SPECIAL FEATURES:
Email
Hype builds around mysterious Bloom Box
Bloom Energy's flagship solid oxide fuel cell is a cleaner, greener 'power plant in a box.'
Mon, Aug 30 2010 at 4:52 PM
Related Topics:
Image: Bloom Energy
After a recent 60 Minutes airing about Bloom Energy, California-based Bloom Energy is receiving a new wave of hype around its flagship SOFC (solid oxide fuel cell). Both Google and Ebay have purchased the "mini power plants in a box" and are banking on the units as a way to ensure a steady stream of greener, cleaner power. But let's be clear, this is not totally "clean" energy.
Fuel cells have been around for decades, but until new the solid oxide technology, which dispenses with toxic acids and precious minerals — has remained out of reach due to the high temperatures (800 degrees or more) required to make the fuel cell work.
But founder K.R. Sridhar discovered a solution while developing a technology to produce oxygen for a NASA mission to Mars. After the mission was abandoned, Sridhar realized that if he inverted his process (consuming rather than producing oxygen) he had the makings of a durable, reliable SOFC.
Bloom Energy was born, and thanks to backer Kleiner Perkins was able to develop an industrial-scale model that is now being used by Walmart, Google and Ebay. Each 100 kilowatt unit costs about $750,000, but the buyers expect to recoup their investments in five years through energy savings.
This is certainly a game changer on the clean energy front. Instead of COMBUSTING fuels like coal and natural gas to drive steam turbines (how most of the world's power generation works) the fuel cells work by OXIDIZING the fuel, which is inherintly more efficient, possibly even two times as efficient.
To be clear, these devices need liquid hydrocarbon fuel (lots of it) like gasoline or propane, though Bloom can also work on biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel. Also, though founder Mr. Sridhar talks about "sand" as the primary material required, that's a wee bit disingenuous. Yes the ceramic disks (printed with annode and cathode minerals on each side) are made from a sand-like material, but that most likely is a scandia stabilized zirconia, based on a reading of Bloom's U.S. patent. Scandium oxide is not an abundantly produced mineral -- less than 2,000 kg per year -- and it costs up to $2000 per kilogram.
So Bloom energy is no global panacea, but if you think about the amount of dirty power that big Fortune 500 companies like Google and Walmart are currently pulling from coal power, Bloom Energy promises a major reduction in CO2 emissions over the long haul.
Also on MNN:
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
EDITORS' PICKS
Earn 100 points for signing up for a free iMeet trial now.
Sponsored by
Advertisement
TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON
- Student science experiment finds plants won't grow near Wi-Fi router
- 15 famous people who mysteriously disappeared
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- 9 habits that may do more harm than good
- World's oldest beehive discovered in ancient church
- Why you should not plant bamboo in your yard
- Man looks for missing cat, finds 'UFO' instead
- 8 alarmingly unhealthy snacks to avoid
- Can 1 miracle plant solve the world's 3 greatest problems?
- 5 mind-bending facts about dreams
From our sponsor
Follow us:
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
I hope everyone pays attention to this little fact: "Scandium oxide is not an abundantly produced mineral -- less than 2,000 kg per year --" Is that enough to power the whole world? If not, then what happens if everyone in the whole world wants to get their hands on this rare mineral? Greed? War? If that's the case, let's continue to work with the renewables, please: Sun, Wind, Water, Bio.
Of course there is a lot of hype, but if you could tie this into a compositing septic/organic waste system for a methane source & use solar heating to volatilize plastics for yet more fuel you could possibly cut way down on your need to tap into a Natural Gas source... capturing the resulting CO2 from the fuel cell and feeding it into your personal greenhouse for plant food would close the cycle even more. Now just make it affordable. Someday...someday.
Dubious ROI aside, I was under the impression that the fuel cell uses a hydrocarbon gas, not liquid. So you hook it up to your fossil fuel natural gas line, or if available, landfill gas. The best use of these would therefore be landfill & composting sites and other places (like mining pits) where excess methane is flarred. Oil rigs might even be a good place to put them for local use.
$750,000 for 100kW? Not including fuel or maintenance costs? Let's see:
100kw x 8,760 total hours in a year x $.12/kWh average avoided costs = $105,120
So in 5 years you've recouped $525,600 IF everything works 100% and NOT including the costs of adding fossil fuel to the system. This is total hype!
YOU CAN'T FOOL MOTHER NATURE!
How much is th e governmnet subsuy? That changes the recoup cost.
This isn't a truly sustainable alternative, but it is definitely an improvement. I'm curious to know what further innovations will come from this one.