CBS 60 Minutes - The Bloom Box: An Energy Breakthrough?

[Jug Pilot]

The Bloom Box: An Energy Breakthrough? - 60 Minutes - CBS News

(CBS) For the past year and a half, several large California corporations have been secretly testing the "Bloom Box," a potentially revolutionary fuel-cell system. Confirming this for the first time, several of the companies report this system is a more efficient, clean, and cost effective way to get electricity than off the power grid.

Lesley Stahl and "60 Minutes" cameras get the first look inside the secretive California company, just days before the Bloom Energy official launch, scheduled for next Wednesday (Feb. 24).

Stahl is the first journalist to be allowed into the Bloom Energy lab and factory where currently one box a day is built. The boxes create electricity by a chemical process that utilizes oxygen and fuel, but involves no combustion. Bloom's founder and CEO, K.R. Sridhar, insists all the materials in the box are cheap and available in abundance. Bloom says each large box - which can power about 100 homes - currently sells for $700-800,000. They hope within five to 10 years to roll out a smaller home version for about $3,000 a unit.

What do you guys think? Another cold Fusion type story or something to it?

[viscousmemories]

Yes, he already has customers. Twenty large, well-known companies have quietly bought and are testing Bloom boxes in California.

Like FedEx. We were at their hub in Oakland, the day Bloom installed their boxes, each one costing $700-800,000.

One reason the companies have signed up is that in California 20 percent of the cost is subsidized by the state, and there's a 30 percent federal tax break because it's a "green" technology. In other words: the price is cut in half.

"We have FedEx, we have Walmart," Sridhar explained.

He told Stahl the first customer was Google.

Four units have been powering a Google datacenter for 18 months. They use natural gas, but half as much as would be required for a traditional power plant.

Looks legit.

The article says it can use natural gas, biogas and even solar. Cool stuff!

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Jug Pilot

What do you guys think? Another cold Fusion type story or something to it?

I understand it might be legit, however, I take offense at the whole, the box involves a "chemical process that utilizes oxygen adn fuel, but involves no combustion" cuz well that is pretty much what combustion is.

[beyelzu]

There's no need for burning or combustion, and no need for power lines from an outside source.

this also kills me cuz well you supply it fuel, which is like an outside source. I get that you would be off the electric grid, but it still kind of kills me with its perpetual motion machine tomfoolery.

[Jug Pilot]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

this also kills me cuz well you supply it fuel, which is like an outside source. I get that you would be off the electric grid, but it still kind of kills me with its perpetual motion machine tomfoolery.

That kind of what I was thinking, magic box, power. Fingers crossed it's real.

[BrotherMan]

Technology seemed real enough to me. The reporter(s) were overselling the Off-the-Grid functionality of it, though.

[ceptimus]

Sounds like a fuel cell. These have been around for ever but A) use hydrogen as the fuel and B) contain exotic materials.

If they've made a fuel cell from common materials that runs off natural gas without quickly degrading, that's an advance.

[BrotherMan]

According to the inventor, it's made using simple sand formed into a thin ceramic plate with a proprietary black and green "ink" on either side.

[But]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I understand it might be legit, however, I take offense at the whole, the box involves a "chemical process that utilizes oxygen adn fuel, but involves no combustion" cuz well that is pretty much what combustion is.

Pretty much, but not quite. Well actually, it's completely different. Combustion involves a chain reaction of radicals, a fuel cell uses an electrochemical process. You get electricity directly out of the reaction instead of making a lot of heat and using that to make electricity, wasting lots of energy in the process.

Originally Posted by beyelzu

this also kills me cuz well you supply it fuel, which is like an outside source. I get that you would be off the electric grid, but it still kind of kills me with its perpetual motion machine tomfoolery.

Uh, what? There's no need for burning or combustion. Check. There is no need for power lines from an outside source. Check. It doesn't say there is no need for fuel. I don't know how you're reading all this into the parts that you quoted. Actually I think I know, you're trying to be a good "skeptic" and be all skeptical about it. That's okay, but you're overdoing it.

[Adam]

I keep reading the title as Boom Blox. Way to pick a name for your technology.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by But

Pretty much, but not quite. Well actually, it's completely different. Combustion involves a chain reaction of radicals, a fuel cell uses an electrochemical process. You get electricity directly out of the reaction instead of making a lot of heat and using that to make electricity, wasting lots of energy in the process.

Uh, what? There's no need for burning or combustion. Check. There is no need for power lines from an outside source. Check. It doesn't say there is no need for fuel. I don't know how you're reading all this into the parts that you quoted. Actually I think I know, you're trying to be a good "skeptic" and be all skeptical about it. That's okay, but you're overdoing it.

I understand that a fuel cell is different. I would like to point out that it still consumes fuel and is more like a minipowerplant complete with the "burning of fuel". Its not magic, it might be an advance. It wont necessarily solve all of our problems, it would, assuming its claims are true, be a more efficient method of consuming green house gases. At google they use natural gas as the fuel, no? Which last I checked is both a fossil fuel and produces green house gases.

