The Bloom Box

[fabricator]

Did anybody see 60 Minutes last night? They had a segment on a former NASA rocket scientist who has come up with a very simple and inexpensive fuel cell, it takes in fuel and air and makes electricity. the more wafers you stack together the more power comes out, it uses filtered normal pressure air and can use just about any fuek, nat gas, propane, petroleum fuels, bio gasses and fuels, there are several large silicon valley companies already using the boxes, the CEO of ebay says the natural gas used by their system coasts half the price of the grid electricity they were using, I'm just as jaded as most of us about these cheap electricity flash in the pan things, but one of these days one will come along that really works, the official unveiling of the project is this wednesday.

[gizmoguy]

I just watched it myself because someone at work was talking about it.  It was very interesting.  I'm skeptical because I think that the system will be more expensive than the inventor hopes and it hasn't proven itself long term yet...but still neat and worth watching.

Whats up with those giant containers for the little boxes though?  What runs through the cylinders?

-Gizmoguy

[fabricator]

I think the container size depends on the amount of the little black boxes that need to be stacked to get the power required for a given application, I have no idea what the cylinders are for, unless it is for fuel conditioning or something.

[jwilson]

one of the things I think the average non-power-techie-type might not grasp is how it's all a trade off of one source of energy for another; those of us here can see you

need a constant source of fuel(biogas, LP, natural gas, etc.)to supply your fuel cell to make your electricity. At nearly $3.00 a gallon for propane, I'd like to see some numbers as far as cost/KWh for their cell. It could make sense as a substitute for a backup generator and because it doesn't burn the fuel, carbon emissions are collected on the plates(which eventually would need to be changed/cleaned, etc.). Different types of fuel would require different conditioning equipment, and I think the 60 Minutes report and viewing of the "guts" of one of their boxes showed that, although they were quick to note all the proprietary coatings and "industrial secrets" which still are closely guarded. One more piece to add to our energy puzzle, we'll keep an eye on Bloom...

[zap]

Full video here:http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n

"In 5 to 10 years we would like to be in every home... A unit should cost less than $3,000."

Interesting video for sure.

[Tritium]

I will believe it when it is in the store for purchase. There have been too many promises in my 51 years and NONE have see fruition to date.

Thurmond

[Airstream]

Nothing is saying what the stacked plates operating temperature is - so a mojority of the interior of the house is to support the environmental controls and provide insulation for the stack...

[fabricator]

You have one year on me, and one does tend to become jaded on these things.

[bob golding]

dont know about this system,but H2 systems need to have really clean fuel or the catalyst gets sour and need replacing after a time making them to expensive. its a long way from the lab to being viable out in the real world. hesting water to make steam still has a lot going for it. at least it is a known technology with all its faults. you can fix it with a spanner and a hammer. ok a big hammer, dont try this with a nuclear reactor though.

   

[Ronnn]

I feel that most of us here are naturally skeptical about these kinds of things. We all hope it works. It's a long way around to get to some answers, but I recently viewed the Crash Course on line. It's a free presentation on our economic system, our energy system and the environment. It is non political and not about global warming at all. You were reaching for the hook weren't you?

 It contains no really new information, on the contrary most of the info is historical, part of the public record or taken from govt. websites. What makes it compelling for me, is these three Es are examined as an inter related system. [which they always have been]  The reason I bring it up is in the environment section, which is about where our energy is comming from, Chirs Martenson talks about Net energy. How much energy it takes to get more energy. He mentions hydrogen production as having a negative net energy. Regarding ethanol from corn, he says you might just as well launch barrels of oil into space.

The thing about looking at this stuff in a system makes sense when you look at the underpinnings of modern society. [any modern society]  It is utterly dependent on surplus energy at an affordable cost to create the complexity many people call everyday life. As oil prices continue to climb a time will come when society will have to decide weather to spend shrinking resources continue growing or to look for more abundant and cheaper energy.

 There is nothing on the horizon to fill that bill according to Chris Martenson. And he examines each candidate individually starting with uranium.  I never realized what a strangle hold oil has on modern society. No other energy source is in the same ball park, he includes natural gas with the oil figures. We are on, or rapidly approaching the negative side of the extraction curve where it will continually cost more money to get the oil out of the earth. This is not an opinion but commonly understood to be how extraction curves work. Most of these are exponential curves. If you don't know what those are...... please find out. These are key to understanding the dynamics in play in the entire system. Often referred to as life in these here U S's of A.

http://www.chrismartensen.com.     Click on the crash course link.

