Bloom CEO KR Sridhar unveils a fuel cell stack
Generally we only cover topics related to electric cars, but the buzz this week has been so intense, its worth a look at something new called the Bloom Box.
More specifically the Bloom Energy Server was first unveiled last week to the world.
The device is a scalable fuel cell stack. It receives natural gas or biofuel and electrochemically combines it with oxygen producing electricity as a result, in a clean non-combustive process.
The device operates at extremely high temperatures (800 degrees) and uses solid oxide fuel cells made of low cost ceramic materials. This is in significant distinction to older technology fuel cells that rely on expensive precious metals such as platinum.
Bloom Energy Systems is the Silicon Valley start-up company funded in part by Kleiner-Perkins that has secretively been developing these competitively prices fuel cells over the last decade and has already sold and installed 100 kw units at major corporations such as Wal Mart and Google, at a cost of $700,000 to $800,000 each. These units are powerful enough to power 100 homes 24/7 and yet take up only roughly the size of a single parking space.
These devices have already been operating nearly flawlessly for several months. EBay is one customer that has switched on three units that now provide 15% of the company’s electricity needs.
The electricity is produced at a cost of 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour, which is significantly lower than rates in some parts of the country.
CEO KR Sridhar was previously a fuel cell scientist at NASA and has led the creation of these new devices using a special amped up R&D program. Bloom Energy’s key breakthrough has been developing a commercialization process of making these solid oxide cells affordably.
Sridhar envisions the day in the next few year a Bloom Box the size of a brick, at a cost a few thousand dollars could be purchased by the public for powering their individual homes.
When the electricity is produced from natural gas, emissions of just 773 lbs/MW-hr of CO2 is created, and natural gas supply is already abundant in this country. When running on biofuel, electricity is carbon neutral. Furthermore, since power will be produced locally , the role of the grid is reduced and excess energy could be even sold back to power companies. The company plans to make future generation devices also capable of storing energy.
Certainly electric cars could be charged by Bloom energy servers as well, eliminating the need for coal-buring powerplants.
So will the Bloom Box change the world over the next decade?
Your guess is as good as mine.
Source (Bloom Energy)
-17
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:08 am)(click to show comment)
+5
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:51 am)This is interesting for decentralization of the grid where natural gas service is already present.
This would be where Exxon’s natural gas reserves recently discovered might be placed into service. (Especially if the technology can tolerate impurities such as sulphur dioxide.)
The water heater closet in most homes with natural gas water heating might be the place for it in addition to one of those compact, demand-type of water heaters (to make room for both), both feeding into the same flue vent.
In understanding how carbon dioxide production ought to be brought down to a more relative figure, explanations more toward how we would more likely understand it would be helpful. For example, for each 1,000 watts, how much carbon dioxide is it saving over coal, over the combustion of natural gas, and, most of all, what is the MTBF (mean time before failure) of the Bloom Cell design? While any carbon dioxide production can’t compete with Wind energy, it certainly is compellingly intriguing.
800 degrees is not a very high temperature regarding safety, as your gas furnace runs around that temperature approximately, and is constructed for decades of safe usage.
I’d like to know more about the efficiency of it for the cost of the natural gas, broken down separately from the anticipated cost of the cell and it’s installations and licensing.
But this sounds promising.
+2
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:52 am)This is really exciting. It was on 60 Minutes last Sunday. Here’s the link.
The last fuel cell hype was in 2001 or 2002, but nothing cam out of that. I hope this design makes it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:55 am)Can I run it on pond scum? Silly question I know.
+2
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:55 am)From what I have read so far in a number of other articles, it seems the skeptics aren’t pessimistic about the technology not performing as advertised, (which is good), but they are dubious about Shridhar’s plans to make them affordable for the domestic market.
Say he’s right, and they can get the cost down to $3000 for a Bloom Box Brick….Would it be feasible to put one of these in a car, adjacent to some propane tanks and a Lithium Ion battery, and wala, the Gen. 4 Volt? Are you reading this NASAMAN?
+3
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:01 am)If this takes off, can you imagine what Exxon will start charging for that natural gas????
How much natural gas is needed to use this unit?
Lots of questions…..
+3
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:06 am)It wouldn’t be appropriate for a dedicated mobile service, nor cost efficient for the compression of CNG. (The compression energy itself could propel a Volt for about 8 to 10 miles).
This really could be apparently doable if it could last 20 years and could tolerate NG impurities. Especially,
**If** it could be repeatedly shut down so as not to need to be kept at 800 degrees all the time, then you could save more NG. Ceramics are brittle, however, so, I would want to know about all the characteristics of whatever could compromise it, of course.
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:08 am)Pond scum is algae. Over 95% of the oil that’s in the ground today came from ancient algae. The gasoline that runs our cars today came from algae.
Algae is a plant, but it doesn’t grow stems and leaves. Instead, it grows vegetable oil, and lots of it. So for bio-fuels, algae hold tremendous promise.
See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ih-DLurcZA
“If we took 1/10 of the state of New Mexico and converted it into algae production, we could meet all the energy demands of the United States”
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:09 am)Yes very feasible, but the best use for this would be on a Voltec long distance 18-wheeler.. lots of room for the high pressure tanks and insulation from wildly swinging diesel costs.
-4
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:12 am)As far as I know, this process requires electricity as input to the box, and that the efficiency of converting the natural gas to Hydrogen using the electricity is around 50-65%. You might as well just put the electricity right into your volts battery it would be cheaper and more efficient.
They always leave the above out as it is assumed the electricity is generated from solar panels.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:20 am)From Blooms web site the ebay installation runs on biogas.
“Following the installation of a 650 kW solar array at their headquarters in San Jose, eBay was convinced that clean energy was a viable solution, but was looking for one that could provide always-on, 100% renewable power for this constant load. The best and most cost-effective solution they found was Bloom’s systems running on biogas.”
“The 500kW eBay installation (June 2009) is a high-profile, showcase project for the company, and as of February 2010, will be Bloom’s first 100% renewable biogas project. Beautifully situated outside the company’s LEED gold certified “Mint” building, the Bloom Energy Servers have delivered 2.2 million-kWh of power and mitigated more than 650,000 pounds of CO2 in just their first 6 months; with biogas turned on, the amount of carbon mitigated more than triples.”
Video on ebay’s installation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2EKpqpDGJA
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:21 am)How does this compare to a large scale natural gas power plant?
How does it compare to a coal power plant?
-3
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:21 am)Where do you put the solar cells??
+3
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:23 am)This is really exciting. It has the potential to eliminte the Grid as we know it today.
There is little question that the device works. All one has to do is look at those places where they have already been installed. The big question in my mind is their ability to manufacture those home units that have been reported elsewere at $3,000.
I would install one of those home units in a heart beat if for no other reasons but to eliminate power interruptions from the Grid and to provide a reliable source of energy to recharge my Volt. I really don’t want to wake up some morning only to find my Volt didn’t get recharged overnight due to a storm or grid power failure.
From the article, “The company plans to make future generation devices also capable of storing energy.” If they can deliver on this, it could be a game changer in future generations of Volts.
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:23 am)Much less efficient.
-1
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:27 am)Does the 3000$ include the cost of the solar cells??
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:27 am)Again, we need a comparison for this to be meaningful.
How would this compare with the existing CNG engine for cost, efficiency, range, etc.?
More importantly, how would it compare to existing diesel engines?
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:33 am)So a 50 kilowatt system (two modules) for the Volt will ONLY cost about $350,000 to $400,000 dollars and take up the ENTIRE back seat and boot area!
Still a ways off before I can afford one.
/At least they are real!
Off Topic: I was quite excited to see a plug in Prius the other day driving down the motorway. C’mon GM how about some test Volts down here?
-6
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:36 am)I must repeat myself as nobody seems to listen.
-1
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:39 am)Don’t think so. Here’s a link to the reference material, which I should have included with my original posting.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978072523&grpId=3659174697244816&nav=Groupspace
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:40 am)The use of photo voltaics on cars and trucks is not really viable.
First, solar cells require a lot of energy to produce. It takes 2-3 years of using a solar panel to break even with the energy that produced it. And that assumes that you face it 30° up toward the south. On a car or truck, it’s not possible to orient the solar cells anywhere near this angle, so it would probably take 5 years or more for the energy break even point.
Second, the area of a car or truck is not nearly large enough to provide a meaningful portion of the energy required to drive the vehicle. For example, most PV options on “green” cars today just spin a fan that circulates air in the cabin on a hot day. None of the PV options on cars intend to provide power to the wheels.
Third, solar cells are costly, and this is after decades of production, so it doesn’t look like the cost will come down.
When it comes to solar, I believe the best option is the solar power tower:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower
This not only solves the issue of cost, but also provides a means to store solar power when the sun doesn’t shine.
-2
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:44 am)I know that I was being sarcastic. So what fuel source are you using for the fuel cell??
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:48 am)The exact specs ought to be brought out regarding all energy inputs.
