Save money now: 27 ways to lower your utility bills
In the current economic climate, its been a bit rough for those that want to go green on a budget. Not everyone can...
Read the rest of this articleBloom Box’s radical claims and secrecy on par with Eestor
Sweeping energy promises from an ultra-secretive company sound familiar? It would if you’ve followed Eestor’s claims that it can produce the world’s next generation ultracapacitor batteries. The Bloom Box from Bloom Energy seems to be following in those footsteps with its recent coverage on 60 Minutes, and it places just enough facts in the public sphere to leave us salivating but skeptical.
An example? eBay CEO John Donahoe walking around on his campus claiming that 5 Bloom Boxes have saved his company over $100,000 in 9 months (video below). What he doesn’t mention though is how much of an investment those Bloom Boxes required, which according to data from the company would be conservatively $700,000 a piece or $3.5 million.
At that rate of savings, $133,333 per 12 months, eBay would be looking at a break even point in a little over 26 years. Of course, there might be other parts of the cost equation that aren’t public and eBay is getting lots of positive press by associating itself with a new “green” energy source. But for end consumers that sort of timeline would be unacceptable.
Bloom Energy acknowledges that with its consumer pricing scheme that would make smaller units available for household use for around $3,000 each (according to 60 Minutes). That would place the unit in an affordable range for many, especially if it dramatically reduces energy costs.
So how does the Bloom Box work? It utilizes an array of fuel cells that absorb oxygen on one side and a fuel source on the other side. That fuel source could be a fossil fuel-based product or a product from some sort of renewable energy process. The oxygen and fuel source combine inside the fuel cell to generate energy without any combustion.
The Bloom Box is wireless and 60 Minutes likens it to the advent of cell phones and laptops which took a process that was once centralized and created a distributed system. This could potentially place power in everyone’s backyard and may result in significant change for the energy consumption landscape.
Google, Staples, WalMart, and eBay are all companies that have invested in Bloom Boxes and are participating in a pilot. It paints Bloom Energy in a sort of celebrity status reality distortion field which makes discerning reality difficult. More to come as the company reveals more when its countdown ends.
- Login to post comments
Advertisement
Follow us
Monthly archive
- June 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (16)
- April 2011 (18)
- March 2011 (31)
- February 2011 (29)
- January 2011 (30)
- December 2010 (18)
Comments
Matt, I think you're payback analysis is incomplete. There's a 30% Federal Investment Tax Credit for renewable energy equipment, so now instead of $3.5MM to save $1.33MM annually, the ITC knocks the price tag down to $2.45MM. Then there's accelerated Federal depreciation and standard CA depreciation, which if eBay's marginal tax rate total up to 40%, which will lower the price tag further to $1.4MM. Now, given that electricity inflation in CA has averaged over 7% per year for the past 40 years, BloomBoxes should pay back in more like 6-8 years.
But that's if Bloom can scale production, no easy feat. For example, the thin film PV guys had been struggling with scaling up similar substrate for years. BP threw in the towel, and it's not like they lack for resources. And BloomBoxes need to prove that they can work reliably for decades. Accelerated stability testing is nice, and MTBF is a useful statistical tool, but I would probably want to see these things working in field for 9 years, not 9 months, before I pulled the trigger. Because if I sink serious money into these boxes and Bloom is just another colossal Kleiner Perkins failure, like Wine.com, GO Corporation, Webvan, then instead of me simply buying my wine, handheld PC, or groceries from another vendor, I'd be stuck with pretty, black non-functional sculpture on my lawn and nobody to stand behind my warranty.
Actually what I'm curious about is the efficiency rate of the BloomBox fuel cell... Natural gas power plants and reach near 60% efficiency (according to US Natural Gas) and average loss accross the grid is about 7% (calculated by total power generated by electric companies vs total power sold).
Another thing to think about is how "green" is this... Natural gas is CH4. So likely we're looking at:
2 02 + CH4 = 2 H20 + CO2?
Just curious.
Also, the payback analysis needs to consider the capital that would have been spent buying alternative equipment at the end of its lifespan.
Has no-one pointed out that this thing will have to run off fossil fuels? If you want to use wind, solar, hydro ... you need power lines!
