid=11

http://www.richardgrayspowercompany.com/products.aspx?type=ups

I doubt I could afford those specific ones, but it would be nice...

[Brian Ellis]

Excuse me, but I am still extremely sceptical about this kind of technology. In the first place, according to the description it still uses fossil fuels producing 2.74 kg of carbon dioxide per kilogram of methane consumed. I am positive that a much higher efficiency could be obtained simply by burning the methane to produce thermal energy. In fact with a combined heat and power plant the efficiency would be higher than 60% in most cases.

Furthermore, the methane would have to be very highly purified which would not be necessary for combustion. This would make it very expensive.

This is still vapourware.

[cjolley]

...carbon dioxide per kilogram of methane consumed...

...vapourware.

[MultimediaMan]

Most assuredly...

[Dr Mordrid]

Natural gas generation (from NaturalGas.org)

Gas steam power plant: 33% - 35% (just burn it)

Combined Cycle (CC) power plant: 50% - 60% (gas turbines waste heat makes steam for another generator)

Industrial local turbine: 21% - 40% (factory, hospital etc.)

Local micro-turbine: up to 80% (25-500 kw - about the size of a refrigerator)

CC power plants are relatively new and more efficient than previous gas fired power plants, so I think we can presume that legacy gas turbine generation is below CC's 50% - 60%.

If these are accurate then if they can make Bloom generate at or over 60% they have a winner because of the smaller facility it will require to house and run it and the lack of mechanical wear and tear driving up maintenance costs, at least for centralized generation. On the other hand, distributed generation using micro-turbines looks like a hard beast to beat for a lot of purposes.

Brian is right about CO2 production/kg of fuel, but higher efficiency gas plants are better on a CO2/kw basis than anything but nuclear and it's going to take a decade or more to get nuclear going in this nation. Better to build CC's and work on lighting and equipment efficiency than build more coal plants in the interim. Also: my biggest objection to coal isn't CO2 but radionuclides. Do you have any idea of how much uranium, thorium and potassium40 is spit into the air from burning coal? Just the fly ash produced contains enough U-235 to power >100 nuclear plants. Then there are the other heavy metals.

Solar? Still working on prototypes. We need something more imminent.

Wind? You must be joking. That, gentlemen, is a boondoggle.

[cjolley]

Brian is right about...

The End Times have come

[Brian Ellis]

CC plants are now >62% for thhe latest generation. Agreed about mechanical maintenance, but the "solid electrolyte will also need much physical maintenance, the same as polymer fuel cells. None of these work for ever and the average efficiency of a Ballard cell starts at about 45% when new and drops by at least 10% within a year because of the impurities in the filtered air. I imagine the same (or worse) would happen with a "ceramic" electrolyte.

Still vapourware for me.

[Dr Mordrid]

These things are real and in use by major corporations who report savings. How is that vaporware?

MIT Technology Review article posted today

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24650/

[Wulfman]

the problem with CC in the US is probably that there is nothing to do with the surplus heat - which would really push the efficiency. hardly any community heating pipes or something lain down. and before somebody posts the "we don't need heating most of the year"-argument, there are also ways to supply district wide cooling from the same plants/energy source.

mfg
wulfman