Too many times in our society, (especially to the poor independent auto service shop owner), that too much equipment (and investment into it) of all kinds is marketed based **moreso** upon what the prospective “buyer”
****************
*does not know *
****************
than what he/she **does** know,
which really is irritating when you find out that the seller
****************
* knows full well *
****************
that something is not **capable** to pay back for one particular buyer or another.
Where the representation says things like “This [company name here] is using it/has installed it”, “Company[name here] is evaluating it/has it” ["we mailed it to them yesterday, so we could tell you today that we mailed it to them yesterday"],
we have to be careful to understand that the people at that company (did or did not approve/sign a check to install it,) are **not** technical engineers, they are clerical.
And, it is not published that there even was a monetary transaction in the first place for the placement of it, just the ability for the usage of the names of the companies that “placed it” at least on their properties, and the inferences are that these non-technical people **do?** have the capacities to understand anything regarding the concreteness of the benefits of it (in just several months?? ["hurry up and invest"?]).
So, we must be careful what we understand what is inferred here.
The first things to understand are the limits if its benefits per the laws of physics for **only** the large applications suggested here,
(yet still not proven to me or anyone else in a longer term even such than for a few months, for which no financial benefit nor long term reliabilities as questioned above, could yet possibly be proven as well even still).
These are some of the aspects regarding the risks in investing in technologies.
-5
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:50 am)Certainly electric cars could be charged by Bloom energy servers as well, eliminating the need for coal-buring powerplants.
—————————————————————————–
More importantly, it eliminates the need for nuclear power plants. For the pro-nuclear supporters, I’ll support when the nuclear waste problem is solved.
+2
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:51 am)I’m not sure this Bloom Box is viable yet. I need to see how it compares to an ICE running on biofuel.
Just because its new and cool doesn’t mean its useful…
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:53 am)Bloom Data Sheet for the 100kw ES-5000 Energy Server
Note inputs and outputs
http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/data-sheet/
-1
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:53 am)Why not just charge the car directly using the power from the solar cell array that is required for the bloombox?
+2
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:55 am)Does the Bloom Box produce less emmissions than a coal-buring powerplant?
I’m still trying to find the lbs/MW-hr of CO2 for a coal powerplant…
+6
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:56 am)I like the idea of getting off “the grid,” but doesn’t the bloom box just trade one grid for another… electricity for natural gas or bio-gas. Natural gas may be cheap and reliable now, but just wait until everyone gets a bloom box.
+2
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:57 am)Efficiency. What is it? That’s all I’ve been trying to find out.
+5
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:58 am)I think it should be mentioned that the temperature of the Bloom Box is 800 degrees Celsius. That is 1472 Fahrenheit.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:59 am)If you charge the car with the solar array there is no CO2 emmisions.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:03 am)The efficiency of making the hydrogen for the fuel cel from electricity and natural gas is around 50-65%.
+3
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:03 am)I’m not sure I agree with that. Manufacturing solar cells usually involves a lot of fossil fuel. You have to amortize that over the life of the solar array.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:05 am)Oh god, let’s not get into hydrogen, please!!
+3
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:08 am)Having (800 “C”) in the story would have saved a few posts regarding having it inside of people’s homes, as well as decentralization of the grid.
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:09 am)It also might eliminate the need for a national electrical grid.
+3
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:11 am)It would be nice to see a breakdown of efficiency.. Which uses less energy? a natural gas power plant delivering electricity to 10,000 homes, or distributing the natural gas to 10,000 homes running fuel cells?
Even if the fuel cells were less efficient than a large power plant, there is the added security of being somewhat independent of the grid. Although you’re still dependent on a never-ending supply of natural gas from that pipe.
If you’re looking for energy independence and security for your household, I still say you can’t beat solar and wind. With a battery buffer, you’ll always have power.
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:11 am)Hmmmm…..
Bloom Energy’s ES-5000 Energy Server can produce 100 kW @ 480V 60 Hz 3 phase.
I believe a couple of these could power one of those AeroVironment LEVEL 3 Chargers.
I can see a future where you’ll pull into a recharge station, plug in a LEVEL 3 cable, swipe your debit card and one of these Bloom Energy units will start up. Just enough time to get and drink a coffee.
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/01/26/dc-2010-think-says-15-minutes-is-just-right-for-fast-charging/
http://www.pluginrecharge.com/2009/08/charging-station-levels.html
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:13 am)Why not? It is manufactured inside the bloombox using electricity and natural gas which are inputs to the box.
+6
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:21 am)The 100 kW unit weighs 10 tons (about 20X heavier than an ICE generator of the same power), is about 50% efficient, and costs $7500/kW, plus the price of fuel. There will probably be a market for this, but I don’t think it’s game changing. A combined cycle power plant that runs on the same fuel would be similar efficiency and GHG emissions. Ask yourself what problem this solves and that will tell you where the market is.
At that price, it makes more sense to me for society as a whole to invest in wind and energy storage facilities, which would have similar up-front costs, but much less uncertainty in ongoing costs.
Let’s examine the cost of energy using this technology. At 100 kW, 24/7/365 you get about 800,000 kWh of energy per year. If it lasts 20 years (a big if, that’s ~200,000 hours of operation), that’s about $0.05 kWh just for the capital investment, plus interest on capital, and 1.6 MWh of fuel per year with the inherent uncertainty about fuel costs.
+2
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:26 am)Yes. These are the right kinds of questions.
+3
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:26 am)Thanks pdt.
+3
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:31 am)To Dave G:
We had a good discussion of these types of processes in the forum. There are some good links that reference the energy conversion efficiencies.
Review this thread:
http://www.gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4242
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:36 am)A combined cycle power plant using natural gas(ie gas turbine with steam cycle on the bottom) gets about 60% efficiency. The bloombox can’t touch it.
+3
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:42 am)Wired.com has an excellent overview at: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/tag/bloom-energy/
From this and other sources it appears to me that a great deal more development will be needed before the concept will be practical for automotive or home applications (if ever).
+4
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:49 am)“The electricity is produced at a cost of 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour, which is significantly lower than rates in some parts of the country.”
What does this mean? If this is the cost of natural gas, this is a non-starter.
I pay 8 to 10 cents in the Washington DC Metro area (and I believe it’s close to the national average).
IF THIS 8-10 CENTS IS FUEL COST, you need to add to this:
- Amortization of capital costs
- Delivery costs (my gas bill includes separate charges for electric generation, including fuel; and delivery cost – the 8-10 is FUEL COST ONLY)
- Power Company profits
- Taxes
Please explain to me why the hoopla? From their own statements, this has VERY LIMITED PRACTICALITY (maybe it would be valuable on Mars, which is what it was designed for).
-SPARKZZ
P.S.- just looked it up. According to Department of Energy, the National Average RETAIL Cost of Electricity, All Sectors, was 9.81 cents/KWh in October 2009.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html
-3
Feb 28th, 2010 (10:00 am)[...] The Bloom Box [...]
Feb 28th, 2010 (10:24 am)It sounds almost as cool as “Mr. Fusion”.
-1
Feb 28th, 2010 (10:39 am)THe gas company in my area is a total rip -off ,no matter the cost of the gas they always gouge your eyes out on the bill. The price of the gas is increasingly a smaller part of their bill,so they don,t have to lower their prices when Nat gas prices go down. Im not interested in anything that runs on natural gas as long as the legal monopoly on it continues.
Feb 28th, 2010 (10:39 am)I priced a 43Kw NG generator (6-cyl ICE) a couple years ago and it was $15,000 installed. If a fuel cell came in at anywhere near or under this, it’s a no-brainer.
As far as pricing of NG goes. There is at least 100 years of NG available in North America right now. The price is very low because demand is lower than supply. After 100 years, bio methane can be pumped into the same lines (NG is mostly methane).
Some very exciting times in the next 20 years!
-1
Feb 28th, 2010 (10:44 am)I think this is potentially a big deal for EVs because is solves the recharge problem and possible issues with overloading the grid. As the name implies, each of these units outputs 100 kW. This means that if the battery permitted it you could mostly recharge a Volt in ten minutes or so. Moreover, since they can be strung together, you could shorten than time by having more than one. No big worries about stressing the grid during peak periods, no issues with legal prohibitions against reselling electricity, and no real limits on the amount of electricity which would be available.
Also since the data sheet says the the box can be used for production “and storage”, and since the box can reverse the process, I’m thinking that the box will make hydrogen from from natural gas. This solves one of the potential of not having a hydrogen infrastructure.
So how efficient is this and could it be a cost effective fast charging system? The answers seem to be pretty efficient and therefore pretty cost effective. A therm of natural gas where I am costs about fifty cents. Since a therm holds about 32 kWh, a 50% conversion, which is on the low side of what is being claimed, would produce a kWh of electricity for about $.03/kWh. Plenty of room for a big markup for the station.
Obviously the plan is for efficiencies to go up and for the size of the box to go down. It would need to do that for sure. But the technological leap would not need to be that great. Seems like Bloom is quite a ways there.
