After seeing a recent 60 minutes program it appears as solar and wind power may be old technology

http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/22/...ome-video/

Except that the fuel cell needs fuel - just like old technologies.

Posted By jonr on 04 Sep 2010 11:06 AM
Except that the fuel cell needs fuel - just like old technologies.

the difference with Bloom's is it can run off biofuels including landfill methane

Each Bloom Box is made up of 64 wafers with green ink painted on one side and black on the other. Made from beach sand, the ceramic wafers are stacked and separated by inexpensive metal plates before being place in a small box. The box only measures about 6-inches square but can provide enough energy to maintain a house in Europe.

The small box is central to the technology. You will also need a gas like methane (renewable bio-gas) or natural gas. Previously, fuel-cell technology used expensive hydrogen to create a current. The cost and energy to produce the hydrogen gas was a problem. Natural gas is in abundance.

The Bloom Box technology appears to be viable and has been used by Wal-Mart, Staples, eBay, Google, and other companies. The solid-oxide fuel cell is considered very efficient and could be the solution to the world’s energy problem.

They claim twice as efficient. Hopefully that will be true at not twice the price.

Chris,

I think it will be some time before this company starts selling to the residential market.  After the large companies do the testing for us I will be in line to encourage their use.

Given that there isn't enough landfill methane to matter, why do people consider these significant? Possibly they could become competitive with existing electrical generation, but it will be too close to really change costs.

Nuclear, geothermal, some solar and nat gas for cars are the most promising plans in my opinion. Possibly biodiesel. Oil and coal need to be phased out.

The fuel cells also run on natural gas

We aren't going to have enough non-fossil sources of natural gas to power everything, so what you're talking about here is inescapably a fossil-fuel technology, if widely deployed. In no way can it be considered "the solution to the world’s energy problem."

Also, I for one wouldn't bet that natural gas is still going to be considered cheap and plentiful 10 years from now, as the consequences of hydro-fracking to water tables become more widely-understood (read: massive lawsuits and heavy restrictions).

But I agree that things like the Bloom box can help, as a niche technology to help offload the grid at peak usage times, until there is enough solar, wind and improved grid storage/transmission to allow fossil-fueled power plants plants to be retired. Also, if their heat output can truly be put to productive use, for building heating etc., then their efficiency could be said to be 100%, so they can be a better solution than gas power plants -- again, for this limited transition period until solar/wind dominate.

Oh, and @jonr: natural gas for cars is basically stupid, because (a) again, it's still a fossil-fuel solution, and (b) their efficiency is basically the same as gasoline-powered cars, as it's still an internal-combustion engine. I believe it works that the same amount of natural gas that could propel an NG car, say, 10 miles could be used in a gas-fired power plant to produce electricity that would propel an EV some 40 miles. That's including transmission and battery-storage losses.

And nuclear is only getting more expensive, and is a half-century-old, mature technology, whereas solar and wind are still in their early stages and have yet to really benefit from the economies of scale. Solar and wind are going to be the cheapest options for new power sources, hands down.

No, power plants burning NG and then powering an electric vehicle aren't even 1x as efficient as burning NG in a car directly - not to mention range problems with EVs. While not a permanent solution, burning NG is a car is very clean and it is a fuel that is much less likely to come from overseas.

Posted By jonr on 09 Sep 2010 12:03 PM
No, power plants burning NG and then powering an electric vehicle aren't even 1x as efficient as burning NG in a car directly - not to mention range problems with EVs. While not a permanent solution, burning NG is a car is very clean and it is a fuel that is much less likely to come from overseas.

Kinda depends on how you're burning the NG in the car, eh?  If it's fuel-cell car there's an argument that there's minimal benefit if any, but if you're talking NG fueled piston engine, the average thermal efficiency there is around 20% (on a good day).   

An electric car with even 70-80% grid-to-power-at-axle efficiency EVs are already at parity with (or better than) piston engines burning NG, with typical 30% thermal-efficiency fossil-fired plants charging the batteries. Double the efficiency of the electricity source and you're way ahead. (Even after charging and losses are accounted- reality is likely to be even better than 80% efficiency for EVs going forward as reasonable to expect gains in charging efficiency are made.  Battery-to-axle is about 90% efficient.)

Highly efficient fuel cells sited near loads as peak-generators are far & away better than typical peak generation efficiencies, and reduce grid infrastructure requirements.  It may not be a holy grail, but like cogeneration, doubling o (or more) the source-fuel to load efficiency of fossil burning can be a huge benefit from many points of view.   If greenhouse gas emissions worldwide can be cut by half in short years in a cost-effective manner it buys a lot of time for the grail-search.  Powerplants with more flexible up/down ramps than nukes can go a long way toward grid-hardening variable-output renewables too.  LichtBlick (in Germany) is doing just that with cogenerators, but in climates with lower thermal loads a distributed fuel-cell generation model works better.  (Even LichtBlick could benefit from this technology in summer, when heating requirements are low.)