I bring all this up because there are some good minds here and I wonder if anyone has seen Crash Course and what your take is on his presentation. This isn't stuff he has come up with, just another way to look at what is already out there and much of it not up for debate on it's veracity. If much of what he says is valid many of us here are already on the right track. But we might want to think about a green house and a garden. I think 30% of the oil this country uses is spent on agribiddness. Renewables don't come close to being ready to fill any gaps in the future between what is needed and what there is. I sincerely hope this guy is a nut case. I'd love to discuss this further off list if anyone takes the time to view the material. It's 20 short videos varying in length from about 8 to maybe 17 minutes. Apologies if this is off topic. It seems related to why we are all here. And certainly to this thread. I hope.

Ron

[TomW]

These fuel cells are NOT Renewable Energy and therefore just another way to squander a valuable feedstock as fuel.

They are just new and [of course improved] ways to keep us using the same hydrocarbon fuels that got us into this mess.

What works in the lab seldom works in the real world.

Those reasons are why I personally find them marginally, if at all, topical here.

And, 60 minutes. Hehe I find them to be just another extension of the Corporate agenda to keep you all on the same mindless profit laden track that led us here.

Probably the best thing since sliced bread but I will wait til I can see one in use in a home or business before I get a woody over the technology.

Not what everyone wanted to read but valid points, I believe.

Just an opinion.

Think about it. Really think about it.

Tom

[willib]

All i can say is wow!!

It would be one thing if the device was not in use anywhere , and just a lab experiment..

But It IS in use, Corporate offices of Google are testing them, as well as Ebay and several others.

And one company was using Biogas from a landfill for fuel for the device..

Zap thanks for the video

very cool stuff

[TomW]

And:

Jay Leno has an awesome VAWT powering his garage!

There were WMDs in Iraq!

Thalidimide was safe for pregnant women!

And I said "Until I see one..".

Yeah, believe what you want.

Please understand what I wrote before responding.

Tom

[willib]

Yeah i understand..

They are NOT renewable devices ..

They probably WILL use some form of fossil fuel in most applications.

all I was saying was that they ARE pretty cool.

i wasn't raggin on ya

[fabricator]

Tom as with all technology there is no such thing as all bad or all good, a fuel cell like this using celulosic ethanol would be a much better use for it than mixing with gasoline and burning it in cars, or, in my case using the biproduct from my biodiesel production to make bio gas and using that as a fuel.

You simply can't say this technology can be used to burn fossil fuels and therefore is no good.

[TomW]

Fabricator;

Yes, it is interesting technology.

I am still waiting for my flying car! I saw that on TV in the '70s.

Mostly boils down to differences in philosophy.

Oil and its cousins are resources that I feel it is a crying shame to use for fuels when they are such great feedstocks for other rather important applications.

Sorry, I did not mean to slam your post. I just have seen literally thousands of these type great ideas that were just scams, wannabe technology or attention seeking that diverts attention from the real problem of our societal addiction to petroleum at any cost.

Still waiting for my carbon credits to show up in the bank account for carbon sequestered by our  400 acres of timber every year.

All part of the same game.

Just a [jaded] opinion.

I will shut up now.

Tom

 

[dnix71]

Decentralized production of electricity would be nice. Even if the fuel cell has modest efficiency, just being able to do away with the grid would save staggering amounts of money and metal (copper and aluminum).

I see the biggest problem as fuel purity. NASA stuff in space is absolutely pure/dust free. Even small impurities would gum up the fuel cell. Methanol might make a practical fuel. With only one carbon atom, it isn't hard to make.

[fabricator]

Hey, absolutely no offense taken, I consider myself more than jaded, closer to jaundiced.

[fabricator]

Right now almost all methanol is synthesized from natural gas.

[REdiculous]

I wonder if it would run off Producer/Wood Gas.

[Perry1]

The Bloom box is nothing more than a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. This is one of the older fuel cell technologies and there has been many attempts to commercialize them. There is a pretty good explanation of them here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxide_fuel_cell

In a nutshell they are a high temp Fuel Cell with internal reforming, allowing them to run on a variety of hydrocarbon fuels. Due to the higher temps and multiple points of reformation they are not as susceptible to poisoning from trace gasses, such as CO. One of their best qualities is their ability to run on dirty fuels.

Usually, since the reaction is highly exothermic the waste heat is captured and used for cogen apps (mostly heating). I wonder if their efficiency calcs are based on this.

