Solid oxide fuel cells already being used by Google,Wal-mart,and other firms.
http://www.bloomenergy.com/fuel-cell/energy-server/
http://www.bloomenergy.com/fuel-cell/energy-server/
Revolutionary new energy servers
- Thread starter spock1
- Start date
- Status
Must be cost effective or tax rebate effective if Wal-mart is using them. Interesting stuff.
Looking at the data sheets, at my local prices ($3.82/GJ, $0.11/kW-hr) it would generate power for about 1/4 of the cost that our electrical utility charges, plus capital and maintenance costs. So it does have potential.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
Looking at the data sheets, at my local prices ($3.82/GJ, $0.11/kW-hr) it would generate power for about 1/4 of the cost that our electrical utility charges, plus capital and maintenance costs. So it does have potential.
A payback time of only three years makes the system highly competitive.
Looking at the data sheets, at my local prices ($3.82/GJ, $0.11/kW-hr) it would generate power for about 1/4 of the cost that our electrical utility charges, plus capital and maintenance costs. So it does have potential.
A payback time of only three years makes the system highly competitive.
THAT, was very interesting. They appear to have "tamed" the fuel cell. The operating temperature of the cell core was surprising, but with the right materials... They seem to have field testing "under their belt". We shall see... (but that's said in a positive sense)
Could be a breakthrough, thanks for posting.
Could be a breakthrough, thanks for posting.
JHZR2
Staff member
I know those guys well, I have a long history in fuel cells. There is promise there and they have done a ton of good engineering. They were overly secretive back when they were Ion America, and they were good at playing politics, IMO.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
This Oz one is getting out there as well.
http://www.cfcl.com.au/BlueGen/
Thanks Shannow.Bloom Energy seems to have a major competitor in Australia.
This Oz one is getting out there as well.
http://www.cfcl.com.au/BlueGen/
Thanks Shannow.Bloom Energy seems to have a major competitor in Australia.
Originally Posted By: Barkleymut
Must be cost effective or tax rebate effective if Wal-mart is using them. Interesting stuff.
Quote:
Bloom Energy and its customers received $218.5 million in subsidies in 2010 from California’s SGIP program.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/bloom-energy-plays-the-sgip-subsidy-like-a-pro/
Typical "green" energy company. It's designed to rake in subsidy money, not provide a viable product.
Must be cost effective or tax rebate effective if Wal-mart is using them. Interesting stuff.
Quote:
Bloom Energy and its customers received $218.5 million in subsidies in 2010 from California’s SGIP program.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/bloom-energy-plays-the-sgip-subsidy-like-a-pro/
Typical "green" energy company. It's designed to rake in subsidy money, not provide a viable product.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Barkleymut
Must be cost effective or tax rebate effective if Wal-mart is using them. Interesting stuff.
Quote:
Bloom Energy and its customers received $218.5 million in subsidies in 2010 from California’s SGIP program.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/bloom-energy-plays-the-sgip-subsidy-like-a-pro/
Typical "green" energy company. It's designed to rake in subsidy money, not provide a viable product.
Right, because >50% thermal efficiency with high quality waste heat for CHP is not something that once develloped could have some benefit someplace... Especially since they run best off of natural gas, which we have abundantly here in NA.
Yep, real show stopper system there... Nothing like catalysis and ceramics processing - core capabilities that we have here in the USA...
Originally Posted By: Barkleymut
Must be cost effective or tax rebate effective if Wal-mart is using them. Interesting stuff.
Quote:
Bloom Energy and its customers received $218.5 million in subsidies in 2010 from California’s SGIP program.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/bloom-energy-plays-the-sgip-subsidy-like-a-pro/
Typical "green" energy company. It's designed to rake in subsidy money, not provide a viable product.
Right, because >50% thermal efficiency with high quality waste heat for CHP is not something that once develloped could have some benefit someplace... Especially since they run best off of natural gas, which we have abundantly here in NA.
