4 ms·

"The price includes maintenance, fuel and the amortized cost over the operative life of the fuel cell (ten years), along with the 30 percent federal tax credit

by javanix 16y ago

"The price includes maintenance, fuel and the amortized cost over the operative life of the fuel cell (ten years), along with the 30 percent federal tax credit and the California incentives available for companies that use the device." While still an improvement, without the 30% subsidies the rate would shoot up to ~$.11. Always important to keep subsidies in mind when dealing with new large-scale tech like this.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
As I read the sentence, it would be $0.11 plus whatever's in there from California's incentives. It looks to me like the 30% only refers to the federal subsidy.
- enjo 16y ago
  Ya.. it seems like a rather marginal savings really (without the credit).
  - cwan 16y ago
    This in itself is remarkable. Even if costs are at parity, this is still amazing given that the technology is continuing to improve / scale. I'd be curious / suspicious as to the discount rate they are using to calculate the present value of long term costs - this is where they can manipulate the numbers in their favor.
- uvdiv 16y ago
  The last link in the article seems to answer this: "A 100-kilowatt Bloom server array costs around $700,000 to $800,000, or $7,500 a kilowatt, after incentives that cover around 50 percent of the costs" http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/bloom-vs.-solar-which-one-is-best/ http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/bloom-vs.-solar-...
fragmede 16y ago
I can't tell if these rates are current, but: http://www.pge.com/about/news/topics/ratereduction.shtml http://www.pge.com/about/news/topics/ratereduction.shtml
amalcon 16y ago
Assuming, of course, that PG&E doesn't get any kind of subsidy itself. This is almost certainly not the case. I can't find directly comparable data; the closest I could find was something[1] from the U.S. department of energy that claims a 2007 allocation of about $10 billion to areas other than research, end use, and conservation. If you believe Wikipedia's figures[2] of 29 PWh in 2005 and assume that 2005 and 2007 are similar enough to compare, that's about $0.36 per kilowatt hour in subsidies. If we assume that PG&E is typical, it implies that they're already charging $0.36 less than their "true costs" as a result of federal subsidies. It's an extremely rough figure, and I suspect a proper breakdown would give a much lower number, but it does demonstrate that removing the effect of subsidies is not so simple. edit: Helps if I actually include citations. [1]http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.... [2]https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Energy_in_the...
ojbyrne 16y ago
The 30% is only for the initial cost (amortized). So it wouldn't apply to maintenance and fuel. So probably not as bad as it seems.
Roboprog 16y ago
Hell, I would love to get some extra electricity at home for $0.11. Do they make a 5 kW cell? There are more than 2 people at home, and we often go over PG&E's "baseline". Electric water heater, etc. My marginal cost for the extra kwh's is $0.30, and often $0.40 for the last little bit. Having something (out here in the hills) to spit out some electricity for (T.C.O) $0.15 / kwh would save me money.

by javanix 16y ago

CWuestefeld 16y ago

As I read the sentence, it would be $0.11 plus whatever's in there from California's incentives. It looks to me like the 30% only refers to the federal subsidy.

enjo 16y ago
Ya.. it seems like a rather marginal savings really (without the credit).
- cwan 16y ago
  This in itself is remarkable. Even if costs are at parity, this is still amazing given that the technology is continuing to improve / scale. I'd be curious / suspicious as to the discount rate they are using to calculate the present value of long term costs - this is where they can manipulate the numbers in their favor.
uvdiv 16y ago
The last link in the article seems to answer this: "A 100-kilowatt Bloom server array costs around $700,000 to $800,000, or $7,500 a kilowatt, after incentives that cover around 50 percent of the costs" http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/bloom-vs.-solar-which-one-is-best/ http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/bloom-vs.-solar-...

fragmede 16y ago

I can't tell if these rates are current, but: http://www.pge.com/about/news/topics/ratereduction.shtml http://www.pge.com/about/news/topics/ratereduction.shtml

amalcon 16y ago

Assuming, of course, that PG&E doesn't get any kind of subsidy itself. This is almost certainly not the case. I can't find directly comparable data; the closest I could find was something[1] from the U.S. department of energy that claims a 2007 allocation of about $10 billion to areas other than research, end use, and conservation. If you believe Wikipedia's figures[2] of 29 PWh in 2005 and assume that 2005 and 2007 are similar enough to compare, that's about $0.36 per kilowatt hour in subsidies. If we assume that PG&E is typical, it implies that they're already charging $0.36 less than their "true costs" as a result of federal subsidies. It's an extremely rough figure, and I suspect a proper breakdown would give a much lower number, but it does demonstrate that removing the effect of subsidies is not so simple. edit: Helps if I actually include citations. [1]http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.... [2]https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Energy_in_the...

ojbyrne 16y ago

The 30% is only for the initial cost (amortized). So it wouldn't apply to maintenance and fuel. So probably not as bad as it seems.

Roboprog 16y ago

Hell, I would love to get some extra electricity at home for $0.11. Do they make a 5 kW cell? There are more than 2 people at home, and we often go over PG&E's "baseline". Electric water heater, etc. My marginal cost for the extra kwh's is $0.30, and often $0.40 for the last little bit. Having something (out here in the hills) to spit out some electricity for (T.C.O) $0.15 / kwh would save me money.