Traditionally problems with SOFC's have been rooted in mechanical designs of the seals at temp, thermal expansion cycles, and disintegration/cracking of the plates or tubes under use. Mostly materials problems, not technology.

I know people that work for Bloom and they are the real deal. In a previous career I worked for 10 yrs on fuel cell research (the real things not the HHO crap)

If your interested in whats in a fuel cell and how they work and don't mind hearing me blab about you can see a video I made here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA0y85Urttc

Perry

[hydrosun]

the only place I see for fuel cells is where fossil fuel is already being used for heating. Instead of heat you would also get higher value electrical energy. This would be one way to stretch out the dwindling supplies of fossil fuel.  You can also look at solar panels as doing the same thing, Input some fossil fuel and get more electrical energy out than if the fuel was put into a gas powered generator.

Chris

[willib]

the stories are coming fast and furiously now

if ya do a google news on bloom box , they are coming in by the second..

[BigBreaker]

Their gadget sounded like a SOFC - nice to have it confirmed.

I just wanted to point out that fuel cells are not heat engines and are not subject to Carnot limits.  I don't know what the electrical efficiency of the Bloom Box is but it could be quite high ~ 40+%.  Wiki says the theoretical efficiency is 60%.

The high temperatures of a SOFC can be harvested in a heat engine to "cool" the device - IE keep it from overheating.  Remember that a fuel cell doesn't need to reject heat into a low temp sink.  Doing a "combined cycle" is even more efficient than it would be in a multi-stage thermal plant.

SOFC should work fine with wood gas.  H2 and CO will both pull oxygen ions across the oxide interace.  SOFC work by chemically attracting (pulling) oxygen ions through an oxide interface but making their electrons flow around a circuit to meet up with their oxygen ion partner.  There's your power.

[Perry1]

The Bloom viral marketing stunt has me troubled. I guess we will all learn more on Wed but the 60 min interview was a total farce. It was carefully edited and scripted to be vague. You notice how they really downplayed the 'fuel' aspect. Insinuating it can run on wind and solar infers that you electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen and run the fuelcell on that. Efficiency would be horrid. This approach is similar to the ground breaking Segway transportation device that was to revolutionize humanity. Same guy funded both so the parallels are blatant.

I worked at Plug Power as they plowed through $500 million dollars bringing their $3000 backyard generator to market. I also worked on a team 10 yrs ago that installed a UTC PC25 250 kW solid oxide system powered by CNG similar to what Bloom is touting. All this hype is just as it was back then. It has come full circle.  

I think that as more info comes out we will see that Bloom is also cursed with the harsh realities of physics and natural science that we all are and there is a substantial amount of fluff here. If there is carbon in the fuel, there will be carbon in the byproduct. Their model has you trading wires leading to your house for a bigger gas pipe leading to your house. I imagine they will have a better efficiency though so that is good.

Perry

[Basil]

I'm still waiting on the( self running motor ) to power your house.

Only when fuel cost is to high and limited. Will any of this stuff

(That Works )Hit the market.

[bob golding]

given that this thing actually will work for longer than the attention span of the media i can see a novel way of using it. in the uk new feed in tariffs for home produced electricity are coming in soon. 36.5 pence  per KWH for retrofit solar pv. now  if one was to use a bloombox on a good low price gas tariff and feed the electricity back to the grid together with the solar pv one  could maybe make a profit. still think you would have a hard job competing with solar pv and  solar hot water. might be viable with a biogas system for farms maybe. i get the idea the early adopters will be testing the reliability.

[wild01]

if you do the math on these at current rates they are not even remotely feasible, cost wise. google installed 5 units, the units cost $800,000 each in 9 months they saved $100,000 on their electrical costs. so 800,000*5=4,000,000 4million dollars spent divided by 100k saved equals 40. 40*9(months)/12(months)30 year payoff. 50% gov't subsity=15 year payoff (while we the public foot the rest of the bill) these aren't even as cost effective as solar, investment wise. and they are light years more expensive then a good old combined cycle gas turbine i/e. with Heat Recovery Steam Generation. (and run on the same fuel) hrsg generation is getting efficiencies from 60 to 75%

     in order to make these things feasible they need a 5-10 year payoff w/o subsities. if they can achieve that then they will be ideal for a hybrid solar and or wind farm stabilizer system. (right now both solar and wind are notoriously unreliable as grid power sources because they cannot be depended upon to produce power when it is actually needed) every wind farm run has to be backed up with an alternate power source to "chase" it and stabilize the output. these power sources have to have fast reaction times and severe cycling duties. (they have to turn on and off constantly) right now inefficient old gas turbines (about 30%efficient) are the main source of this chasing tech. (the more efficient new turbines are made with much tighter tolerances and cannot take the fast cycling) one plant I was rebuilding last month is even looking at putting in a whole bank of reciprocating engine generators (like in a car) specifically to chase the wind farms because of their ability to be cycled faster. but these are notoriously inefficient.