The magical box of faggotry will still combine fuel with oxygen leading to greenhouse gases. Or is there some more magic that I don't know about?

[Jug Pilot]

Natural Gas? Wasn't Slim Pickens pushing a switch to Natural Gas? Is he involved in this?

[But]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I understand that a fuel cell is different. I would like to point out that it still consumes fuel and is more like a minipowerplant complete with the "burning of fuel".

Yes. That's pretty much what the article says, that it's a mini powerplant complete with without the burning of fuel.

Its not magic

Who said it was? First you complain that it's a magical perpetual motion machine, now you complain that it isn't.

It wont necessarily solve all of our problems, it would, assuming its claims are true, be a more efficient method of consuming green house gases.

And assuming the claims are true (like that it only needs half the amount of gas to produce the same amount of electrical energy) it would produce somewhere around half the carbon dioxide. That would be pretty cool. A more important point is that they claim to have developed a cheaper, more practical way to make fuel cells.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Jug Pilot

Natural Gas? Wasn't Slim Pickens pushing a switch to Natural Gas? Is he involved in this?

Slim Pickens:



vs. T. Boone Pickens:

[Ensign Steve]

T-Bone is still a cool name.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

this also kills me cuz well you supply it fuel, which is like an outside source. I get that you would be off the electric grid, but it still kind of kills me with its perpetual motion machine tomfoolery.

I'm skeptical myself, but I'm just going by the old adage, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." Where is that dude that claimed he could run vehicles on water and naptha bonded by some "proprietary chemical"? Haven't heard much out him for quite a while.

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I understand that a fuel cell is different. I would like to point out that it still consumes fuel and is more like a minipowerplant complete with the "burning of fuel". Its not magic, it might be an advance. It wont necessarily solve all of our problems, it would, assuming its claims are true, be a more efficient method of consuming green house gases. At google they use natural gas as the fuel, no? Which last I checked is both a fossil fuel and produces green house gases.

The magical box of faggotry will still combine fuel with oxygen leading to greenhouse gases. Or is there some more magic that I don't know about?

Natural gas is primarily methane, which only has one carbon atom per molecule, much fewer than gasoline, heating oil, or good old C8, coal, thus much less CO2 emissions than other sources of fuel. Plus, methane can be produced from other sources, renewable ones, sewage plants and garbage landfills for just a couple. Or you, after a plate of beans.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

Or you, after a plate of beans.

Too many carbs.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

Too many carbs.

I know, I know.

[Jug Pilot]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

Too many carbs.

But it's for powering America! Think of the children!

[Jug Pilot]

Originally Posted by Nullifidian

Slim Pickens:



vs. T. Boone Pickens:

hehe opps!

[Lagnath]

For those that aren't aware the technology is a Solid oxide fuel cell. Overall this doesn't really help our situation unless the gas powering the fuel cell is a renewable gas. Natural gas would be the most likely source to power these fuel cells. In theory you could trade out the cost of the electricity grid with that of more natural gas infrastructure.

What has not been demonstrated is whether his particular design of fuel cell yields a net positive energy return on energy invested. In energy articles you'll hear this called EROEI.

Biogas is simply not available in large enough quantities to matter. All this fuel cell will let us do is shift where we convert our nonrenewable resource into electricity.

I can't say more about his particular fuel cell because the company is being very closed about the specifics. Until I see some sound numbers I can't make further judgment.

[godfry n. glad]

I think Lagnath's approach here is the best. Wait for more information.

I get the impression that there is a "too good to be true" aspect of this. That there is some cost or waste product which makes it...less palatable.

[Corona688]

How this is more efficient is simple: The power plant is in your home. Ergo, the exhaust heat can be used to heat your home instead of just being exhausted into the atmosphere. Combined heating and power (CHP) systems have been around for a while for industrial things, and there's been some "home" versions too, but usually involving lots of expensive noisy breakable microturbine tomfoolery. A fuel cell for home power would be very nice...

On the other hand, if your home needs cooling, this'd be dumb.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Corona688

On the other hand, if your home needs cooling, this'd be dumb.

You can cool with heat, just flash some ammonia, like ammonia refrigeration systems used in ice plants and in gas refrigerators and air conditioners.

And, there is always the hot water demand of homes and businesses.

[Lagnath]

Your correct. The only immediate positive feature is that you can defer creating the power until needed and save on infrastructure costs and the losses associated with moving power from the source to your home. You can also capture waste heat to use for heating and, with some electricity as well, cooling. That isn't the source of the my concern.

My concern lies with the fact that you need gas in order to power this type of fuel cell. In this case the most likely source of that gas for Americans and most other countries is natural gas. Currently natural gas is the source for roughly 25% of America's energy. We're still left with the basic problem of using a fixed resource to power our homes.

We need a very in depth analysis in order to gauge whether there will be any actual cost savings from moving around where we spend or energy dollars. There may come a time when the costs are low enough that this technology will be perfectly practical. Until I see good numbers I'm skeptical that this technology is either cost efficient or scalable.