Feb 28th, 2010 (10:59 am)What you pay at the moment is really not that relevant over the longer run for the simple reason that electrical rates have historically had embedded in them a lot of cross subsidies. It’s sort of like the old telephone rates where businesses paid more than residential users. If the business users transition to something like Bloom boxes to essentially leave the grid system, the electrical utilities will have to recover its very high fixed plant costs by apportioning them over a smaller group of users, thereby driving the rates up for the remaining users.
My guess would be that users like Google, eBay and Staples are paying more like $.27/kWh, but that’s just a guess. But it’s the reason why they said they’ve saved so much money with the Box already.
Also, as a point of comparison, a 4 kWh solar system installed costs about $30K. That may seem like it’s comparable in costs to a Bloom Box, but it’s not. The solar system is rated at peak production which it will deliver only for an hour a day on a few days of the year whereas the Bloom Box’s rating is more continuous. Plus it works when the sun isn’t up. That’s a big deal and worth at least 2X the production value. So the Bloom Box would seem more than cost competitive on a capital basis with solar today, and solar has been in development for quite a while.
Feb 28th, 2010 (11:04 am)Amazint they can overcome this. Maybe the giant box purifies the gas and the little fuel cell stack does the actual work.
Takes 3 to 5 years to get energy net neutral at home. Vs. gasoline would have to be sooner wouldn’t you think?
Feb 28th, 2010 (11:07 am)Saw this on Daily Planet this week. Knew this topic was coming :p
Anyways, it’s only ~50% efficient. Plus it still needs a fuel at x cost. It’s not the kind of thing we need for the future.
Hell, hydrogen can be produced more efficiently (and infinitely) and used in a fuel cell for less.
And we all know how much you guys hate hydrogen..
It’s only viable, as discussed on DP, if used in a cyclic system. I.e. the CO2 produced is recycled into fuel somehow (cheaply) and re-introduced to the system.
+3
Feb 28th, 2010 (11:11 am)George S. Bower:
Why not? It is manufactured inside the bloombox using electricity and natural gas which are inputs to the box.
To George Bower
Electricity is not an input to the Bloom Box, it is the output. Natural gas is not converted to hydrogen but consumed by the fuel cell to produce electricity. Still it remains too expensive to be viable unless they can bring costs down. I wish them well.
Feb 28th, 2010 (11:18 am)George S. Bower has made so many points regarding fuel cell efficiency in making hydrogen for the cell, I’m not sure which one to respond to. KR Sridhar says he doesn’t need to produce hydrogen. I think this link answers some of those questions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVZAT3U_Jls&feature=player_embedded
Feb 28th, 2010 (11:19 am)John Donahue, CEO of Ebay, said they saved over $100,000 over nine months using five unites. There units run on bio gas made from landfill waste.
For Google’s four boxes used for eighteen months: “They use natural gas but half the much as used by a conventional power plant.”
Listen to the link that BestTimesNow in comment #3 gave.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Feb 28th, 2010 (11:24 am)Slow down! This looks like an over-glorified water battery! Remember those clocks that ran on with the cathodes stuck in them? Or more famously, the potato battery!
Two cathodes exchange electrons and electricity is produced. What happens is the cathodes rust from the high rate of oxidation and eventually need replacement.
Does this ‘cost per kilowatt’ take into account replacement costs of the cathodes? How does this cost match up with electricity from burning the Natural Gas outright?
+2
Feb 28th, 2010 (11:28 am)This is the second comment you’ve made so far that shows how little you know. See my comment #58 and then listen to the link and read the article.
Your beginning to sound like a troll.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (11:41 am)Rather than guessing, take a look at the link that I provided.
Of the Sectors reported, Residential is the lowest (other sectors are Commercial, Industrial and
Transportation).
+3
Feb 28th, 2010 (11:57 am)Really, would that be such a big deal with a Volt? With a Nissan Leaf, sure, but remember that the Volt can always run on gas, and you can probably count the number of “grid failure” occurrences within a year on one hand.
Feb 28th, 2010 (12:07 pm)You are so full of crap.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (12:07 pm)It amasses me, JeffB, that you are getting so many negative votes. I gave you a plus one.
If the technology proves out to have a decent life time before the unite would need replacement, they certainly cold be used in a flex fuel drive train like Voltec. The need for CNG vehicle storage tank has already been considered.
The need for the use of electricity to compress the natural gas is not really a problem as some think … “why not just use the electricity to power the car”! The use of electricity enables the use of natural gas as a vehicle fuel. Just as in the case of hydrogen where electricity is needed to break down water into its two components, the electricity is merely enabling the use of water to get a usable fuel. The use of energy to get the fuel cold be considered wasting that energy but it does allow us to use what resources are available. Hopefully, technologists can find a way to reduce the amount of electricity to produce these fuels that the fuel cell needs.
The Bloom box is much more efficient (uses %50 less natural gas than a power plant uses.) and definitely more efficient than burning coal. And definitely cleaner.
K.R. Sridhar has found a sensible solution to a clean and efficient source of energy “to replace the grid”. Just as Dense Plasma Fusion would enable the power source to be placed in the neighborhood nearer to homes and businesses, BloomBoxes would eliminate concern over black or brown outs. Of course once DPF is developed it will be a clean renewable source of electricity that uses a fuel that is more abundant than natural gas. For the time being, the Bloom Box is good news.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+3
Feb 28th, 2010 (12:18 pm)What would really make the system affordable, and really boost efficiency, is to use it to supply *BOTH* heat and electricity for a household.
>>>Right now many, many houses burn natural gas for heat and get zero electricity from it. The Bloom box generates just as much heat, but also generates enough electricity to pay for the gas.
I doesn’t have to generate electricity cheaper than another source, it just has to generate electricity *while* producing heat that buildings and industry need anyway! Using renewable sources and providing backup power is just gravy.
Feb 28th, 2010 (12:30 pm)Though this should be obvious, average price is, well, average price. Some pay more; some pay less. You need to understand the rate structures, in this case the rate structure in CA, to have an idea about the rates. IOW unless you think Google and eBay are simply irrational, why are they looking for alternatives that cost more? Spend some time with CA tiered rates and you’ll doubtless understand their interest in solar and Bloom Boxes.
In any event this doesn’t affect the basic point, which is that high capital costs of maintaining the distribution network has to be apportioned over the customer base, and if large users leave that base the costs for those remaining on the network go up rapidly. This is particularly true given that the costs of the distribution network can easily eclipse even the average cost of the generated power (FWIW the short run variable cost of generating energy is effectively zero a good bit of the time).
-2
Feb 28th, 2010 (12:33 pm)Lyle missed the point, that bloom box has better efficiency (if I remember correctly, slightly more than 50%), than any other existing traditional generator.
So, bloom box will be used the same way existing generators are used.
And, if the can manufacture small and cheap boxes, it can be used as range-extender much more effective, than anything else.
Feb 28th, 2010 (12:38 pm)Not my field, but small reactors apparently can use the spent fuel from the large reactors. That seems like a great solution.
As for the waste problem, coal fired plants emit more radiation than nuclear plants, so if you’re going to have a problem with waste, you’re better off with nuclear waste than coal waste. Not only is the amount less but it’s more point source so it’s easier to deal with.
The problem for nuclear seems to be they need a lot of water so they’re hard to site and they are the mothers of construction projects so they can never be cost effectively managed. Smaller reactors can address these issues as well.
Feb 28th, 2010 (12:41 pm)This represents a breakthrough in the way we all could generate and consume electricity within our own homes. It can run on natural gas, recycled methane from landfills, etc. This technology will quite possibly replace our electric grid as we know it, and most importantly relieve us from dependance on power companies.
+7
Feb 28th, 2010 (12:49 pm)I wrote an article about the BES.
http://www.sequence-omega.net/2010/02/24/ten-things-to-know-about-the-bloom-energy-server/
To answer some of the questions posed in this thread so far…
Its not green power at all.
Its not that much cleaner than a new 500MW natural gas facility. This creates 773lbs of CO2 per MWh. A modern natural gas facility produces about 820lbs, factoring in 10% (average) losses in transmission, thats about 900 lbs/MWh. However, that doesn’t factor in the CO2 associated with the lifecycle of either device (which I would assume would lean in favor of centralized generation).
However, it is much cleaner than coal, which averages about 2,800 lbs of CO2 per MWh. You would want this technology to offset coal power if at all possible. If you get your baseload from hydro or nuclear then its not a good idea.
The ROI is much longer than 6 years once tax breaks are removed from the equation for these units.
For a 1kW unit to operate 24/7, it would take about 48 therms a month based on their datasheet. I pay an overall cost of about 95c/therm (part of that is connection charge spread out over the monthly usage). The power generated would be 720kWh. So I’d pay about $48 in natural gas for $86 worth of power (12c/kWh), saving $38/mo. At that rate, $3,000 initial cost (not including any electrical work that would need to be done, likely another $1,000 or $2,000), would be 6.5 years. There are huge caveats – paying for installation and maintenance costs, natural gas prices don’t go up that much if everyone has one in their home, etc.
Another issue is that these devices would likely be controlled by the grid operator (the power company) in your area. If its night time and the power usage is way down, they may need to turn down the output of the devices or turn them off completely to keep the grid in balance (they aren’t going to shut off their power plants).
