6 ms·
The Bloom Box: An Energy Breakthrough?
- dpapathanasiou 17y agoI just saw the broadcast; it doesn't seem the video is up yet.
- samps 17y agoThis article is ludicrously short on technical details -- anyone have more?
- Devilboy 17y agoThe system uses natural gas to generate electricity locally. They say it's up to 85% efficient if you also use the heat it generates to heat your home. Modern large scale natural gas-powered plants seems to be about 60% efficient according to my quick Google searches. If this thing is cheap enough it could be worthwhile, but only in cold climates where you can use the generated heat.
- seriousken 17y agoDoes that 60% figure include transmission losses, or is it just thermal efficiency? I'm guessing the latter.
- Devilboy 17y agoTransmission losses are probably not included, but for reference this new device is only 35% efficient if you cannot use the heat it generates. If your house (or the weather) is already warm enough, you're not going to come out ahead.
- hammmatt 17y agoThe industry standard for measuring the efficiency of a power generator does not include transmission losses. However, I have seen people include it in the past as a way of manipulating the numbers. I doubt this is the case with this number. It should be close to 60%
- seriousken 17y agoIf it doesn't include transmission losses, then how can you meaningfully compare the net efficiency of a colocated device vs. a remote power station?
- cookingrobot 17y agoA more efficient natural gas generator is fine, but not exactly "green" compared to wind, solar, thermal, hydro, nuclear or other carbon neutral tech. Does this device include carbon capture, or does it just spew CO2?
- joezydeco 17y agoThe Bloom energy cell supposedly works without combustion. So no CO/CO2 etc. But there have to be some byproducts somewhere.
- nradov 17y agoCombustion has nothing to do with it. If it's a natural gas fuel cell then it's reacting mainly CH4 and O2 to produce mostly H2O and CO2, plus electricity and heat. http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/technology.asp#fuelcells http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/technology.asp#fuelcel...
- mbrubeck 17y agoYeah, apparently it can (and does) run on methane captured from landfills. That plus efficiency provides the "green" angle.
- easp 17y agoMost of the reason that natural gas generators are not more efficient is that utilities aren't willing to pay for that efficiency. Natural gas is more expensive than coal but it can be used in realively inexpensive gas-turbine generators that can be spun up and down quickly to meet rapid swings in demand. Since those plants are only opearted part-time, utilities worry more about capital efficiency than fuel efficiency. Unless these things are cheaper, their added efficiency might not win many existing natural gas generation customers.
- shib71 17y agoIs it just me or is the writing style oddly insubstantial? I can't put my finger on it.
- BigZaphod 17y agoIMO, it reads almost like a fictional news interview for a TV show. :/
- gojomo 17y agoSeems like a transcript of the TV segment -- so compared to something that was written to be read, it's more informal, less substantial, more dependent on timing/delivery (which is lost in the transcript) for its effect on the listener.
- dandelany 17y agoThe Sabatier reaction creates methane and water from CO2 and hydrogen: CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O NASA is investigating its use for harvesting water from exhaled CO2 on the ISS, and it has been proposed as a way to make fuel on mars. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction] Based on the way it's presented in the video, I'm guessing he may have found a way to catalyze this reaction in reverse using methane and water as fuel, and probably also reharvesting the leftover H2 in the process. (Granted, I have no clue if any of this is possible). This process must inevitably produce CO2, but the question is, does it produce significantly less of it than the current "generate power in one place and ship it around the country" system? If so, it must be heralded for what it is - an incremental improvement in energy efficiency; and companies will treat it as such, as it will be cheaper. But it's not an be-all, end-all solution to our problems.
- dandelany 17y agoCheck out this 2008 patent application with Sridhar's name on it: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080318092 http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080318092 Abstract: A high temperature electrochemical system, such as a solid oxide fuel cell system, generates hydrogen and optionally electricity in a fuel cell mode. At least a part of the generated hydrogen is separated and stored or provided to a hydrogen using device. A solid oxide regenerative fuel cell system stores carbon dioxide in a fuel cell mode. The system generates a methane fuel in an electrolysis mode from the stored carbon dioxide and water by using a Sabatier subsystem. Alternatively, the system generates a hydrogen fuel in an electrolysis mode from water alone.
- _debug_ 17y agoThanks for the detective work!