Agreed, a NG car vs a grid powered car is somewhere between < 1x to 2x more fuel depending on which technologies you pick - unless you can make use of power plant waste heat. But practical issues like range, cost and battery life are also important.

Wind and solar are ok for 15% or so of power, but at some point you run into storage and reliability issues.

Not-so-sunny or windy Germany's total annual electricity production from renewables broke 15% two years ago, and new installation continues unabated. Spain has propbably broken the 15% threshold by now as well, but Denmark has been well over that for quite some time. With smart-grids and distributed utility-controlled mini/micro cogeneration & high-efficiency fuel cells most estimates I've read are that the grids will still work reliably with 40-50% of the total power production from flaky renewables and no power storage with relatively modest investment in "hardening" technologies.

The combined fraction Denmark's cogeneration & wind exceeds 50% of the total grid power- they broke the 25% mark on total electric power producedl from renewables (18% wind, the rest mostly solar) in 2008 without resorting to storage as part of the equation. Cogens can buy you a lot of flexibility on the generation side. SMART cogens and fuel cells even more, as can smart-appliances on the load end.

The Europeans will be showing the US the how it's done long before any region in the US reaches even 10% from solar & wind. Any line we might draw in 2010 might look pretty silly by 2015. So far as I know the lights in Denmark aren't flickering much yet. The local solutions to grid-stability will vary with climate & conditions, but they're out there. A 15% number might be about the limit for uncontrolled unhardened renewables on a cumbersome not-very-smart grid, but in reality it's proving to be a hurdle no higher than a line drawn in the sand. It's already being done.

Electrification of the transport section can be another method of grid-hardening, charging at off-peak hours & as-available, but if smart-enabled, sourcing to the grid at peak hours. Yes, range is an issue with last year's lithium- ion technology, but this is a technology with several fairly recent breakthroughs that have yet to be fully exploited. Getting the up-front cost to the car buyer under control is still a bit of a hurdle, but if smart-gridded capitalization-sharing with grid operators can be a very reasonable model, with financial benefit to both parties.

What seemed clear to me in Germany was that renewable energy was affordable and readily available to the general public. Not so much here in the states.

Posted By Jelly on 13 Sep 2010 09:13 PM
What seemed clear to me in Germany was that renewable energy was affordable and readily available to the general public. Not so much here in the states.

"Heavily subsidized", is more like it. "Affordable" only comes with hidden costs elsewhere.  The guaranteed price per kwh paid to those installing PV panels by the German grid is more than 3x the average US retail-residential price, and higher than the German average retail residential price. Germany has made the policy decision to become as energy-independent as possible, even if the capital costs are high, and that is uncontroversial & widely supported by the public.  The climate change issue only reinforces that long-held policy decision, but steers it more from renewables and away from native-mined coal.

In the US the policy has generally been to keep energy costs as low as possible, and try to manage the long term consequences by other means.  This policy also has costs not directly accounted for on the ledger, but is also widely supported by the public, with minimal controversy.  Greenhouse gas emission issues here are (for whatever reason) more controversial, and cut against the grain of long standing energy policy more than anywhere in western Europe.  (Given the amount of cash the US exports for energy just to keep it "cheap" it seems a policy of dubious wisdom, IMHO.)

Transitioning more-expensive carbon-neutral or lo-carb power generation here is a much bigger change here than in Europe, where imported energy from outside the EU has been heavily taxed at the retail level for quite some time.  Gasoline is more than 2x as expensive in Germany than it is in the US, for instance.  In Germany the average retail-residential electricity price is ~€0.23/kwh , which is still cheaper than the Danes' ~€0.26/kwh. In dollar terms at today's exchange rate that's about $0.30/kwh in Germany and $0.34/kwh in Denmark, more than 2x the average residential price of electricity to US consumers.  (~$0.12)

Keeping  retail energy prices low and picking up the other costs in other ways makes efficiency & renewables appear more expensive or not cost effective when calculating a net-present-value on the up front investment. But it doesn't particularly save the US consumer much money: The average Danish household uses 350kwh/month, (~$120) whereas in non-air-conditioning parts of the US households use 650-1000kwh/month ($078 to $120 ).  Annually we're talking a savings of only 500 bucks for a 650kwh/month customer in the US, and zero savings for the 1000kwh/month user. The Danes don't live in the dark, but take more (subsidized) conservation measures, using more efficient lighting & appliances, etc.   (Those kilowatt plasma TVs were never big sellers there, eh? ) 

It'll be interesting to see how long it takes Lichtblick to build their first few gigawatts of VW-powered cogenerators, and how deeply that will allow wind & solar power to bite into the grid-fraction.  At German levels of subsidy it made sense for NanoSolar to build their first "real" factory in Germany, not San Jose where their technology & manufacturing methods were developed.  Renewables are still being installed by many tens of megawatts per week.  PV alone was being installed at ~70Mw/week (nearly 4 gigawatts per year) last year, and with revised subsidy structures it likely to go higher.  If there's going to be a crunch-time for grid stability issues related to highly variable renewables output, it'll be coming very soon...  That's the kind of growth promising investors €0.31-0.33/kwh for their output for 20 years in a €0.23/kwh current retail electricity market can buy.