+2
Feb 28th, 2010 (12:53 pm)Hey DonC,
You make extremely important points. Your broader and deeper facts are always an excellent balance for the discussion. Thanks.
Feb 28th, 2010 (1:05 pm)I started a reply to your post but got interrupted by a phone call. As it turns out that was good because before I went back to complete the reply, I visited Wikipedia: it answered all the questions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_Box#Costs
“Fifteen percent of the power at eBay is created with Bloom technology; after tax incentives that paid half the cost eBay expects “a three-year payback period” for the remaining half, based on California’s $0.14/kWh cost of commercial electricity.[21]“. The three year payback surprised me.
I thought that the Data Center needed continuous power so no data would be lost and that the cost and availability of diesel fuel for backup power was their incentive for buying the Bloom Box unites.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+3
Feb 28th, 2010 (1:08 pm)To clear up confusion.
First of all correct me if I am wrong but this is NOT a hydrogen fuel cell. It is not using energy from the solar panels to convert the methane to hydrogen and it does not need input power from the solar panels. This is a solid oxide fuel cell. This generates electricity directly from oxidizing methane. This is a more efficient way of generating power than combusting the methane. Since many homes have natural gas (methane) supply for heating and cooking they could simply add a Bloom Box to supply electricity. The advantage is that power from the Bloom Box is cleaner since grid electricity comes mostly from burning coal. Also, rather than one huge power plant with efficiency losses through the grid everyone is generating their own power. Google’s solar panels are not there for the Bloom Boxes. They were there before and are just generating more clean energy.
Secondly, these are not meant for a vehicle range extender and are not practical as such. In the picture the man is holding a 1 kW stack. A vehicle would need something like a 30kW-60kW extender. Plus a large tank for CNG. You have the same storage and distribution problems that hydrogen has. Plus the battery pack. A better technology to look out for would be direct ethanol fuel cells. Liquid fuel would be easier to store and the distribution network is already there.
The Bloom Box is great technology. I think it would be best paired with solar. The BB produces power around the clock but you have to pay for fuel and are producing CO2. Solar is expensive but during the day the solar produces 100% clean energy for free with no fuel needed and will eventually pay for itself.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (1:08 pm)I’m utterly unexcited about this bloom box. It doesn’t help solve Peak Oil problem. It doesn’t help reduce CO2 emissions. Can someone explain to me the exact problem that the bloom box is trying to solve ? Reminds me of all the hype surrounding Segway.
It is not like there are a lot of places with NG connections but not electrcity grid connections.
We can now make electricity fairly efficiently using NG. Bloom box has an efficiency of 52% when producing electricity (i.e. not counting the heat). This translates to 12.8 cents per kwh.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/02/bloom-energy-currently-costs-128-cents.html
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (1:17 pm)Look up thorioum, sp?, reactors they look good on paper. Wiki has a good page on it.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (1:21 pm)NG is 1135 lb/mwh, bloom box is 773 lb/mwh. But, bloom box figure is not independently certified and is claimed only at maximum efficiency. 1135 figure is the average efficiency in the US. I won’t be surprised if the figure comes close to what wiki quotes in real life …
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (1:23 pm)The Bloom Box claim to fame, along with raising $400 million in venture capital, employs low-cost ceramic for its solid-oxide fuel cell (SOFC). Is it real? Absolutely. One measure of ‘real’ technology is their patent portfolio. This company has that, at least to start with. Another measure is its hardware. Again, real power to real customers. Even at $7-8000/kw its claimed 10-year life makes compelling economic sense. Now with high temps and large mass SOFC’s are limited to stationary applications. Other types of fuel cells – hydrogen based (PEMFC) – are on the cusp of replacing batteries in several apps. Forklifts. Back up UPS. This is a world-wide effort. If I were to guess, and FC tech is really proprietary – which country is ahead in EV FC’s – I’d say Germany. I base this WAGuess on my on-going engineering FC research. GM isn’t all that far behind, just a different R&D culture. Think bucks.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (1:31 pm)These types of devices are important for communities and businesses in regions / states that are failing to develop viable / sustainable energy policies (California). Third world nations with abundant natural gas resources would be able to deploy these units where-ever needed to found critical wealth creating economic assets – water plants, food processing plants, textile / paper mills, etc.
It’s ability to scale is the most powerful aspect. This allows individuals, communities and businesses to buy only what they need and produce the energy locally – avoiding “right-of-way” issues for transmission, etc.
This will definitely change the energy industry landscape, bypassing utilities and putting power generation into the hands of the consumers.
+2
Feb 28th, 2010 (1:40 pm)Primarily, it doesn’t use petroleum. If that’s not helping solve the peak oil problem, then what is?
The Bloom Box uses far less natural gas than a conventional power plant using gas turbines, and natural gas produces far less co2 than coal. So, if that’s not helping solve the peak oil problem, then what is?
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+4
Feb 28th, 2010 (1:42 pm)Boys! Play nice! (g). (I”m glad that it didn’t deteriorate much though)
Be well and be nice,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+2
Feb 28th, 2010 (1:49 pm)I think one of the bigger advantages to this system is being overlooked, or just skimed over. If you can get one of these systems installed In your home, even at $5k it free’s you from one more monolopy and utility that you would be beholden to. Most people I know already have gas and electric in their home that they pay for every month. The fewer outside orginizations you have to rely on for daily life the happier you will be. Solar is great but it has compromises attached. This bloom box is a no compromise freedom from the power company. Yes it still leaves you attached to the gas company but it is a step in the right direction. I’ve never heard of the gas going out, as long as you pay your bill on time, unless there is an earthquake and then you have bigger problems. The way I see it the bloom box, could be, to your house what the volt will be to your daily commute. A no compromise step in the right direction. That’s my 2c
+2
Feb 28th, 2010 (1:56 pm)Thanks for the link. I did look at it and it appears that my statements may have been incorrect. However seems like he did say that hydrogen was reacting inside the box….
+3
Feb 28th, 2010 (1:57 pm)I think we are on the same page here. Great minds think alike!
Feb 28th, 2010 (1:58 pm)I don’t know how it is in other places – in our city we get power & gas from the same utility.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (1:58 pm)I wonder if it can work with propane as well. If someone had a farm or ranch way out in the boonies, then, if they had a propane tank and lost power, they could still have electricity.
And, as someone mentioned above, the heat could be recaptured for hot water as well as possibly some heating. That would be interesting, to have a completely combined power generation, furnace, and hot water heater all in one. Now you might be talking about some very strong applications-feasibilities for remote residences like that.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (2:05 pm)After reading reviews of the Bloom Box, the general consensus was that
here was a device that promised little or no advantage over any other
energy technologies currently being used or in development (solar, etc.).
After surveying the current offerings by solar cell suppliers over the past
week, I did some calculations as to what the components of the system I
plan on installing in my off-the-grid system would cost. If I did the simple
installation (ground based), then the cost would amount to around 7.5
cents per kilowatthour over the 25 year lifespan of the silicon cells.
There are federal and state subsidies for such systems, which together
reduce the cost considerably .
Looking up the stats on CO2 emissions by electricity producers in the
states shows that quite a few produce less than the 773 lbs per megawatthour
of CO2 emissions claimed by the Bloom Box. Vermont produces 5 lbs, and
Maine very little, as they depend heavily on nuclear and hydro. Idaho produces
practically none. California back in 2006 I believe produced 600 lbs per MWh.
I would assume, considering all of the solar power added to the state since
then, that CA would produce around 500 lbs these days.
The costs quoted by the Bloom Box manufacturers assume current natural
gas prices and claim an abundance of natural gas. Well, this country imports
a very large portion of its natural gas (and propane) from other countries.
Natural gas mostly from Canada and gas in compressed form mostly from oil
producing countries. And natural gas can be used far more efficiently by
burning it in a furnace to produce household heat (the greates drain on energy)
or to power utility electric generators that can feed the current through
existing infrastructure, at lesser cost. The Bloom Box simply doesn’t make
any sense, either economically nor environmentally. It’s a gadget.
The big news on the energy technology front over the past week wasn’t
the news about a new way to use a fossil fuel like natural gas. It was the
news that researchers at Cal Tech had devised a new architecture to build
silicon solar cells that 1) only uses 1 to 2 percent of the expensive silicon
nw used to produce cells, but that 2) it is flexible and not prone to breakage,
and 3) could therefore be produced using the very efficient roll-to-roll
manufacturing process now used by thin-film. Its efficiency was said to
be between 15 and 20%, which is close to double that of thinfilm. It can be
wrapped around the curves of a building and is generally much easier to install.
Since its basically just a new manufacturing technology, the new solar cells should
become commercially available rather quickly. THAT was the big energy news
lately, not the Bloom Box.
+2
Feb 28th, 2010 (2:06 pm)Way to go George! You were starting to bug me to with the solar talk, but i seem to have a little thicker skin than other folks. It takes a big man to admit when he’s wrong.
+1 to you
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (2:07 pm)Don’t fall for the hype.
