5 ms·

So is this better for the environment, or just cheaper? The article doesn't seem to mention it.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
btilly 16y ago
Methane is a horrible greenhouse gas. CO2 is a bad one. So removing methane and getting CO2 is a good thing. However if you start actively producing methane for use in something like this, then the greenhouse benefits are negative.
- sbierwagen 16y ago
  If you're buying methane in quantity, then you're buying fossil natural gas. As I like to point out in every HN post on Bloom Energy, these may be fuel cells, but they're still burning fossil fuels.
  - spydez 16y ago
    Adobe's burning bio-methane from a landfill, not fossil fuels.
  - ecuzzillo 16y ago
    Sure, but they're not putting any really bad shit in the atmosphere, which is something.
uvdiv 16y ago
It's both less efficient and more expensive than burning natural gas in a turbine. Its data sheet claims 52% efficiency [1], while current generation CCGTs are 60% efficient (e.g. [2]). Its commercial price is $7,000-$8,000/kW(e) [3]. This is ten times the cost of CCGT power plants, at ~$700-800/kWe (e.g. [4,5]). (This does NOT mean the amortized cents/kWh cost is 10x higher -- most of the final cost is the gas fuel). Ref [5] is particularly relevant, it's financial estimates from California's state energy commission. edited to add: According to the link [6] in the OP article, the commercial price of the Bloom Box already includes state rebates, and the real cost is twice as high ($14,000-$16,000/kWe). It also reports comparable costs for competing fuel cells ($11,200/kWe for ClearEdge, and $30,000/kWe for Panasonic's really tiny fuel cell). "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." [1] http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/data-sheet/ http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/data-sheet/ [2] A modern CCGT turbine: http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/gas-turbines/sgt5-8000h.htm http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/gas-tur... (5,687 BTU/kWh <--> 60.0% efficiency) [3] http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16189290 http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16189290 [4] (same turbine as [2]) http://www.power-technology.com/projects/irsching/ http://www.power-technology.com/projects/irsching/ [5] CCGT costs in table 14: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-011/CEC-200-2007-011-SD.PDF http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-011/C... [6] http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/bloom-vs.-solar-which-one-is-best/ http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/bloom-vs.-solar-...
- rahooligan 16y ago
  Yeah I think this is more of a PR stunt than anything else. The technology has potential but at the current moment, but it isnt superior than what is out there. Biomass is green but there isnt enough of it available for cheap. So I think Bloom boxes will have to use natural gas (which isnt green) to scale.
- wmf 16y ago
  I'm pretty skeptical about Bloom Energy, but it's not fair to compare the efficiency of a 375 MW gas turbine against a 100 kW fuel cell (assuming that customers care about local generation and aren't just looking for the cheapest power). Maybe you should compare against a microturbine.
  - uvdiv 16y ago
    >...but it's not fair to compare the efficiency of a 375 MW gas turbine against a 100 kW fuel cell Why not, they are substitutes for each other. >(assuming that customers care about local generation... Why should they care about "local generation"?
    - qq66 16y ago
      It's all a very successfully executed PR stunt. Local generation only matters in places where electricity distribution is unreliable or nonexistent (such as shopping malls in India having diesel generators on site).
      - tealtan 16y ago
        that's not true. a lot of energy is lost just trying to move electricity to another location (something like a factor of 2/3). so having local power plants would mean power has far less distance to travel, meaning you don't have to produce as much.
        uvdiv 16y ago
        Not true. Transmission losses are just 6.5% total. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#electric_rates2 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#electric_r...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Methane is a horrible greenhouse gas. CO2 is a bad one. So removing methane and getting CO2 is a good thing. However if you start actively producing methane for use in something like this, then the greenhouse benefits are negative.

sbierwagen 16y ago
If you're buying methane in quantity, then you're buying fossil natural gas. As I like to point out in every HN post on Bloom Energy, these may be fuel cells, but they're still burning fossil fuels.
- spydez 16y ago
  Adobe's burning bio-methane from a landfill, not fossil fuels.
- ecuzzillo 16y ago
  Sure, but they're not putting any really bad shit in the atmosphere, which is something.

uvdiv 16y ago

It's both less efficient and more expensive than burning natural gas in a turbine. Its data sheet claims 52% efficiency [1], while current generation CCGTs are 60% efficient (e.g. [2]). Its commercial price is $7,000-$8,000/kW(e) [3]. This is ten times the cost of CCGT power plants, at ~$700-800/kWe (e.g. [4,5]). (This does NOT mean the amortized cents/kWh cost is 10x higher -- most of the final cost is the gas fuel). Ref [5] is particularly relevant, it's financial estimates from California's state energy commission. edited to add: According to the link [6] in the OP article, the commercial price of the Bloom Box already includes state rebates, and the real cost is twice as high ($14,000-$16,000/kWe). It also reports comparable costs for competing fuel cells ($11,200/kWe for ClearEdge, and $30,000/kWe for Panasonic's really tiny fuel cell). "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." [1] http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/data-sheet/ http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/data-sheet/ [2] A modern CCGT turbine: http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/gas-turbines/sgt5-8000h.htm http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/gas-tur... (5,687 BTU/kWh <--> 60.0% efficiency) [3] http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16189290 http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16189290 [4] (same turbine as [2]) http://www.power-technology.com/projects/irsching/ http://www.power-technology.com/projects/irsching/ [5] CCGT costs in table 14: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-011/CEC-200-2007-011-SD.PDF http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-011/C... [6] http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/bloom-vs.-solar-which-one-is-best/ http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/bloom-vs.-solar-...

rahooligan 16y ago
Yeah I think this is more of a PR stunt than anything else. The technology has potential but at the current moment, but it isnt superior than what is out there. Biomass is green but there isnt enough of it available for cheap. So I think Bloom boxes will have to use natural gas (which isnt green) to scale.
wmf 16y ago
I'm pretty skeptical about Bloom Energy, but it's not fair to compare the efficiency of a 375 MW gas turbine against a 100 kW fuel cell (assuming that customers care about local generation and aren't just looking for the cheapest power). Maybe you should compare against a microturbine.
- uvdiv 16y ago
  >...but it's not fair to compare the efficiency of a 375 MW gas turbine against a 100 kW fuel cell Why not, they are substitutes for each other. >(assuming that customers care about local generation... Why should they care about "local generation"?
  - qq66 16y ago
    It's all a very successfully executed PR stunt. Local generation only matters in places where electricity distribution is unreliable or nonexistent (such as shopping malls in India having diesel generators on site).
    - tealtan 16y ago
      that's not true. a lot of energy is lost just trying to move electricity to another location (something like a factor of 2/3). so having local power plants would mean power has far less distance to travel, meaning you don't have to produce as much.
      - uvdiv 16y ago
        Not true. Transmission losses are just 6.5% total. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#electric_rates2 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#electric_r...