And like you said, "Not so much here in the states.", with the types of subsidy on offer.

I agree, at $.30/kwh, the issues with renewable energy are solvable. But cost is a big line in the sand that US citizens are apparently unwilling to cross.

If it were up to me, I'd tax energy at least to the point where the price accounts for all the hidden costs (wars, terrorism, depriving future generations, clean air, etc) - and offset that increase by reducing other taxes.

I hope this can run on air, if it uses O2 like I suspect it will be much less usefull.

Posted By ls7corvete on 25 Sep 2010 06:41 PM
I hope this can run on air, if it uses O2 like I suspect it will be much less usefull.

runs on natural gas or bio gas and air (O2 is in air)

Chris-

I disagree with your statements:
"After seeing a recent 60 minutes program it appears as solar and wind power may be old technology," and
"The solid-oxide fuel cell is considered very efficient and could be the solution to the world’s energy problem."
Bloom's fuel cells require fuel, so they are a bridge technology to renewable energy technologies like solar and wind power. Since they require fuel and produce carbon dioxide, they are NOT a solution to the energy problem, nor the grreeehouse gas problem. They are simply proposed as a more efficient use of fuel.

The traditional limits to applying fuel cell technologies have been: (1) iniitial costs, (2) requirement for hydrogen as the fuel, and (3) some lifetime issues for the electrodes. Bloom's fuel cells address item 2, and the in-service testing will address item 3. I have not seen data on item 1, but suspect they are highly subsidized by tax dollars.

Lee;


The great thing about the forum is we don't need to agree, I am just passing along the info from the program.... here is a news article about the same
 

SUNNYVALE, Calif. — A Silicon Valley company is claiming a breakthrough in a decades-old quest to develop fuel cells that can supply affordable and relatively clean electricity. Google, Bank of America, Wal-Mart and other large corporations have been testing the devices, which will be formally introduced on Wednesday.

The start-up, Bloom Energy, has raised about $400 million from investors and spent nearly a decade developing a new variety of solid oxide fuel cell, considered the most efficient but most technologically challenging fuel-cell technology.

K. R. Sridhar, Bloom’s co-founder and chief executive, said devices made by his company were generating electricity at a cost of 8 to 10 cents a kilowatt hour, using natural gas. That is lower than commercial electricity prices in some parts of the country.

“We got into this business to make affordable electricity, not fuel cells,” Mr. Sridhar said Tuesday as workers assembled stacks of fuel cells in tall, round cylinders and installed them in silver metal cubes at Bloom’s headquarters in a Silicon Valley office park.

The company has been working on the technology for eight years while saying little. The secrecy, and the prominence of the venture capitalists backing Bloom, have fueled both hype and skepticism about its efforts. Bloom is scheduled to unveil the technology Wednesday at a news conference attended by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Colin Powell, the former secretary of state and a member of Bloom’s board.

While Bloom may well have created one of the most efficient fuel cells, it is unclear how widely the company’s technology will be adopted. Cost and durability have limited the use of other types of fuel cells, and it could be years before the potential of the company’s approach is clear.

“We have been working with solid oxide for 30 years but are still in the lab,” said Mike Brown, an executive with UTC Power, a division of the United Technologies Corporation and a leading fuel-cell maker. “Nobody has been able to resolve the reliability problem.”

Fuel cells, which convert hydrogen, natural gas or another fuel into electricity through an electrochemical process, have long held out the promise of cheap and plentiful energy while emitting fewer pollutants than conventional power plants. But the need to use expensive precious metals like platinum and rare earth elements in some fuel cells, and corrosive materials in others, has kept costs high and shortened their longevity.

Bloom claims it has learned to make the devices from common materials that will last for years. The Bloom fuel cell’s heart is a thin white ceramic wafer made from sand. At Bloom’s offices, Mr. Sridhar, a former NASA scientist, picked up a stack of fuel cells that resembled floppy disks. One side of each was painted with a lime-green ink that acts as the anode while a black ink on the back served as the cathode. Bloom executives would not disclose the composition of the ink.

Small cells are stacked to make a larger device. As natural gas or another fuel passes over the cell and mixes with oxygen from the air, a chemical reaction generates electricity.

Bloom executives contend that their device could cut the greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation by at least 50 percent, depending on the type of fuel used — a claim that is likely to receive close scrutiny.

Mr. Brown, the UTC Power executive, said one of the biggest hurdles to developing solid oxide fuel cells has been engineering the stack to withstand extreme temperatures without cracking or leaking. “What is the durability of cell stack, how long will they operate before you have to pull them out and replace them and what is the cost to do that?” he said.

Mr. Sridhar contends the Bloom boxes, with reasonable maintenance, will have a 10-year life span.

“It’s a disruptive technology,” said John Doerr, a prominent venture capitalist who helped finance Bloom and sits on its board. “It works, so the hurdles are scale and cost. We’ve got to make a lot of these systems reliably, and that’s hard work.”