Bloom box has a claimed efficiency of 52% – natural gas plants have 50% efficiency. Unless you think somehow that 2% difference will make the peak oil & climate change go away – I don’t see how bloom box is any better than a conventional ng power plant.
Ofcourse anything based on NG will have to contend with LARGE swings of NG price.
Peak Oil : What you need is to convert a large # of vehicles to use a power source other than oil. There is no dearth of electricity now – and there are better ways to get to electricity (see below).
Climate Change : What we need is a combination of wind/solar/nuclear to replace the existing coal plants. We can then use the existing natural gas plants to stabilize the grid.
+8
Feb 28th, 2010 (2:10 pm)Please allow me to apologize for being so cocky about a subject that I am not well enough informed on.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (2:16 pm)Check Prof Barry Brook’s nuclear advocacy site for all things nuclear. Keep in mind that it is an advocacy site. In particular checkout LFTR.
http://bravenewclimate.com/
As someone concerned about sustainability I’d support nuclear that
- Uses reprocessing of current nuclear “waste” or uses Thorium (i.e. Gen 4 not Gen 3 or 3+)
- Replaces coal plants
-1
Feb 28th, 2010 (2:24 pm)Well said.
I don’t see anything revolutionary about bloom box that can address larger energy concerns. It is just a well funded (KP!) company that could one day efficiently make devices that help in some niches.
+2
Feb 28th, 2010 (2:25 pm)You’re in good company here, George (lol).
Like a good old dead President once said:
“Too often we…enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
–John F. Kennedy
Be well,
Tagamet
Feb 28th, 2010 (2:35 pm)I’m with you on the g4 lftr, but I still want a no compromise off the grid setup.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (2:59 pm)Their use will lessen the need for utilities to have coal, and petroleum as sources of fuel but will not eliminate utilities: they will deploy unites in neighborhoods to supply our needs. Remember that natural gas is a finite source of energy. As I see it, we need sources of energy that will not become exhausted after a hundred or so years. Only solar and wind power remain as long term replacement of fossil fuels. We will still need utilities in that case, to transport electricity from solar and wind farms into urban areas. Transportation lines will still be needed as both solar and wind are intermittent sources. Some time in the future when solar cell arrays are more efficient and better storage devices are developed, we may see more individual home owners on a broad scale producing their own needs. The Bloom Box may even be a choice for them. This will happen over a phase in period gradually allowing the elimination of utilities as we know them. When this happens, home owners will be responsible for maintenance of their power plants. A new industry much larger than exists today will evolve to build, and repair such small power plants. Some people may prefer to pay for electric service by utilities who will own and operate power plants scaled to service individual neighborhoods or smaller cites and towns.
I support most methods of generating electricity but tend to edge toward solar, and wind because they in themselves do not produce pollutants and are generally free in that they do not require buying fuels. As far as nuclear generation, I strongly believe that Dense Plasma Fusion will be found to be able to make net energy and will be a future widespread source of power. DPF will be found to be the most efficient way of generating electricity. Small 5KW unites will be deployed in neighborhoods, much as the Bloom Box unites may be similarly deployed today,(eliminating power losses over transmission lines) and be the choice of those customers who do not want to own their own power plants. These technologies will be phased in over time as improvements to their design are found and new technologies develop. Similarly, as the Volt is an EREV today, it too will evolve into a pure EV.
As the technological improvements arrive in the future, utility companies will have to adapt and change there business model to remain viable. Peak oil is a serious problem that is complex in nature and in order to insure our societies can continue as we know them. To assume that the supply of petroleum and other fossil fuels will not disappear from this planet is foolish and insane. Fortunately technological advancements appear to be happening at a rapid pace and will allow us to meet the pending problems. They also present a wonderful solution to problems by underdeveloped poor countries.
I agree with most of what you say, but not the part of eliminating utilities.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (3:20 pm)It should work with any gas. If you can burn it you can use it. That’s one of the advantages. Could hook it up to those cows!
But they’ll need to get the costs down for it to be practical for homes or even ranches.
+5
Feb 28th, 2010 (3:21 pm)UPDATE ON AMPERA 370MI TRIP: Today 2/28/10, Opel drove an Ampera from Rüsselsheim, Germany to Geneva, Switzerland in under 10 hours. (My German is rusty, but I think they stopped once at a petrol station, and perhaps as a rest stop/refreshments.) In any case, the 10-hr trip was not long enough to permit a battery recharge. According to their trip blog* they drove parts of the trip at fairly high speeds as well as through rain, all without any problems. One comment was that they couldn’t detect any change in the car’s behavior when the ICE kicked in —they only knew it had happened because the display changed from a battery symbol to an engine symbol— and when they saw that change they apparently could hear the ICE.
* http://twitter.com/opelblog
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (3:24 pm)“utility size gas fired power stations efficiency of 26-48%.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_Box#Costs
“the Bloom Energy Server is up to twice as efficient as a gas fired power station.” (from the same source.
You just compared the highest efficiency of gas fired power stations to the lowest efficiency of the Bloom Box. Correct comparison would be 48% for a modern gas fired power station vs +52% for the Bloom Box.
IMHO, we need to invest in DPF. It has been show that conventional fuels like DT can easily produce net energy and the higher fuel burning temperatures for pB11 are attainable to have a non-radioactive producing nuclear plant. The design of a DPF reactor eliminates the needs for turbines and generators and is therefore vastly superior to current power generating plants.
http://focusfusion.org/
We need to urge the federal government to pour more research money into this science. Other countries are already working on DPF. The ITER tokamak will never achieve its lofty and expensive goal.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (3:26 pm)I thought new natural gas plants were more like 25% efficient. This is why Blloom claims the Bloom Box is twice as efficient as a gas fired plant. Combustion isn’t very efficient. Or do you have some other information?
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (3:33 pm)Thanks you for notice, Nasaman. I will be checking out Opel’s Ampera website for more info.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (3:38 pm)Maximum efficiency is “48%”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_Box#Feasibility
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+3
Feb 28th, 2010 (3:50 pm)Bloom claims the boxes are twice as efficient a gas fired plants and have 60% fewer emissions. I’m not too surprised by the emissions because to a great extent if you double the efficiency it shouldn’t be too difficult to halve the emissions.
The Bloom Box has it all over solar based on capital costs. Even with a good site for solar, which rules out 75% of the country, a 1 kW solar system will only produce say 1500 kWh of electricity annually. At its rated output a single Bloom Box will produce 2400 kWh, or about 50% more, every day. To get comparable yearly output using solar you’d need something like a 550 kW system. At $8k a kW that’s over $4M or five times the capital cost of a Bloom Box. (Plus you have to assume that Bloom Box will drop in price faster than solar).
The other issue is just space. A 550 kW solar system would be enormous — the land costs alone would be very high. So long as solar remains relatively inefficient the space needed for solar will remain a detriment which can’t be addressed by cost reductions. To make solar competitive with a Bloom Box you’d have to make the panels more efficient, cheaper, and able to work when the sun wasn’t shining. Hard to do.
The utility market suggested by Bloom does make sense to me. To meet peak demand the utility could hook several Bloom Boxes together at a substation. Makes more sense than building new centralized power plants since you can size and locate electrical production more effectively. BTW I like solar and even have a system installed at home, so I’m hardly opposed to it, but solar isn’t a panacea because of cost, relative inefficiency (space), and the intermittent nature of it production.
Feb 28th, 2010 (3:52 pm)Cool.
Feb 28th, 2010 (3:52 pm)Also at the Opel Behind the Scenes blog: http://opel.posterous.com/
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (3:53 pm)+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (3:56 pm)Yes, dense plasma fusion does look the most promising, especially when using Hydrogen / Boron reactions that produce no harmful radiation and no radioactive waste.
The Volt will evolve into two dominant configurations – a rapid recharge battery/capacitor electric vehicle (RRBEV) and a plug-in fuel cell electric vehicle (PFCEV).
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (4:00 pm)SOFC don’t lend themselves to automotive applications. But the may lend themselves to a new Rail locomotive technology. The diesel-electric locomotive and the coming diesel-elctric hybrid locomotive might be replaced with the Sofc-electric locomotive and the sofc-electric-battery hybrid locomotive tractor.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (4:04 pm)Additional argument for the Bloom Box: It is better, for one reason: its footprint is much smaller. and I am sure that there are other reasons for it being better.
As far as Climate Change: I will agree with your combination of wind/solar/nuclear as long as the nuclear part is a fusion reactor, such as the DPF reactor, using pB11. (Resent research shows that the extremely high temperatures needed to burn this fuel are attainable.) There are uses for the type of reactors you support that I would agree with: the burning of current nuclear wastes to reduce their overall radioactivity.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Feb 28th, 2010 (4:07 pm)Efficiency of Natural gas elctric powe rplants depend so th e tyep of generation. A ones-tag enatural gas plant should achieve arounf 30% effeicncy. A Combined Cycle natural gas plant usesd for more than peaking can have an efficiency approaching 50-52%.
But in either, case the output is EVIL CO2, for all you practicisng religious Druids.
