Hydrocarbon Fuel Cell (aka Bloombox)

[hoom]

So they had a ludicrous article on 60mins in USA the other day (I found via Techreport) about this so-called 'green' breakthrough.

Hype infected, science-free reporter might as well have breathlessly announced it as the long awaited [strike]first/second coming of the Messiah[/strike] successful invention of perpetual motion

As per Wikipedia or any secondary school chemistry book, this functions chemically as any other Hydrocarbon fuelled internal combustion engine ie CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2]O2 → xCO2 + (x+1)H2O (+ heat & electricity)

They didn't bother to show or mention the whole bit where you get just as much Carbon Dioxide out the other side as you would get by putting the same volume of fuel through a normal internal combustion engine, didn't mention the fuel input volume/hr or cost (including transport).
I'd have preferred if they'd started the article more like "Remember a few years back when we told you about how you were going to be able to power your laptop for a week just by squirting some lighter-fluid into your laptop? Well, Methanol fuel-cells are back ! This time you're going to be able to power your whole house, your whole block & even big corporates are getting in on the methanol loving"

I think its notable that the B3D search thing sees 3 threads already about Methanol fueled Fuel Cells for laptops from 2003, 2004 & 2006
Can you buy any of them yet?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for a solid-state replacement for the 100+ year old & fundamentally horribly inefficient Internal Combustion Engine
Well that is I'm for it IF:

• The power conversion efficiency is a decent improvement (no mention of making use of the 1000 degree heat!)
• They sell these at near price-parity to (or preferably much better than) equivalent output conventional generation

Some sort of magical rocket-science panacea for global-warming this aint.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Well, assuming anything needs to be done for Global Warming in the first place (there isn't).

There's a few corporations that are using the Bloombox right now or soon will be. Ebay, Google, Fedex, Staples, and Walmart. And it's had a positive reception by them thus far.

Of course, it helps that this is in California so you have California taxpayers footing 20% of the cost and US Taxpayers footing an additional 30% of the cost for these corporations, so they only have to pay 50% of the cost themselves. Without those huge subsidies, the technology might not be as attractive as other energy sources.

Personally, I'd be interested to see this adapted to vehicles.

Regards,
SB

 

[MfA]

fundamentally horribly inefficient Internal Combustion Engine

60% according to wikipedia page for gas turbines, so not that bad.

• The power conversion efficiency is a decent improvement (no mention of making use of the 1000 degree heat!)

• 
  Presumably it needs the heat for the catalyst, so that's not saying much ... turbines also work better at higher temperatures.
  
  The advantage of decentralised generation is that it's a lot easier to use the waste heat for central heating.

 

[Sxotty]

The advantage of decentralised generation is that it's a lot easier to use the waste heat for central heating.

With CHP you can get turbines up to much higher efficiency as well though. Excess of 80% is no problem.

 

[BoardBonobo]

With CHP you can get turbines up to much higher efficiency as well though. Excess of 80% is no problem.

The organisation I work for ran its first successful test of our custom built CHP last week (800Kw Turbine and ~900Kw hot water), it will be coupled into the micro grid that now powers everything on site. We are exporting about 30% of the energy we produce back into the national grid.

 

[Sxotty]

Are you getting subsidies for the installation too? (Note I am just curious not saying it is "evil" or something.) I was talking to a guy from the Netherlands and he said they were pushing CHP significantly. (Note I am not saying you are in the Netherlands either as I don't know )

 

[BoardBonobo]

Are you getting subsidies for the installation too? (Note I am just curious not saying it is "evil" or something.) I was talking to a guy from the Netherlands and he said they were pushing CHP significantly. (Note I am not saying you are in the Netherlands either as I don't know )

We get paid per KwH that is put back into the grid, not much mind you. More of a token payment but that's not what we are in it for. But we get no other governmental subsidies.

We are testing multiple methods for production of sustainable, green(ish), energy that small to medium communities could implement.

The CHP is one such power source, especially when coupled to a managed wood land, as we are.

 

[Sxotty]

Cool.

And a feed in tariff isn't really a subsidy IMO (if they are paying you the same rate). On the contrary it is only fair they pay you for electricity like you pay them.

 

[Mize]

The Bloom Box does not create the same amount of CO2 as it runs at far higher efficiency. What's more it shouldn't produce NOx (aka smog) as the electrolyte should only pass O2 ions to the fuel side an not N2 should be able to traverse it. It can also be run on biogas (from chicken, pig, turkey or cow shit) which is a very green approach to energy.

Turbines are efficient, but hugely expensive and require substantial maintenance. Ever seen one fail? Ouch.