Yep, real show stopper system there... Nothing like catalysis and ceramics processing - core capabilities that we have here in the USA...
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Right, because >50% thermal efficiency with high quality waste heat for CHP is not something that once develloped could have some benefit someplace... Especially since they run best off of natural gas, which we have abundantly here in NA.
Yep, real show stopper system there... Nothing like catalysis and ceramics processing - core capabilities that we have here in the USA...
Then why do they need all of these subsides?
Right, because >50% thermal efficiency with high quality waste heat for CHP is not something that once develloped could have some benefit someplace... Especially since they run best off of natural gas, which we have abundantly here in NA.
Yep, real show stopper system there... Nothing like catalysis and ceramics processing - core capabilities that we have here in the USA...
Then why do they need all of these subsides?
Because the "main stream" energy sources that we've talked about repeatedly get many, many free kicks on their journey.
Remove all the subsidies on the main stream stuff, and all sort of "green" technologies become available.
Surely even you can see the folly in burning finite natural gas at less than 30% efficiency, then utilising the electricity to heat water, when it can be converted to electricity and hot water at greater than 80% thermal.
And as per previous discussions, you've already proved that the "efficient" market isn't "efficient use of resources".
Remove all the subsidies on the main stream stuff, and all sort of "green" technologies become available.
Surely even you can see the folly in burning finite natural gas at less than 30% efficiency, then utilising the electricity to heat water, when it can be converted to electricity and hot water at greater than 80% thermal.
And as per previous discussions, you've already proved that the "efficient" market isn't "efficient use of resources".
Quote:
Remove all the subsidies on the main stream stuff, and all sort of "green" technologies become available.
I would love to see some numbers on that. Everything that I have seen shows "green" power to be vastly more subsidized per unit of energy than any conventional source.
Quote:
And as per previous discussions, you've already proved that the "efficient" market isn't "efficient use of resources".
What market are you talking about? The power industry that is heavily regulated and can't put up new power plants as it would like? The one with government owned/operated/maintained power grids? The one with government granted monopolies to "private" companies? The one where government mandates an arbitrary percentage of "green" energy by an arbitrary date?
Is that the "free" market you are trying to assail?
Remove all the subsidies on the main stream stuff, and all sort of "green" technologies become available.
I would love to see some numbers on that. Everything that I have seen shows "green" power to be vastly more subsidized per unit of energy than any conventional source.
Quote:
And as per previous discussions, you've already proved that the "efficient" market isn't "efficient use of resources".
What market are you talking about? The power industry that is heavily regulated and can't put up new power plants as it would like? The one with government owned/operated/maintained power grids? The one with government granted monopolies to "private" companies? The one where government mandates an arbitrary percentage of "green" energy by an arbitrary date?
Is that the "free" market you are trying to assail?
JHZR2
Staff member
Since when are fuel cells green power? It's running on natural gas. Green perhaps compared to coal, but it still is polluting and spewing CO2.
Fuel cells are a solid state engine, nothing more.
And compare all the R&D costs into IC and GT over the last 100 years, and you'll see a number far higher than any fuel cell funding ever was.
Fuel cells for now are built more by PhDs than in highly efficient factories because they are still a developmental item.
Bloom sofc, and the seca coal sofcs have a ton of potential, but they are being developed in a different time, where the funds and costs to do this kind of stuff are far different and the performance required to tie in is far different. In 1886, a 3hp engine in a car was probably fine for a horseless carriage. Would anyone buy a 10kw equinox? No, so fuel cell costs to get to a fully integrated 100kw power plant to fit in a modern platform were far more $.
Ditto for the sofcs here (used a car example above just because it is easier and clearer). 100 years ago a new generator putti g out 1kW could have done a lot. These days folks buy 8KW generators for their own home, let alone a server farm or industrial site.