Feb 28th, 2010 (4:08 pm)It should be roughly equivalent to a combined cycle natural gas plant. The Bloom box claims 50% efficiency. A CC plant gets 55-60%. Subtract the 9% line losses (the average amount of electricity that is lost in our transmission system due to resistance) and you end up with about the same net efficiency.
Feb 28th, 2010 (4:08 pm)Even the PFCEV will become obsolete as battery/super-capacitor technology advances.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Feb 28th, 2010 (4:13 pm)They could work as a range extender if they dont have to cycle too fast in power demand (to reduce thermal shock).. lets say a 10kw unit running as a supplemental genset in a Volt. It wont provide 100mph speeds in CS mode but it could extend the range to hundreds of miles at moderate hwy speeds. A smaller unit could also work, but you would have to start it at the beginning of the trip and let it run continuously.
Stas, do you have any ideas on how much these fuel cells can be “throttled”, and how fast?.
Feb 28th, 2010 (4:21 pm)Like Stas said, gas fired peaking plants are not that efficient, they have to react quickly.. in any case you could also use the heat output of the Bloom to provide hot water and winter heating. This cogeneration will increase efficiency into the 85%-95% range. It could also provide back up power if it can be fueled with E85, wet ethanol or gasoline during a power outage.
Feb 28th, 2010 (5:24 pm)Looks like they are going to have a press conf re the trip on March 2nd?
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+2
Feb 28th, 2010 (5:37 pm)Thanks…they must not own any real estate in Chernobyl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Recovery_process
From the wikipedia article…
As for the #4 reactor where the meltdown occurred, we estimate it will be 20,000 years before the real estate will be fully safe.”
Even without a disaster, I assume the waste takes as long to be safe. Since recorded history is about 6000 years old, it is safe to assume that this is an estimate.
Of course, a process/tech may be discovered to cleanup Chernobyl to significantly lower the estimate. Then…when someone starts building luxury condos with golf courses in Chernobyl with a waiting list, I’ll be a supporter of nuclear power.
As for the new types of nuclear power plants, I’ll be a supporter when a terrorist can not cause the same type accident without bringing their own nuclear material to the power plant…and do not forget the waste stream of the power plant.
Feb 28th, 2010 (5:42 pm)While I think something this could play a big role in quick charging stations if all of the other related technical issues get solved, it has it’s own issues as well. Cost will have come way down for such intermitent use to make sense unless the power generation is used for more than just charging vehicle batteries. Also, if the units aren’t functioning between charges, how long does it take for the servers to heat up to 800 degrees C?
Seems like, the most sensible application would be to combine grid power generation with vehicle charging into a common facility.
Feb 28th, 2010 (5:57 pm)JeffB
If you’d read half the comments today you’d have a *wealth* of info to investigate. Very informative.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 28th, 2010 (5:59 pm)Pour money is about right. It will be unbeeweevabwy (as said by Billy Crystal in an incredulous falsetto voice) expensive to get to a pilot plant up. Some of the advances in the last 2 years have been amazing, though still far out there for a working plant.
A TVA owned LFTR demonstration reactor was working using thorium in the mid 1960’s. Whenever the scientists wanted to stop baby sitting the machines, probably most Friday afternoons, they just flipped off the switch and told the security guy, I’ll be back on Monday, as they headed out to their favorite fishing spots. Though still fission, it eats the radiation left over from other fission reactors for breakfast, it’s are shutdowns were inherently safe with no left over U-239 or plutonium and it was all possible even with mid 1960’s technology. ( http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/ )
Feb 28th, 2010 (6:06 pm)This Bloom Energy technology is going to be pretty awesome in about 10 years once it gets cheaper and gets a good track record for reliability, durability, etc. This technology certainly could take a lot of costs out of the grid. There wouldn’t need to be nearly as many of those huge power lines on every street like we have now. These Bloom boxes would be great for people that live in small towns and other remote areas.
In the future, this Bloom Energy technology could be reversed to make hydrogen. Just use the clean energy electricity coming out of big solar thermal plants or wind farms and combine it with natural gas and out comes pure hydrogen. The hydrogen could be used for energy storage when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun goes down. Use that same stored hydrogen again to make electricity at night or for rainy, cloudy days or when the wind isn’t blowing much. You could have electricity coming out of “hybrid solar thermal/fuel cell plants” or “hybrid wind farm/fuel cell plants” on a 24/7 basis.
The hydrogen could also limit the need for a bunch of super expensive hydrogen transport and fueling infrastructure. You’d have to rely on big oil companies to invest in and build that infrastructure. I wouldn’t count on that.
What would be great would be having the ability to make hydrogen “on demand” and only have to keep small amounts of it in storage containers. Then, if the hydrogen fuel cells and storage containers for cars and other vehicles finally get CHEAP and safe enough, then we might actually be able to yank out the IC engine in future versions of the Volt … for good. That would be awesome.
Once again, I’m probably just dreaming here in 2010 about hydrogen fuel cell cars. As usual, they are probably still 10 years away. It all comes down to things like safety, SOME sort of hydrogen fueling infrastructure … and most of all COST.
Ideally, it would be great to have a pipeline of natural gas coming into my house and a small Bloom “Energy Server” in the garage or basement to take care of all my energy needs … for the house, for my future Volt with a fuel cell range extender, etc. The Bloom “Energy Server” could make hydrogen or electricity. Maybe the CO2 and water byproducts could somehow be piped back to some other facility. Who knows? The people at Bloom Energy still have a lot of work to do before all this becomes commonplace of course.
http://www.bloomenergy.com/benefits/more-benefits-and-applications/
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (6:09 pm)Couldn’t the 800 degree operating temperature be recovered to run a sterling engine to make even more electricity? It could also be used for home heating or hot water heating.
Having one of these would allow the homeowner or business to switch from the grid to this device depending on which is the lower cost. It could also sell power back to the utility during peak demand.
The Bloom box would compliment on site solar. It could also be used to supply power at night for grid tied solar systems like the Suncatcher (SES) system which is starting to be installed in massive parks throughout the Southwest and the world this year.
While I don’t believe this is the total answer, it could be part of the solution giving us more options.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (6:20 pm)Talk about a long term real estate play!!! The folks across the Baltic Sea, in Finland, from Chernobyl were none too happy the radiation releases either.
KR Sridhar has said there is no “waste” heat because the Bloom boxes use the high heat to foster the reactions, unlike competing “low temperature” fuel cell stacks that give off unwanted heat and use that waste heat for co-functions unrelated to fuel cell functions like space heating.
Feb 28th, 2010 (6:23 pm)Off topic:
Congrats Hosers! Great hockey game.
Feb 28th, 2010 (6:31 pm)1- Adding electricity.
2- No one seems to listen.
3- Efficiency.
Like a pilot flame is needed to start NG combustion?
In cases like this I usually just move on, maybe no one cares, or perhaps someone will comment later.
So your conclusion if I have it down correctly, is that a fuel cell stack plus NG consumes more electricity than it makes?
Feb 28th, 2010 (6:41 pm)FWIW the Combined Cycle Gas Turbines can be over 60 % efficient
“GE’s H System— an advanced combined cycle system capable of breaking the 60 percent efficiency barrier—integrates the gas turbine, steam turbine, generator and heat recovery steam generator into a seamless system, optimizing each component’s performance.”
http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/gas_turbines_cc/en/h_system/index.htm
Feb 28th, 2010 (6:46 pm)Hey Tag what are you doing here! Weren’t you banned from the island or something
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8 )
Feb 28th, 2010 (6:46 pm)Hey Tag,
What are the names of the twins?
Feb 28th, 2010 (6:52 pm)Sounds like it was a great game:
Reporting from Vancouver, Canada – Their game, their gold medal–but a superb effort by both Canada and the U.S. Sunday made the finale of the Olympic hockey tournament a memorable game that will rank among the best ever played.
3-2 IN OVER-TIME!
Congrats to both teams.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:01 pm)I will be traveling all day March 2 (BTW, your direction). Hope there is a summary at the end of the day or on Wednesday.
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:11 pm)It really was. US scored with @20 seconds left to tie. Canada’s best offensive player scored in overtime to win. It was the final competition of the Olympics. Very dramatic!
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:12 pm)I keep swimming back (g), Actually, I was just struggling with some blocked posts. I’m checking to see if I reduce the frequency of my posts if the spam filter won’t “see” me as quite as threatening?
Toby is screen left, Jack is screen right.
Thanks for asking (smile)
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:23 pm)They’re cute little buddies. Great way to introduce them all to us. 6 cats in all?
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:24 pm)Back on topic:
While home generation for Bloom Energy is a great longer term goal, I think neighborhood (substation) usage is a more realistic nearer term goal. This brings production closer to usage to eliminate a lot of the line losses. The larger application also reduces control, admin, and packaging costs. That said, for undeveloped areas that don’t have existing grid infrastructure on-site (including home) generation makes a lot of sense if a fuel source is readily available.