- nazgulnarsil 17y agohe invented a new kind of fuel cell but no papers have been published. i call BS. the fact that its marketed as "green" typically means it costs much more than current solutions but "people should be happy to pay because its good for the environment."
- pingswept 17y agoI agree with you, even though your shift key is broken. I don't think it's useful to discuss new green technology without mentioning the cost. If we ignore cost, the energy problem has been totally solved for decades.
- shrikant 17y agoBorked Shift key or laziness? Where are the double-quotes coming from? ;)
- brandon272 17y agoI highly recommend watching the video. I'm a skeptic, but this is exciting. No emissions from the power generation itself; they have large customers already (Google, eBay, Wal-Mart, Staples).
- dandelany 17y agoIf you got "no emissions from the power generation itself" from the video then you're not skeptic enough.
- danielharan 17y agoTechnology that takes oxygen and fossil fuels in, and out comes oxygen - with NO emissions? Bullshit. Matter doesn't just disappear; something else has to come out.
- pingswept 17y agoPerhaps the box is larger than it appears in the photo? Or made of latex?
- sethg 17y agoWell, natural gas turns into carbon dioxide and water when it combusts. But allegedly this box can run on other kinds of fuel as well.
- danielharan 17y agoso find me a fuel he mentions that combines with 02 to produce no emissions. Good luck.
- keenans 17y agoPart of the BusinessWeek article on Bloom from last December discusses emissions: "Though the technology consumes hydrocarbons, Sridhar says, it doesn't involve carbon-releasing combustion, so it emits only about half the greenhouse gases of conventional energy sources." http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2009/gb2009127_746740.htm http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2009/gb2009...
- Devilboy 17y agoThe carbon has to go somewhere! If it's not being converted to CO2 then what are they doing?
- teilo 17y agoPlease guys, read more carefully. He never claims that it releases "no emissions". He never said that it releases "no carbon". He said that it does not involve "carbon-releasing combustion". He specifically says that it releases about "half the emissions" of combustion, so there ARE carbon emissions. Nothing magically dissapears. There is less heat loss than with combustion reactions. Less heat loss = more energy density = less emissions per kW. This is fuel-cell 101. His exact quote: "The ceramic core acts as an electrode. At high temperatures, a hydrocarbon fuel, ethanol, biodiesel, methane, or natural gas on one side of the cell attracts oxygen ions from the other. As the ions are pulled through the solid core, the resulting electrochemical reaction creates electricity. Though the technology consumes hydrocarbons, Sridhar says, it doesn't involve carbon-releasing combustion, so it emits only about half the greenhouse gases of conventional energy sources."
- anateus 17y agoThere certainly aren't enough detail to call bullshit with true certainty, but this does exhibit several classic warning sign. Specifically the level of secrecy around the technical details. On the whole this seems to be some sort of non-combustion natural-gas-based fuel cell. Well... Could work. They tend to hand-wave a lot of details in these broadcasts, so they may just not have mentioned certain aspects. Would I get even a little bit excited before more proof emerges? Not an iota.
- johnnyb4 17y agoA bit further into the video, it says WalMart, eBay, Google, etc. all have these boxes installed. I'd be surprised if he's able to trick all of these companies into buying some fake technology.
- danielharan 17y agoFuel cells do work. The big giant warning flag is when they claim no emissions. So you put CH4 and 02 into this thing, and nothing comes out? Riiiight.
- anateus 17y agoI saw that. That's the one detail that makes me not dismiss it out of hand. I don't know what went into making those deals, but it is rather unlikely (though most certainly not impossible) that he was able to dupe all of them.
- _debug_ 17y agoTheir web site has a 2-day countdown timer, by the way: http://www.bloomenergy.com/ http://www.bloomenergy.com/
- joshu 17y agoI was hoping this would be about Bloom filters.
- hammmatt 17y agoIt would seem that there is a bit to much hype around the product. Perhaps as more information comes out, the more 'out there' claims will gain credulity. The real power of this discovery is going to be the ideas and patent behind it. Since the dawn of the industrial age we have depended on some form of combustion/heat generation to produce steam thus turning turbines and creating electricity. This technology might be the first real step in generating electricity cheaply and efficiently through more elegant processes. This may be the first iteration of changing the way humans gather electricity.