so if the bloom boxes come down in price by 75% then they may just be a feasible alternative, but barring that, they make about as much sense as hiring people to run on generating treadmills to power the world. (it would produce energy, but at a huge cost)


     Of course if you are reading between the lines here you will see why most non-hydro renewable energy systems are so laughable to many in the power gen industry. mathematically it just doesn't save us anything to run off of renewables. (combined cycle eff 60%(min) chaser tech for wind and solar 30%) so while you may get fuel free energy from the wind and sun it has to be stabilized by running generators that are half as efficient as the generators that are continuously run, and fuel cost per watt washes.

sorry if this goes off on a tangent, but...

[bob golding]

hi all good points. i couldt agree more. the only technology that looks faintly viable imho are vanadium redox cells. at least they have been built in the sizes needed for wind farm stabilising use. there are 2 companies currently in the market that i know of. prudent energy in china and v-fuel in australia. there are still cost issues with small scale,but they address the issues you mention with speed. gone a bit off topic here,but we dont have rants and opinion anymore.

[TomW]

01;

I think most of this only applies to centralized generation.

Which, again, is the main problem I see in our electrical generation, both from an efficiency and a security standpoint.

Renewables gives us a higher level of compartmentalization and therefore it becomes a more secure system.

I do not have a reference to hand but I also recall that a fair amount of energy is consumed simply transporting power from large centralized generation facilities.

Smart Grid anmd all the other BIG schemes will suffer these same problems.

Again, just my opinion but I know if the grid goes away I have enough to survive. These same schemes can be applied on an area by area basis.

Of course the consumers will need to be responsible for managing their use.

It will not be easy but easy is what got us here in the first place. It is time to Cowboy up and do it right and, IMHO, that does not include mega projects by G.E., Martin Marrietta, Lockheed or General Dynamics.

Not what lots of folks want to hear but there you go.

Tom

[fabricator]

Tom, I'm pretty sure you aint gettin no arguments from about 98.5 percent of the members here.

[BigBreaker]

Well residential production allows for co-gen and the SOFC beats Carnot, so even if you ran these things on coal it would be a revolution at the right price and lifespan.

SOFCs are a materials problem.  Ceramics are brittle and the plates need to be thin to diffuse the oxygen ions efficiently.  Next you have the 1000c operating temperature that will always have to cycle down to 30c at some point for maintenance or simply no power is needed.

The thermal expansion and contraction of materials going through a temperature change like that is brutal on seals.  Metals expand a lot more than ceramics and that puts huge stresses on the unit.  My first thought would be to make the whole hot part out of the same ceramic and use a counter current heat exchanger and/or cooling to bring the temperatures down before attempting a materials interface.

If you were building these things than you are probably the better authority but I mean to echo your skepticism that a start-up could solve these issues.  I love the reference to the "inks" on the plates.  Ink implies pigment, which implies some sort of photochemical effect, which is utter nonsense in the context of hydrocarbon cracking or fuel cell operation.

[Bruce S]

I too watched the entire spot, even taped it on the VCR so I could watch it over & over if I wanted/needed to.

There was more to the story , of course, but was glad to see that 60min at least had one skeptic on their talking about once it's out the likes of GE will come in and make them cheaper and possibly under cut him (which is what GE is good at doing).

I'll keep a watchful eye on this one. The Tech is stable, and was the site settles down it'll be easier to really look at what's what.

The issue is that IF, this really works for the homeowner, then the big boys may not want this anyway.

Being on the grid, and looking at this from a city homeowner I can see 15 different ways the like of grid power and Nat'l gas providers will say "HOLD ON PEOPLE".

Lots of safety will need to be put in place to keep people from plugging the kiddies into one of these.

B4 anything like that really goes to public purchase, things like gas pressure, feedstock needs and amount needed per hour will need to be known.

The professor, to his credit, has a good idea and seemed genuine on the Tele.

The proof is in the puddin so to speek.

I'll withhold knocking it until I see more.

The one really good thing about the internet is that people can get information good or bad much easier.

Cheers

Bruce S