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:26 pm)Its solved. Thousands of DOE scientists have worked on this. Politicians will not allow the solutions to move forward and then they can keep complaining that the waste problem is not solved and keep stalling on Nuclear. All they have done is allowed our Nuclear lead to whither away and the world is moving on without us. Westinghouse Nuclear has been sold and GE Nuclear guys are now owned by Hitachi.
While we dither on this, China has plans (and is executing them) to become the largest user of Nuclear and will become dominant in eventually selling their services to other countries. They will be building 5 plants per year soon. The US Nuclear industry has dried up and if we want to build a new plant we will buy the Reactor Vessel from Asia. We no longer have mills to make something that large. The Anti nuclear people have not stopped nuclear, they just pushed it (and the $$ profits) out of the US.
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:30 pm)WOW, our younger daughter was a soccer goalie and fairly talented. She even attended the pre-Olympic training for Penna. At least you can SEE a soccer ball *coming*! OTOH, you’re sans head-to-toe pads. Her “career” ended playing Division I college ball, due to too many concussions (she’s JUST like her mother – NOT). (LOL). Here I am, wandering even farther off topic…
Be well,
Tagamet
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:33 pm)OK, I know we’re off topic here, but when did Tag introduce *us* to his 6 cats?
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:35 pm)I heard that Chernobyl was the control half of an experiment to test a new reactor in the U.S. that would shut down when getting near critical. The new reactor shut down without any human intervention. Ironically, Chernobyl didn’t, even with human control. Not sure that I really believe the story! But as I understand it, the backlash against the nuclear industry halted any new development. The new technology, I understand, was picked up by the Japanese!?!
I posted here several times, my belief, about Dense Plasma Fusion being the answer to nuclear power. By burning pB11, it will be a safe reactor that produces nearly no radio-activity and no nuclear waste. Within 8 hours of being shut down, the reactor can be approached without any danger. They are so safe the 5 Kw unites can be deployed to service a neighborhood; BloomEnergy unites could be used by Utilities.
Proton Boron fuel only produces a small quantity of neutrons during decay; the fusion process produces three helium atoms which decay; during this decay some neutrons are produced but not in hug numbers like deuterium-tritium fuel does.
We need the government to increase funding for DPF research. Erick Lerner is one of the scientists doing research on DPF. He has demonstrated that the problem in reaching the high temperatures (1 billion Kelvin) needed with this fuel can be overcome. All that is needed to get to the next step in achieving net energy is a few $100 million.
That is far less than the huge funding of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor which is currently being built in Cadarache, France. Many scientists believe that the Tokamak reactor will never be able to use pB11 fuel and therefore will only work with radioactive materials and produce nuclear waste. The ITER will produce 500 MW by around 2050 if they succeed. Erik Lerner believes that with proper funding, far less than has already been spent of ITER, DPF commercial reactors can exist by 2020.
The Focus Fusion website provides interesting reading:
http://focusfusion.org/
In the mean time, BloomEnergy’s CEO KR Sridhar may have the right idea: utilities using small 5KWl unites to power neighborhoods.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:37 pm)US plants are totally different than the old soviet systems. A terrorist cannot cause that type of accident in the US.
The new plants (that would be built if we were on the ball) are much safer than the existing operating plants which have a remarkable safety record.
Fear of Nuclear plants is simply a lack of knowledge of the true risk. The risk of death from a nuclear plant is very very low in this country and has been studied extensively for years by the NRC. This risk is far lower than most risks in life and if you go at the issue without pre-determined opinions, Nuclear becomes a very attractive power source.
The waste really is not an issue. It is just a talking point of the anti-nuclear crowd.
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:37 pm)I think you have some really strong points here. Although line losses are never more than 7%, still, that is a lot of electricity. In addition, as someone mentioned above that there is no waste heat, (an important consideration for any additional heat into a “heat bubble” of an inner city, for example, (like New York), where all kinds of restrictions must be kept in mind),
there are lots of strong potential things for utilities to focus on that you have just pointed out there.
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:39 pm)LOL,
It’s just over time, Tag has shown a total of 4 cute little cats. (Two more to go if I remember correctly?)
(grin.) (/how can I get into OT-trouble when they’re that cute?)
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:44 pm)Thanks for the info. It’s a sad state of affairs, but if we need to buy the tech elsewhere, I think we *should*. I can’t believe I’m typing that about my country.
Be well,
Tagamet
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:44 pm)I have been been in the Nuclear arena for a while now. This is all Gibberish. Don’t believe a word. Chernobyl has been well documented and people generally know what happened and why. It had nothing to do with a US test and the Japanese use western style PWRs and BWRs and their systems are well designed and operated. Western Nuclear power has absolutely nothing to do with Chernobyl.
An enjoyable and interesting read (does not answer these questions) comes from this motorcycle riding girl.
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/
This gives a unique view of the area and the devastation.
All chapters of her web site are interesting but this one talks about the accident.
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter2.html
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:48 pm)To those knocking nuclear:
One CANDU fuel bundle, about the size of a fire log, can power an average home for one hundred years. The same amount of energy would require 400 tonnes of coal, or 60,000 gallons of oil, or 10 million cubic feet of natural gas.
CANDU reactors can also run the waste of other reactors (e.g. thorium and many other byproducts), making the net waste product very, very low.
Not to mention that these products were already radioactive (and hazardous) in nature, so in a way, any waste that’s left over is BETTER for the environment as it’s less dangerous than it was to begin with)
Some nuclear byproducts can even turn surrounding materials into new fuel through radiation, Thus creating a cycle of ‘free’ energy.
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:48 pm)(whispers) I’ll send PM’s
anon
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:49 pm)Good point which I hadn’t thought of. If the down periods are short that wouldn’t be such a big deal but longer periods would pose a problem.
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:57 pm)If fusion reaction is in the not too distant feasible-future, it would seem to me that postponing fission reactors might not be all that much of an unwise consideration after all if the cost-to-energy ratio’s are orders above fission.
Science Daily recently had a really nice article about the focused laser ignition success for a fusion reaction in a specially-designed chamber. It was a really impressive article that appeared, I believe, just last week.
Feb 28th, 2010 (7:59 pm)I can tell you from the regulatory side in the US, this is impossible. If someone started now to build a conventional plant, 2020 would be tight. For a new plant design, the NRC would take decades to get it approved.
I have studied some of the much safer nuclear concepts that are out their and when push comes to shove, they too have many problems. (The devil is in the details). Right now we are struggling with the HTGR designs that DOE is supposed to build. This design should be well underway at this point and DOE has not even down selected the type yet (probably pebble bed or maybe prismatic). These are nowhere near ready to be regulated at this point. Years of testing will be needed. The saftey issues are not even full in focus yet.
There are large benefits from getting power from light water reactors. Many many hundreds of reactor years of experience are already in the book and we know how to deal with these designs very well. If you want reliable power on the grid, light water reactors are the best approach right now (mainly for practical purposes).
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:11 pm)Not too long ago was it the case in Japan, that anti-nuclear sentiment prohibited nuclear development.
There is often this “leap-frogging” in various industries where there are various countries at various stages of technological development for any particular industry.
Perhaps many of America’s best scientists are more interested in the advancement of fusion power nowadays, and, American nuclear industry is merely currently in an interim stage at this point.
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:16 pm)Thanks for your insight on Chernobyl, Nasaman! I often wondered if the website I was reading that was for real.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:24 pm)Perhaps, but these guys don’t build plants. What we need is a company like Toshiba, Areva, GE-Hitachi, etc. type company with an actual plant design that has been approved for use in the USA by the NRC. This company must market and sell the plant to a utility for use on the grid.
This is no simple task and right now, no matter what we think of other “better” designs, light water reactors are the only practical choice.
You can go to the NRC website and see a map of all of the currently proposed new reactors.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/new-reactor-map.html
All of these are light water reactors and it will take two decades to get these online if we keep working hard on them.
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:27 pm)Hey Dan,
I can’t find your name in the member’s list. Do you use another one there? In any case, please shoot me an email lgeguzisATSIGNcomcast.net, and I can send you the info re the cats without cluttering up the thread (even more)(g).
Thanks,
Be well,
Tagamet
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:32 pm)Let me tell you about Toshiba.
San Antonio had recently been in discussions with them for quite a while, when, at some final point just prior to final approval by the San Antonio city counsel, I believe it was, Toshiba raised the price of their reactor from 400 million dollars to 600 million dollars.
With price volatility that bad, how can you trust even spending the time to begin talking to this sort of situation in the first place?
I believe that what happened instead, is that I believe San Antonio went with Wind energy.
You can’t build nuclear plants if the customer can’t trust on counting on a stable price from the vendor.
It was received as a real slap in the face by San Antonio.
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:41 pm)Very sorry Tag,
I don’t use email (gasp!), it just drains my capacity too much with all the garbage in it always.
Sorry.
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:43 pm)That is a problem. A big issue is that they have not built a plant in the US for so many years and the regulatory hurdles, which can add years and enormous cost to the project are not really clear because the NRC has not licensed a plant for decades. It is a tough issue. Many of the components are not made in the US either and their can actually be shortages on things like a reactor coolant pump (nuclear grade) because of the activities in ASIA.