The barrier to entry is far higher because infrastructure requirements create it, right or wrong. So in spaces like this, it costs more from research grants through everything else.
At some point it will be cost effective and everyone will want to generate at 80% net efficiency for CHP. The issue is that tech development cycles for stuff like this are long. The free market won't mature this stuff overnight.
Right or wrong, it's a difficult effort with a different set of struggles from legacy equipment. There isn't a good analog.
And as long as utilities can just pass the cost of lower efficiency generation, and people pay it, there is indeed little impetus. When population growth spurs need for capital cost, may be different, especially as space for big integrated plants goes away and fuel costs go up.
Fuel cells are a solid state engine, nothing more.
And compare all the R&D costs into IC and GT over the last 100 years, and you'll see a number far higher than any fuel cell funding ever was.
Fuel cells for now are built more by PhDs than in highly efficient factories because they are still a developmental item.
Bloom sofc, and the seca coal sofcs have a ton of potential, but they are being developed in a different time, where the funds and costs to do this kind of stuff are far different and the performance required to tie in is far different. In 1886, a 3hp engine in a car was probably fine for a horseless carriage. Would anyone buy a 10kw equinox? No, so fuel cell costs to get to a fully integrated 100kw power plant to fit in a modern platform were far more $.
Ditto for the sofcs here (used a car example above just because it is easier and clearer). 100 years ago a new generator putti g out 1kW could have done a lot. These days folks buy 8KW generators for their own home, let alone a server farm or industrial site.
The barrier to entry is far higher because infrastructure requirements create it, right or wrong. So in spaces like this, it costs more from research grants through everything else.
At some point it will be cost effective and everyone will want to generate at 80% net efficiency for CHP. The issue is that tech development cycles for stuff like this are long. The free market won't mature this stuff overnight.
Right or wrong, it's a difficult effort with a different set of struggles from legacy equipment. There isn't a good analog.
And as long as utilities can just pass the cost of lower efficiency generation, and people pay it, there is indeed little impetus. When population growth spurs need for capital cost, may be different, especially as space for big integrated plants goes away and fuel costs go up.
Based on what I see on Bloom Energy's website:
The products they sell are not qualified for government tax credit or subsidies. They never mention any part of this in their sales material.
So why is Tempest attacking it? If big businesses are buying it with their own money and figured that it is cost effective with their own math, why is Tempest attacking it?
Just because a company was doing a lot of politics on the side doesn't means all of their products are not market driven. Almost all big corporations do politics including the "free market" ones like oil companies and power generations, so why should a fuel cell company be targeted?
The products they sell are not qualified for government tax credit or subsidies. They never mention any part of this in their sales material.
So why is Tempest attacking it? If big businesses are buying it with their own money and figured that it is cost effective with their own math, why is Tempest attacking it?
Just because a company was doing a lot of politics on the side doesn't means all of their products are not market driven. Almost all big corporations do politics including the "free market" ones like oil companies and power generations, so why should a fuel cell company be targeted?
JHZR2
Staff member
I dont know about subsidy. They did do a LOT of politicking last regime.
Quote:
The products they sell are not qualified for government tax credit or subsidies. They never mention any part of this in their sales material.
The link I posted clearly shows they are receiving over $200 million in California subsidies.
It appears Apple is going to be purchasing these units, mostly on their own dime. They will get a 30% Federal subsidy, however.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/...farm_in_nc.html
Helps to have $97 billion laying around...
And these units are "green" because various governments have defined it as so and are subsidizing them as such.
The products they sell are not qualified for government tax credit or subsidies. They never mention any part of this in their sales material.
The link I posted clearly shows they are receiving over $200 million in California subsidies.
It appears Apple is going to be purchasing these units, mostly on their own dime. They will get a 30% Federal subsidy, however.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/...farm_in_nc.html
Helps to have $97 billion laying around...
And these units are "green" because various governments have defined it as so and are subsidizing them as such.
- Status
Similar threads