How is this different than just an efficient diesel generator? By far the majority of the input for this device, e.g. gas, liquid fuel will be fossil fuel. You can't provide peoples electricity needs from gas/liquid bio-fuels no matter how efficient it is.
The other thing completely missed is if course if it is cheaper for a home owner, then it will be much cheaper for a power company! Why wouldn't a power company order thousands of them, make electricity cheaper and sell it as normal? This whole concept makes no logical sense.
Your logic is flawed. This is a very, very efficient gas generator and there's nothing wrong with that. Think 60% fewer greenhouse gas to produce the same amount of energy. How is that not a good thing?
The whole point of this is cheap, scalable, efficient electricity produced efficiently at the location of use.
Bloom + Eeestor = HOPE
They do not say if they emit CO2 or how much. Simple chemistry says the carbon has to go somewhere.They also neglect a little thing called system efficiency. How many kW did they say? If the filters clog and shut down the system, the inside is insulated to the max, and they must be kept outside I think we are just being told the tip of the iceberg. A VERY EXPENSIVE one at that.
simple chemistry says you flunked chemistry. same chemical reaction, yes, but very different path to generate electricity. Fuel cells are extremely efficient becasue they don't attempt to convert mechanical energy into electricity. no moving parts...no oil change....no tramission losses....get the picture?
Since it uses natural gas now, it's feasible that it could run off methane in the future. With no moving parts, and quiet operation, I think it's a great move towards personal energy production. I'd buy a methane one. Fuel cells are a great technology that need to be accepted and mass produced to bring the prices down.
great point. I admire your forward thinking.
For all of you posting about fossil fuels and CO2, read up on fuel cells and educate yourselves. It amazes me how many people post what they say are facts or valid statements without knowing what they are talking about. These are fuel cell generators that use Hydrogen and oxygen to make electricity. If you put pure hydrogen in them you get only water as your exhaust. If you put Fossil Fuels (HydroCarbons) in then yes, you will get CO2, CO, sulfur, and other emissions but at significantly less than a coal plant or diesel generator would. Also, having the power at your house means less loss of power over transmission lines and no mass power outages during storms.
Unless your bloom box get's hit which generating electricity does tend to attract, would love to see a statistical analysis of strinking if any has occurred and what the effect on the system is. However that said, in an early CBS report they did mention CO2 output being high but I was most curious when he stated solar and electricity could be used as fuel sources, not sure if he meant it, overzealous or selling waterfront property in Arizona. Great idea and I do hope something pans out but until we have more details such as even though they mentioned savings on electricity for 9 months in test case they never mention increase in cost of natural gas used or how much natural gas was used as that source could be taxed to much if this option got widespread adoption. Doesn't mean not very good but taxing one system to avoid another system is always a better option.
EESTor should not be used in the same sentence with Bloom Box.
Bloomenergy (Bloom Box) has a a functional product which has been purchased and installed in the real world.
No one outside Dick Weir's (CEO EESTOR) fantasy world has seen a functional "next generation ultracapacitor batteries" which meets it's patent claims since 2001. If you have, send one to the DOE.
http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1040403_doe-aware-of-eestor-but-has-never-seen-functioning-technology
It's great to make bold claims when you don't have a product.
Yeah, several companies have done this in the past then disappeared one night with all the money.
Bloom has a shot. They may or may not have brought down materials and processing costs...we don't really know their production costs.
Bloom will go after high value, green-PR-seeking, tax-incentive-seeking organizations in the near term. That's supply and demand. When your technology is most exclusive because you haven't ramped up production yet, go after customers willing to pay the most, first.
They will probably try to go public in 12 to 18 months. Watch for the financials they release at that time to get a better sense of their total potential.
So what is the big deal? This fuel cell sounds like it costs less than other cells but is still 7-10x the cost of standard plants. You still burn carbon. I don't get it.
Bloom Energy is poised to change the clear power market! With proven outcomes at FedEx, Google, BoA, and eBay, Bloom has shown how they'll reduce energy costs and carbon footprints. Let's hope the price drops from $700K to the goal of $3K fast enough to maneuver from commercial to residential buyers.