A solution would be for the DOE to build a plant a taxpayer expense and sell it to industry (They have the funds to build one, they are spending them it on exotic reactors, however). This is something that could be sold to industry who would love the plant and it would open the gates to further plant developments. At that point, the plants costs and operation would be better understood and the industry could build copies of this plant all over the country. That is not happening, but I dream…
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:43 pm)The DPF will not be a conventional reactor. Did you visit Focus Fusion’s website? I don’t believe that a DPF reactor will be anywhere near the size of a conventional nuclear reactor. Perhaps I should have said, Eric Lerner believes a working prototype will have been developed and engineering on a full commercial reactor by 2020. That would be far better than waiting for ITER. Lerner talks about small 5KW reactors; not the huge 400MW or so conventional power plants.
Also, since the DPF reactor does not use radioactive material and only produces few neutrons the regulations for such a reactor will not be necessarily burdensome. The reaction is aneutronic: “aneutronic fusion means fusion that does not produce neutrons as a by-product (<99%)." Therefore, no nuclear waste is produced.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:47 pm)How are you at being a fan of the Focused Laser Fusion Ignition Project?
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:50 pm)Very happy for Canada. Impressed with Slovakia as well. Six months ago Vegas was offering odds for gold at 500-1. An $80 bet on a Slovakia win would have bought your Volt.
=D-Volt
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:55 pm)Do you have a link?
Feb 28th, 2010 (8:59 pm)I hear what your saying! Back when I was involved with the TVA nuclear plants, I got to see the regulatory hurdles; numerous testing of components to insure no radioactive leaks lead to cost overruns. The difficulty of getting components to pass added significantly to the cost of production. Plus all the reports on testing added reams and reams of documentation: weld reports, X-ray photos, etc. , all added to the cost. All in the sake of safety!
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:01 pm)Everything helps, but again, most fuel cells rely on hydrocarbons for the fuel base. Nuclear should have a greater following. Again, everything helping break the addiction to Middle-East oil barons is superlative.
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:02 pm)This is not my area. I like the idea of basic research and hope we can afford to keep these types of basic research things going.
I was just relaying some of what I consider practical concerns for nuclear power right now. We have a fleet of 100 odd 20-40 year old plants that generate about 20% of our power and these will need to be shutdown at some point. We have a need for more electric power now and the need will grow in the future. I am just interested in cheap affordable electrical power that is reliable. This helps make our country competitive. Nuclear power should be part of the mix and right now, the only practical solution for power to the grid from nuclear are light water reactors.
We know how to build them, we know how to run them, we know how to regulate them. We just need to open the flood gate and start building them again for our near term (next several decades) of energy needs.
+2
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:02 pm)As stated in previous posts, the cost of power is related to 3 major expenses, fuel cost, capital cost, and O&M (operating and maintenance costs). Here is a link to levelized costs of electricity by the DOE (in $/MWh, divide by 1000 for cents per kWh).
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html
At almost 40 cents per kWh (wholesale level) you can see why Solar PV isn’t taking off real fast.
For power plant efficiencies, CO2 emissions, etc, see this DOE document.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/Bituminous%20Baseline_Final%20Report.pdf
On sheet 26 of 516, see the Table listed as Exhibit ES-2. This lists a great amount of data on different power plants that would be built with today’s technology, including natural gas combined cycle (NGCC). Without carbon capture and storage (CCS), a baseline NGCC is about 51% efficient, and emits 797 lbs of CO2 per MWh.
Although the Bloom Energy 100 kW unit may be slightly more efficient, it will not come close to generating power as cheaply as the NGCC plant. Why not?
At $70,000 for a 100 kW installation, this is $7,000 per kW for capital. A modern NGCC will install for about $600 to $800 per kW (see levelized capital cost for NGCC in first link and do the math).
Although the efficiency for the Bloom Energy unit may be slightly higher, its owners (Wal-Mart, etc.) will buy fuel at a commercial rate from the local gas company. This could be 70 to 90 cents per therm. The large NGCC plant will purchase large quantities of fuel (560 MW versus 0.1 MW), and can even contract with producers in the gas fields and then pay the pipeline companies transport fees. This equates to much lower prices, maybe 40 to 60 cents per therm.
So without added benefits (tax incentives, heat recovery for a process, special rates for selling power to the Utility, etc.), this technology offers no relative benefits.
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:07 pm)I posted this before but here it is:
http://focusfusion.org/
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:08 pm)Yeah, I’m sure I repressed that memory in order to deal with the shock (or not deal with it as the case may be). Can’t you receive Private Messages on here, or… (dim light slowly grows brighter)…I’ll bet you need to use an email address to register…
Sorry!
/stealth mode ON (currently a 4 cat family – 3 sibs and the wildcat Levi) I’ve GOT to get Bubba posted – he’s Beee-Yoooote-Eee-Full! /Stealth mode OFF
Be well,
Tagamet
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:09 pm)LRGVProVolt
The frustrating thing right now is that we know that our paper work and regulatory burden is magnified greatly by the variety of unique plants that we have. At one point, DOE was looking at choosing a plant design for future use and the US could just build copies of this plant type. Once one was built, future versions would be cheap to license because and identical plant was already running. Only site specific issues would need to be addressed.
That all went out the window. Of the modest number of new plants under review now at the NRC, there are several designs being put forward (ABWR, AP1000, EPR, ESBWR, USAPWR,). We are going down the path of designing and then licensing, and then regulating a new crop of unique plants and all of that paper work will be needed for each. Think thousands of man years of regulatory hurdles.
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:18 pm)Sounds interesting. Thanks for the link.
I personally like the idea of the large 1600 MW plants outside of the city that run full time but small reactors for a small town or some type of industrial plant should be considered. This concept sounds interesting. Hopefully something good will come of their work.
I hate to be pessimistic but I have been reading about promising fusion breakthroughs for a long time. Like everyone else, I hope they succeed. I have just stopped getting excited by these types of things.
I hope I live long enough to see the day when this type of power hits the grid.
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:25 pm)I am equally concerned about our aging nuclear plants. The sensible thing to do is to select one design as you suggest. Then after the plants are rebuilt, any new plants can be of a newer design. By putting this SOP in place now and with adequate staffing, NRC can get that one design approved and have plenty of time to approve new designs. Hopefully not thousands of man years!
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:33 pm)If that is true then how can Ebay save $100,000 over nine months by using five BloomEnergy 100KW es5000 units?
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:36 pm)Same here; it will be an exciting time. We can phase out all but military nuclear reactors; no more huge piles of nuclear wastes with long half-lives; fewer worries over terrorism. A peaceful smile that my sons will have a real future.
BloomEnergy CEO KR Sridhar may have the right idea in hand with 5KW neighborhood unites that we will be able to see.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:39 pm)Holy Crow! I just want a VOLT! (lol)
Be well,
Tagamet
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:40 pm)There are more costs associated with NGCC plants than just those mentioned. Most notably operation and maintainance beyond fuel cost. NGCC requires a facility, Bloom Server IS the facility. Certainly Bloom has to bring their cost down, but scale for competitive fuel pricing is not an issue for apples to apples comparison. Bloom has a tremendous scaling advantage over NGCC.
Feb 28th, 2010 (9:45 pm)Don’t believe everything you read, or at least not so unquestioningly. They don’t give details but I’ld wager the $100k is the raw grid electricity cost offset.
Feb 28th, 2010 (10:02 pm)The really weird thing is that the nuclear waste problem was solved over 50 years ago, but nobody seems to be interested. LFTR’s can burn nuclear waste, and also run on cheap Thorium.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk
It’s cheap, safe, and the reason it was abandoned is because you can’t make bombs from it.
Feb 28th, 2010 (10:05 pm)I do not think I can get a Bloom box anytime soon. So how about a Volt?
Feb 28th, 2010 (10:12 pm)Let’s see.. 5 units at $700,000 = $3.5M $100k/9 months = $133k/yr into $3.5M = 26 years payback. Not exactly spectacular. Even worse for a home unit.
Feb 28th, 2010 (10:13 pm)I have it on good authority that the Volt will be coming out sometime soon.
Be well,
Tagamet
Feb 28th, 2010 (10:27 pm)Can you provide a link proving any of this? Natural uranium is “enriched” to make it suitable for nuclear reactors, and I never heard of them being able to burn thorium. The radio-active waste is more dangerous than the raw material. There are some plans to modify conventional reactors to be able to have some thorium added to reduce costs, but this is not how current reactors run.
Feb 28th, 2010 (10:30 pm)I “Don’t believe everything” I “read, or at least not so unquestioningly.”
If it’s not my field of expertise, I go online and research the topic. If you disbelieve everything you hear, your apt to become a skeptic. Is that just a guess on your part?
As we get more information about the Bloom Box, we will get an answer to that in the future. Until then I’m inclined to believe what their CEO stated. “eBay expects a three-year payback period for the remaining half, based on California’s $0.14/kWh cost of commercial electricity.[21]”
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Feb 28th, 2010 (10:52 pm)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor#Fuel_cycles
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.