Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact
 

Is the Bloom Box Cheaper Than Solar?

By John Farrell
March 14, 2011   |   22 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

22 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 22
March 14, 2011
I'm a little bit confused here and I was hoping that someone might be able to explain the bloom box to me.

As I understand it, the bloom box is a hydrolysis unit that utilizes natural gas or biogas to create hydrogen to run a fuel cell. Is this correct and if so, wouldn't it be more efficient to simply burn the natural gas to run a turbine to generate the electricity?

If this isn't the case, how is it not breaking the laws of thermodynamics?

I'd also be curious what the total carbon footprint of the system is when you factor in gas productions and distribution.

Thanks for any education that you can provide me on this issue!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
2 of 22
March 14, 2011
John, I'm also a bit confused - why is a comparison between the Bloom Box and any renewable a productive comparison? The Bloom Box runs on natural gas, so it's not renewable (unless biogas is used, which is not widely available). It's like comparing solar power to a diesel powered backup generator - ignoring the environmental costs of reliance on fossil fuels. Emissions are lower with the Bloom Box than with burning natural gas, but there are still significant emissions.
Comment
3 of 22
March 14, 2011
I agree with Tam here. The Bloom Box is a methane fuel cell, which operates at ~60% efficiency. A Closed Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) can also operate at ~60% efficiency.

Shouldn't we be comparing the cost of energy from Bloom boxes with generic peak electricity? Isn't the carbon intensity of the energy from a Bloom Box nearly identical to that of marginal peak load?

What is the basis of comparison here?
Comment
4 of 22
March 14, 2011
Both the Bloom Box and solar PV are distributed energy resources, and ways that commercial entities can reduced on-site load (and from the press about them, seems to be the primary target audience).

I completely agree that the emissions of a Bloom Box are an issue, but since PV projects are routinely compared to the Market Price Referant (a measure of the cost of electricity from a natural gas power plant in California), I don't think a comparison between the Bloom Box and PV is particularly unusual.
Comment
5 of 22
March 14, 2011
Photovoltaic systems have a long track record and are known to be reliable over a number of years. Does the Bloom Box have such a track record? I doubt it. How does the Bloom Box perform under adverse conditions of heat and cold? There are a lot of variables that are in question concerning the Bloom Box

Richard in Tampa
Comment
6 of 22
March 15, 2011
The fuel cell approach was considered some time ago in Holland as a means of *cogenerating* heat and electricity in individual dwellings. Bearing in mind the difficulties (such as catalyst poisoning by the organosulfur additives in gas) I would agree with Clee that a gas turbine would be the obvious alternative solution.

However, making a suitably silent and reliable gas engine for domestic or other small embedded installations would involve some fairly high tech R&D, perhaps requiring aerospace specialists. What surprises me is that, bearing in mind the size of the potential market, the carbon savings, and the fact that in cold places generation is highest when electricity demand is highest, no-one has seriously considered this possibility.

One obstacle would be that the optimum solution might not be the most thermodynamically efficient one. This doesn't matter because we need the heat anyway, but it could upset people with fixed ways of thinking. Don't expect much by way of initiatives from the gas boiler industry, which is too conservative (for safety reasons) and too dispersed to get involved in a big project.
Comment
7 of 22
March 15, 2011
Can Bloom Box use electrolyzed hydrogen for fuel?
Comment
8 of 22
March 15, 2011
I must acknowledge that I did not read the core article upon my last post... I just logged in to comment on "why on Earth are we comparing these two", and found Tam had beaten me to the punch.

For whatever reason, I just read the article...

John Farrel, you have a dangerous lack of understanding when it comes to calculating levelized energy costs. As before, I don't really understand how you came up with your numbers here, but they are absolutely wrong.

First, AGAIN, at $5/W (again we disagree on the cost of PV, but we'll use your numbers), assuming a 7.5% discount rate, a 25 year longevity, and a 1% degradation rate; we see a LCOE of ~$390/MWh for the New York/New Jersey region... assuming PERFECT tracking.

