Comments on: Is Bloom Energy the next GE?

By: BooneBeausoleil

BooneBeausoleil — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:22:23 +0000

So one thing that I think is missing in the equation is the energy cost of producing the fuel cells. They aren’t infinite, which means they are consumable, which means they need to be replaced periodically. What is going to make these? Unless they’ve come up with a way of getting more electricity out of a fuel cell than it takes to produce them, it is worthless.

By: Jimrom

Jimrom — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:51:03 +0000

Taking France nuclear energy as an example …
The French nuclear industry seems to think it’s fair to ship nuclear waste to Russia and other countries and then forget about it (or worse to 3rd world countries or dumping them in Indian ocean). They think that keeping the waste away from the French public will protect their glossy image.

By: alt-nrg-4-me

alt-nrg-4-me — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:45:46 +0000

As said by seasoned business leaders back in 2008 prior to the fall elections (both T.Boone Pickens and Fred Smith of Fedex), our country needs to diversify its energy production.

A prime example would be to electrify the short-haul transportation system. Battery powered for commute distances of less than 50 miles.

Another alternative energy company (and it will take many such inventive companies) is Capstone Microturbine. They have a 35 to 60 KW micro-turbine that can provide “range-boosting” electricity from NG or diesel, and can recharge batteries in an electrical car, truck or bus, and more than triple its battery-only range.

These well-respected business leaders said that we would need a “bridge technology” to go from predominantly internal combustion transportation model to an electrified transportation model.

Take a look at CPST (Capstone).

By: CEOsherpa

CEOsherpa — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:39:29 +0000

first, it’s not a question of when will we run out of NG. Bloom does not reduce our dependence on fossil fuel sources. In that respect, this is an evolutionary not a revolutionary shift in power supply.

However, we can look to the personal printer to peek into the potential that Bloom represents. HP / IBM / Okidata / et al did not eliminate paper when the shift to personal printers took place. Over the last 25 years or so, we don’t have a paperless society as once predicted. However, we have the shifted power of communication from a few to many. Internet blogs (like this one) have moved this even further.

While Bloom will not change the dependence on fossil fuel, it does radically shift the political and economic landscape of power generation and distribution. Which in turn will almost certainly lead to more interesting (and sustainable) innovation.

By: royevatom

royevatom — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:12:51 +0000

More smoke and mirrors for a culture of waste.
We have no problem creating electricity, the most viable form of clean energy, we just don’t have anyway of storing it. Have we abandoned the age of the raging ego for the age of arrogance? Simple energy conservation would probably save more energy than the Bloom Box will ever create.

By: OracleOfMumbai

OracleOfMumbai — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:59:49 +0000

@sobriant74 said:

“What happens when we run out of natural gas? Even the best estimates have us running out of domestic (North American) NG during the next 50 years.
We’re going to switch from an energy grid, to local spot production and then what happens to all of those “spots” when we run out of cheap NG?”

50 years? Time to throw away those 1950 editions of your Encyclopedia methinks, lol. In just the last 3 years, the US has grown PROVEN reserves by about 33% – pushing us well past the century mark. And with the pace of shale gas discoveries seeming to remain high, I suspect we’ll see 100% reserve growth in the next decade. Then add all that LNG that is coming on around the world and we are awash in cheap, clean nat gas.

By: OracleOfMumbai

OracleOfMumbai — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:53:47 +0000

What a load of bs hype. Hugely expensive technology that will never be economic, despite the hype to the contrary. And what benefit does it offer? Lower CO2 “pollution”? Give me a break. Far better to skip this dubious technology and simply use NG to drive combined cycle turbines or converted diesel powered generators.

By: Montpessat

Montpessat — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:40:54 +0000

Portable fuel cells have been on sale for households and for a lot less than this one.

http://www.morphic.se/en/Business-Areas/ Fuelcells/Products/Complete-Fuel-Cells/

By: Artifex

Artifex — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:31:30 +0000

There seems to be a lot of misguided focus on natural gas. Any fossil fuel input will work, according to the interview. The gain comes from the fact that this technology reduces the amount of fuel required to generate a given measure of electricity by about 50%, if I remember the interview correctly.
I think the fact that Google was able to save $100k in 9 months is an excellent endorsement, but with four units at, say, $800K each, that gives an ROI of approximately 24 years. That is a tough sell without other incentives.
But the point is we need to be doing SOMETHING. Even if this is not the answer, it is a move in the right direction.
JoeGolf: Coal? Are you kidding me? Ever lived near a strip mine, topping operation, or deep mine? Live where those chimneys are spewing out plumes of Carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, mercury, arsenic, lead? I bet not. I bet your relationship to coal fired power plants is the electrical line to your house. Look, I’m all for responsibly exploiting domestic resources, but burying our head in the sand isn’t responsible.

By: Ecobabe

Ecobabe — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:27:49 +0000

Biofuel from hemp would be a carbon neutral fuel. Oh yeah, oil lobby won’t let that come out either.