// you’re reading...

energy

my thoughts on the Bloom Box

Over the last few days, I’ve received emails from several friends requesting my thoughts on Bloom Energy. The Bloom Box looks interesting but the piece from 60 Minutes was incredibly misleading. The celebrities, the press releases and all the hype has looked like little more than just posturing for social capital in a competitive silicon valley environment.

Most of the reports on the Bloom Box’s capabilities are absolutely misrepresenting it. All it does is convert methane (natural gas) into electricity. Fuel cells are essentially batteries that consume fuel and typically they are no better than 50-80% efficient at converting a fuel source into a electricity. I can’t imagine the solid oxide based catalyst is much more efficient than that in converting methane gases into electricity. Additionally, solid oxide fuel cells are renowned for generating high heat bringing to question long-term durability. The electricity generated by the Bloom Box may be more efficient than the electricty generated by natural gas utility companies burn to match peak demand but only because that electricity won’t need to be transmitted.

That’s not to say that the Bloom Box could provide a revolution in distributed generation, it just isn’t a panacea to a world with rapidly shrinking net energy. The sheer level of excitement this thing has generated is an indication to me of how bad things really are. The “something will save us” mentality has never been stronger.

Let’s assume that the conversion efficiency is on the range of 80% though. The Oil Drum ran some calculations based on these assumptions:

Conservative assumptions based on the video: (All amounts in US $).

– $800,000 for a Bloom Box that generates power for 100 American Households
- American household energy usage is 10,000 kWh per year (10,600 in 2001)
- Bloom Box hence generates 1 million kwh per year at an investment cost of $800,000
- Production costs US for electricity from natural gas for residential use is $ 0.10 per kwh (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_3.html)
- costs for 1000 cubic foot of natural gas for residential use is 12 dollars (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm)
- 1 cubic foot of natural gas has an energy content of 1,034 BTU
- 1 kWh is equivalent to 3413 BTU spent in an hour
- Bloom Box can turn natural gas into electricity at an 80% conversion efficiency

Calculation:

– Costs per year for 1 million kWh from natural gas from centralized power sources is $100,000.
- 1000 cubic foot of natural gas gives 1,034,000 BTU which can be converted at 80% efficiency, hence 827,200 BTU of power which is equivalent to 242 kWh, costing $12 for the fuel. So 12/242 = $ 0.05 per kWh incorporating fuel costs only. Which amounts to a total fuel cost of $50,000 for 1 million kWh.

At an investment cost of $800,000 dollars it would take approximately 15 years (800,000 / 50,000) to pay back investments, excluding the costs of connecting to the grid.

If you are interested in the Bloom Box, here are some good references:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35590515/ns/technology_and_science/ and

http://ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3084

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/video-the-bloom-box-lands-and-the-unanswered-questions-are

A lot of people have tried fuel cells and have failed, that doesn’t mean Bloom Energy’s inks aren’t something truly revolutionary. I’ll be convinced when I see the data. Will we still know about Bloom Energy in 5 years? My guess is no but I hope I’m wrong.

Discussion

View Comments for “my thoughts on the Bloom Box”

  • Well, what if it used some sort of bio-fuel? Also, what do you say to the assertion that these boxes could be purchased by power companies and used instead of coal? This might defray costs, cause less pollution and make initial investment a non-issue.
  • The Bloom Box could probably use a form of hydrocarbon energy like that generated from a biological source but this would always lose out economically to natural gas. Natural gas emits much less CO2 than most other fuel sources so it is desirable for that reason and production will likely peak later than oil and net energy from coal so it could be around for a while.

    These boxes might be great candidates for electric utilities to use instead of centralized coal but it will take regulatory structures a while to get there. There wouldn't be any technical restrictions and the economics could easily be there, especially in 5 years. I'd like to see it happen. Utility companies tend to fear distributed generation, something like this could definitely provide a sustainable business model for a utility while enabling the many benefits of distributed generation.
blog comments powered by Disqus

tip jar for photos and more

Widget_logo

delicious