I want a Boom Blox for my home...theoretically you can reverse it and create fuel using solar during the day too. [though you'd have to have the right atmosphere to pull C and H2 from]

 

[Mize]

Presumably it needs the heat for the catalyst, so that's not saying much ... turbines also work better at higher temperatures.

I doubt it. Most likely the solid electrolyte doesn't conduct O2 ions until about 600 C, which is typical for solid electrolytes. The ink/catalyst is certainly Ni based since they say "no precious metals." Of course you'd be foolish to use precious metals as they are poorer catalysts than Ni for short hydrocarbons. Much better for longer ones though (like in a gasoline engine).

 

[Mize]

What I don't get is that some of the write ups said they used "sand" as the electrolyte. This can't be true as silica is not an ionic conductor of O2. The most sensible thing for them to have used is a sintered zirconia composite.

 

[nintenho]

"sand"..alone? did it specify.

 

[Mize]

"sand"..alone? did it specify.

It was some article on the press conference - maybe engadget - that said sand. I found a couple of their patents and it is, indeed, zirconia.

 

[hoom]

Their use of 'sand' & 'ink' is just baby talk to make it sound like The Magic Solution to global warming.
If they just said 'ceramic' people might make the link that its just a hydrocarbon fuel cell...

60% according to wikipedia page for gas turbines, so not that bad.

Yeah, I was caught thinking piston engine

They have a bunch of stuff (both baby talk & technical) up on their website now
http://www.bloomenergy.com/

In the Datasheet they quote 773 lbs CO2/MW-hr on natural gas, how does that compare to other hydrocarbon power?

According to the average values here I guess thats ok but I suspect it probably doesn't look so good compared to a state-of-the-art new co-gen turbine?

 

[Mize]

Yeah, but you can't run a turbine without making NOx (aka acid rain, etc.) and a zirconia electrolyte is a natural O2 purifier so no NOx. Remember their competition isn't solar cells, it's current CH4 generators.

I'm interested, however, in its efficiency for producing and storing fuel using the electrolyte as a pump and solar/other as the driving potential. They mention it, but storage would have to be a serious challenge.

 

[eastmen]

IF this does work it will be a good thing. However I we still need to focus on solar and wind power. Esp solar power.

Solar power is what will change the world and we should focus on getting every house and busniess to be able to run completely off it during the day by producing it on site at low costs.

These boxes can be used at night.

 

[Rolf N]

IF this does work it will be a good thing. However I we still need to focus on solar and wind power. Esp solar power.

This is a form of solar power as soon as you use plant growth for fuel. Has the advantage of easy storage, too.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

IF this does work it will be a good thing. However I we still need to focus on solar and wind power. Esp solar power.

Solar power is what will change the world and we should focus on getting every house and busniess to be able to run completely off it during the day by producing it on site at low costs.

Only when it becomes cost effective, it does noone any good if it bankrupts your city, county, state, or country in the process of implementing the currently very cost inefficient solar panels. Nuclear still has orders of magnitude more cost efficient energy production and is where we should be focusing current production needs while other technologies continue to slowly improve.

I know a few households that have switched due to ideology and wanting to get off the grid. They project to recoup the cost of implmentation in a few decades, assuming their current panels last that long. IE - they aren't doing it to save money.

I find alternative housing ideas far more interesting with regards to this stuff. Sod housing for example is both economical and reduces overall energy consumption due to superior insulation with regards to heating (winter) and cooling (summer). Added benefit, if planned from the outset you could turn your roof into a food producing garden.

Regards,
SB

 

[MfA]

AFAICS it's not even one order of magnitude.

Nevada isn't building solar thermal plants because they are green hippy liberals ...

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The last major study I looked at gave an optimistic view for the best currently available panels versus Nuclear being roughly 20x the cost per Kwh.

Government subsidies greatly reduce the cost (20000 USD installation down to 3500 USD installtion for 12 hour average of 400 watts) but even with that, the cost to consumers is still significantly higher than even conventional Coal generation.

Yes, my friend worked it out that with optimal (no degradation in panel performance) and minimal maintanence or replacement that they would recoup the cost of installation (at current energy costs) in 25-35 years. Energy costs will likely go up, but panel performance will also degrade and likely need replacing at some point. Oh and also wasn't factoring in requirements to replace batteries as they lost effectiveness.

But it was worth it to them to get off the grid and feel more "green."

Lucky for them everyone in the state and the US was pitching in to help them buy it. Now imagine implementing that for every household in the US. We'd have to balloon federal and state budgets to support the subsidies required.

Regards,
SB