But that's not significantly worse than the absolute best case assumptions for the Bloom Box:
at $12.5/W, and a less-than-decade lifespan... we can assume that a valid maximum longevity would be ~16-18 years. We'll assume it operates at a 90% capacity factor during that time (very generous).
So, at a 7.5% discount rate, and a $9/MMBTU gas input cost, we get an LCOE of $326/MWh.

If you shorten the longevity assumptions for the Bloom box, or lower the capacity factor assumptions even slightly, then there's no economic improvement by switching EVEN THOUGH IT HAS THE SAME EMISSIONS AS A MARGINAL INCREASE IN GRID POWER... So we should be comparing this to peak rates in New York - of ~$150/MWh.
Comment
9 of 22
March 15, 2011
Glenn,

What we have is a difference of assumptions about solar PV. When I use your numbers, I get a levelized cost of $384/MWh.

But I did not use your numbers for this chart.

Rather, I used a 5% discount rate (and 3% inflation), a 0.5% degradation rate. I also factored in federal incentives (the Investment Tax Credit and accelerated depreciation), which is why I noted that the chart showed prices for commercial users (perhaps that was not sufficiently clear).

Also, I'd like to point out that 1 Block of the Grid is installing residential PV for $4.67 per DC Watt on Long Island. So you are right about disliking $5 per Watt - that price is in fact too high.

Here's my list of assumptions on the Bloom Box. I was unable to re-create your calculation, so maybe you can tell me where we differ besides what you mentioned in the comment: $12.50/Watt capital cost, 20-year project life, 95% c.f., 65% gas to electric efficiency, $9/mmbtu fuel cost. As I said before, I also included the federal tax and depreciation incentives to get to $147/MWh.

Sincerely,
-John
Comment
10 of 22
March 15, 2011
John,

My problem with using the federal, state, local, and private incentive packages to help rate or compare any two power sources is the fact that these things are often arbitrary and their longevity is always highly uncertain.

To compare system to system you need to strip away what is artificial and just look at what things cost. That means ignoring the subsidies.

The subsidies for the Bloom Box are more insulting than any others save those for the electric car - in both cases you're looking at government stepping in to subsidize a fossil-based energy; so there's no environmental or social health motivation... just "this is too expensive to even remotely compete, so we'll stick a subsidy on it" mentality.

Decentralized power is over-rated. If you have a dedicated natural gas line going to a facility, then there's no reason that a power line can't transmit energy to a facility. If you aren't reducing emissions, then what exactly are you doing that is worth such a massive public outlay?
Comment
11 of 22
March 15, 2011
John, the Market Price Referent (which is, as you write, a proxy for the cost of power from a new 500 MW natural gas plant, with climate change and other environmental compliance costs added) is used purely as a reference point to gauge how much additional cost ratepayers bear from renewables. It's not used as a comparison of which is better for an on-site power source, which is what you are implying with your Bloom Box/PV comparison. Granted, if all a customer cares about is reliable on-site power, this comparison is warranted. But this site is about renewable energy and the Bloom Box is not a renewable energy source.
No image available
Comment
12 of 22
Anonymous
March 15, 2011
I do believe that Mr Hunt has pretty well summed things up with his two postings. But I will say that the Bloom Box may go down as one of the greatest flops in history.
Comment
13 of 22
March 16, 2011
I forgot to mention in my earlier comment that domestic gas boilers, which are usually in the 10-25 kW range, can't even co-generate 100 watts or so of electricity to drive a couple of electric motors and the controls. That's well within the range of primitive base-metal thermopiles. It would be useful during power cuts, and would save a power station or two in a medium-sized country.
No image available
Comment
14 of 22
Anonymous
March 16, 2011
Interesting,

What I want to see is comparisons without any energy incentive, tax incentives and rebates, for we all know the gov. is bankrupt, so how can anyone rely on these gov. or state incentives to last more than a year or so in reality? Using the above comparisons is not a true basis given all such comparisons go down the drain eventually, never mind the fact that in case of Bloom, methane gas prices will likely rise, not fall, so again, impossible to compare unless you stip out all variables as I see it.
Comment
15 of 22
March 16, 2011
I am also curious as to the need for this comparison. I don't see the Bloom Box as a competitor or a threat to PV but rather a compliment to it. The Bloom box in the states mentioned provides electricity at a far lower cost than the grid and it does so from what I understand while emitting far fewer fumes than grid powered electricity. I also suspect the cost of these boxes will come down dramatically while the cost of electricity rises (of course if it's natural gas generated that cost may rise as well). I was excited more for this company for the fact that they claim to make it work with solar in the future by acting as a storage mechanism. Yes it uses fossil fuels (for now) but it has many of the same goals and could compliment renewables. Why be down on it?
No image available
Comment
16 of 22
Anonymous
March 20, 2011
The Bloom Box is not generating renewable energy, as others commented, and I would add it is not distributed power because it needs a "grid" of natural gas pipes. It is another form of centralized power and it is equivalent to a transformer in the electric grid. Maybe a much more expensive transformer...
Comment
17 of 22
March 21, 2011
@Anonymous

I like your comment about natural gas as another centralized resource, although I think there's a level of distinction. PV is a decentralized power generation technology with a decentralized fuel (sunshine). A fuel cell is decentralized generation from a centralized fuel source (natural gas).

-John
Comment
18 of 22
March 21, 2011
@john-farrell-ilsr

Does anyone have a run-down on the relative costs of transmitting electricity and gas over fairly long distances (investment, transmission losses, damage to the landscape & so on)?

It ought to be possible to go further and do the calculations for a complete comparison between: 1) mixes of central & renewable embedded electricity generation, and 2) (as a function of climate) embedded or local electricity co-generation from gas.
Comment
19 of 22
March 22, 2011
John, I'm Anonymous.
I don't want to get in argument with you. Your definition of decentralized power is very ambiguous. As long as the umbilical (either gas pipe or power line)between my local power source and the utility is not cut off,I cannot say I'm net zero.
Sunshine is not decentralized because there is only one Sun in the sky - and utilities start manage to make us pay for it by adding to their portfolio large solar farms (PV & CSP). Clever, isn't it?
Comment
20 of 22
March 23, 2011
Clee,

There have been cow farms using biogas to provide electricity for a long time now. A standard turbine generator does the trick.

The Bloom Box honestly is providing nothing other than a little hype, and their charging you a million dollars to get a warm fuzzy feeling that you were a part of some hype. Everything else could be provided in the hundred-thousand dollar range.

This is just a natural gas consuming power source that is absurdly expensive and short lived. The idea that the government grants the buyer a subsidy is a perfect illustration of all that is simply screwed up about federal subsidies.
No image available
Comment
21 of 22
Anonymous
April 12, 2011
According to 60 Minutes, the bloom box doubles the power that runs it, whatever the source (its maker said any power source could be used). Google said their bloom boxes gave far better return than their solar panels (which required too much space). If bloom boxes became as common as refrigerators and computers, then the need for fuels would be reduced by 50%.

But here's a question. If a bloom box unit doubles whatever power is fed into it, then couldn't one put them in series to reduce fuel needs even more? A little fuel would power a small bloom box, which would power a larger one, which would power a larger one? If so, the initial power could come from fewer solar panels and a small fuel or electric grid back-up.

Like the Prius, a bloom box simply gets double the miles, or watts, to the gallon, which ain't bad, especially when the gallon can be alternative energy.
Comment
22 of 22
April 29, 2012
Premium domain name BuyBloomBox.com is for sale. Please do a whois buybloombox.com to contact me
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

John Farrell

View John Farrell's Profile
About: John Farrell directs the Energy Self-Reliant States and Communities program at ILSR and he focuses on energy policy developments that best expand the benefits o... more »

Advertise With Us

2GreenEnergy.com EnPower Systems Inc. RussTech Language Services, Inc. 350 Media Johnson Controls, Inc. Total Energy USA Standard Solar Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters