Bloom Box: Amazing Energy Source

[Cyrus]

tEJhnvX36hc&NR=1[/youtube] This is very amazing!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Wow. I almost thought it was a joke at the beginning.

I thought that wireless energy was pretty much a no go though? Too much waste.

 

[russ_watters]

8 years, $400 million in venture capital and no products? Gee, I'm a believer!

 

[Cyrus]

What do you mean no products, did you watch the video?

He listed companies using it in trail phase...

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry...hadn't gotten to that part yet.

...my other issue with it is that to the end user, how is this better than a gas turbine? (at $7,000 per kW!)

 

[Cyrus]

Are you seriously comparing a fuel cell, to a gas turbine that has constantly rotating components?

The lifecycle costs would be much lower.

 

[russ_watters]

Microturbines currently cost $700-$1100 per kW, with a target if volume increases of $650 per kW: http://www.wbdg.org/resources/microturbines.php?r=secure_safe

The lifecycle costs would be much lower.

Assuming the fuel cell doesn't degrade. But at 1/8th the cost, you could just about buy a new one instead of overhauling it once a year!

 

[Cyrus]

According to Ref [1], it's been tested at the University of Tennesee under a DOE grant, and the designer is a PhD that worked on Mars fuel cells for NASA, so this isn't some crackpot. The question is if he is able to make fuel cell cheap. If so, it will be a breakthrough in mass-marketing the technology. This thing will cost about $3k per household. How do you figure it is only 1/8 the cost?

References:
[1] http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/02/19/is-k-r-sridhars-magic-box-ready-for-prime-time/

 

[russ_watters]

The question is if he is able to make fuel cell cheap.

Agreed, though the longevity and maintenance issue is also an assumption you are making. No, it doesn't have as many moving parts, but it does burn hot, so I'm not inclined to just accept that it will last as long or work with considerably less maintenance.

If so, it will be a breakthrough in mass-marketing the technology. This thing will cost about $3k per household. How do you figure it is only 1/8 the cost?

He says he wants household units - which don't exist - to cost $3,000 for a 1 kW unit (which he says will supply a household, but really won't: they'll need at least 5 kW). It actually costs $700,000-$800,000 per 100 kW. $7,000/kw / (($700+1100)/2) = 7.8x

References:
[1] http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/02/19/is-k-r-sridhars-magic-box-ready-for-prime-time/

That doesn't paint a very rosy picture of the economic outlook.

I also didn't like his showmanship - holding up a stack of plates and saying 'this is all it takes' when in fact his device has a bigger footprint than a microturbine.

 

[Topher925]

This is very amazing!

No it isn't!

Welcome to five years ago.

 

[Cyrus]

No it isn't!

Welcome to five years ago.

He started his company 8 years ago. He didn't invent this yesterday. So, if I showed you this 8 years ago, would your comment still apply?

 

[chiro]

He started his company 8 years ago. He didn't invent this yesterday. So, if I showed you this 8 years ago, would your comment still apply?

Thanks for the story Cyrus. I've been following the free energy scene for a while but I haven't seen anything like this (and publicized in such a way as this) for a very long time.

There is one thing that this has compared to so called other "free energy" technologies and that is that the device requires fuel. The oil companies of the world won't mind this and certainly bloom energy will benefit because it has a "razor-blade" business model.

As for wireless energy there is a physicist named Dr Konstantin Meyl who demonstrated wireless electricity in an american conference some time ago. His work has been replicated in several other universities. I can't remember his website off the top of my head but if you want to verify my claims google Konstantin Meyl and you should find his website.

The last thing I want to happen however is for some powerful entity to buy up this technology and shelve it (which i don't think will happen) because it presents a strong threat to their business. I'm actually glad that the inventor has had the discipline to keep quiet and then become very public when a final product has been made. In researching different energy sources a lot of people announce what they are doing and do not have a fully working model and hence announce prematurely. Granted some of these people might be crackpots and scammers no doubt but for the few that probably are not trying to pull your leg, the inventors end up dead, or threatened to be killed.

I hope that this technology also reaches the mass market and not just the big corporations.

Thankyou very much Cyrus for the story. Appreciate it.

 

[Topher925]

He started his company 8 years ago. He didn't invent this yesterday. So, if I showed you this 8 years ago, would your comment still apply?

He didn't invent anything. He's just using a different material than a lot of other companies and a slightly different design (apparently, electrolyte support instead of anode support). SOFCs have been around a lot longer than 8 years, they just haven't become so commercially viable and cost effective until about 5 years ago.

 

[Gokul43201]

SOFCs have been around a lot longer than 8 years, they just haven't become so commercially viable and cost effective until about 5 years ago.

And still, they haven't gone much below the 500-600C threshold set by the ionic conductivity of YSZ.

 

[Topher925]

And still, they haven't gone much below the 500-600C threshold set by the ionic conductivity of YSZ.

Thats just the nature of the material. Operating at temperatures that high isn't necessarily a bad thing for most applications. But if you want lower temperatures, use a different electrolyte.

 

[minger]

Have their been any independent research regarding the actual efficiencies of this thing? I seem to recall reading/hearing something from Google where they basically said, "We don't care how efficient it is, it's good PR."

I think I heard somewhere in that interview (watched it last week, sorry) that he was seeing ~80% efficiency. I'm not sure if this is for one component or fuel in/energy out, etc. The thing is that this thing produces CO2 just like any other fossil fuel generating device, so the whole "green" thing really only applies if it's more efficient.

If it's more efficient that the ~60% power plant -~8% transmission losses, then I'd might be on board. As everyone has agreed on though, price...

 

[Topher925]

Have their been any independent research regarding the actual efficiencies of this thing? I seem to recall reading/hearing something from Google where they basically said, "We don't care how efficient it is, it's good PR."

Not that I know of. But judging by just what I have seen from the design shown in the videos, 40-50% is probably a very good estimate.

I think I heard somewhere in that interview (watched it last week, sorry) that he was seeing ~80% efficiency.

If it's more efficient that the ~60% power plant -~8% transmission losses, then I'd might be on board. As everyone has agreed on though, price...

There is no doubt in my mind that the ~80% efficiency number includes co-generation. Thats around what your typical SOFC co generation system would be. However, if your talking just electrical power from your typical power plant, I don't see how this could ever be better than your run of the mill nuclear power plant.

 

[minger]

I don't see how this could ever be better than your run of the mill nuclear power plant.

agreed.

 

[Chi Meson]

Have their been any independent research regarding the actual efficiencies of this thing? I seem to recall reading/hearing something from Google where they basically said, "We don't care how efficient it is, it's good PR."

I think I heard somewhere in that interview (watched it last week, sorry) that he was seeing ~80% efficiency. I'm not sure if this is for one component or fuel in/energy out, etc. The thing is that this thing produces CO2 just like any other fossil fuel generating device, so the whole "green" thing really only applies if it's more efficient.

If it's more efficient that the ~60% power plant -~8% transmission losses, then I'd might be on board. As everyone has agreed on though, price...

Assuming that what the 60 Minute piece said is correct (not always a safe assumption), the boxes at the Google site used only half the natural gas compared to what would be used to provide the same power via the grid. That is at least the way I understood it.

Anything that uses "half" is OK by me (except us Americans tend to think that allows us to use twice as much...). Color me slightly skeptical, but hopeful. There are serious businessmen here who seem to be convinced.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

This may not be the answer, but I am very encouraged by the fact of how many in Silicon Valley are looking for solutions.

 

[Brian_C]

This thing really looks like a scam to me. There's a sucker born every minute.

More info here:
http://www.wind-sun.com/ForumVB/showthread.php?t=7078

 

[russ_watters]

Assuming that what the 60 Minute piece said is correct (not always a safe assumption), the boxes at the Google site used only half the natural gas compared to what would be used to provide the same power via the grid. That is at least the way I understood it.

That would be very surprising. It is true for a small gas turbine (the type that would be competing with this product), which will run around 30% efficiency, but large gas turbine power plants tend to use a combined cycle (using the waste heat to run a steam turbine) and achieve around 55% efficiency. http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/gas_turbines_cc/en/downloads/GEH12985H.pdf

 

[Cyrus]

This thing really looks like a scam to me. There's a sucker born every minute.

More info here:
http://www.wind-sun.com/ForumVB/showthread.php?t=7078

What looks like a scam? The fact that he has a PhD, worked at NASA, had a DOE study validate this with UTenn, or that companies are actually using it?

Come on folks, I don't mind the naysayers, but don't miss what was explicitly stated in the video and links...

 

[Chi Meson]

This thing really looks like a scam to me. There's a sucker born every minute.

I don't think it's a scam. The science is valid, it's more a case of whether or not the energy/money saved will make the initial investment worthwhile.

That guy is sure trying to "sell" it, so maybe some folks might get burned if the fuel cells have no longevity. I think that falls under caveat emptor, rather than "scam."

 

[Topher925]

Its most definitely not a scam, although some things stated in the videos are a bit misleading.

I just hope people don't start to think this is some revolutionary device that's going to change the world and then develop a bad reputation for it when they realize its expensive decade old technology. Reputation seems to mean everything these days *cough* toyota *cough*. It would be a shame if something like this completely failed and discouraged the growth of similar technology.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think it's a scam. The science is valid, it's more a case of whether or not the energy/money saved will make the initial investment worthwhile.

Its most definitely not a scam, although some things stated in the videos are a bit misleading.

Well he's gotten a huge amount of investor capital on a promise of a revolutionary product. If it turns out his product is not fundamentally different/better than other similar products on the market, his investors will be pissed.

 

[Cyrus]

My old thermodynamics professor is a fuel cell expert, I'm going to email him and see what he thinks about this.

 

[Proton Soup]

Wow. I almost thought it was a joke at the beginning.

I thought that wireless energy was pretty much a no go though? Too much waste.

ah, no, it wouldn't be wireless. i believe she means off-grid. or possibly doesn't know what she means because she's just a reporter and all this just looks like magic.

it'll be interesting to see where it goes. I'm as skeptical as the guy in the video. so far, it sounds like Ebay, et alii, only save money with these because of government subsidies. if they can't bring the costs down so that it saves money without subsidies, then it'll only be a niche market product (remote/portable power generation).

 

[russ_watters]

it'll be interesting to see where it goes. I'm as skeptical as the guy in the video. so far, it sounds like Ebay, et alii, only save money with these because of government subsidies.

I didn't hear a claim of breaking even financially. One of them said they had saved $100k in electrical costs, but that to me just means exactly what it said and nothing more. At $700k per unit, and with multiple units installed (and they didn't say how much they paid for fuel...), they are a long way from breaking even financially.

 

[Proton Soup]

I didn't hear a claim of breaking even financially. One of them said they had saved $100k in electrical costs, but that to me just means exactly what it said and nothing more. At $700k per unit, and with multiple units installed (and they didn't say how much they paid for fuel...), they are a long way from breaking even financially.

i guess the question if whether he's talking about a time value of money calculation, or simply making an outright lie.

and they're certainly trying to get investors excited. one in every home, times about 128 million homes at $3k a pop is $384 billion just for the residential market. i guess commercial would push it well over a trillion. what i see is a lot of hype. and hype will feather his nest just fine.

 

[russ_watters]

i guess the question if whether he's talking about a time value of money calculation, or simply making an outright lie.

It's not a lie. A payback calculation looks like this:

capital cost/savings [rate] = payback

He gave the savings.

Like any marketing-speak, you just need to make sure you don't read past what is being said.

and they're certainly trying to get investors excited. one in every home, times about 128 million homes at $3k a pop is $384 billion just for the residential market.

[snip]what i see is a lot of hype. and hype will feather his nest just fine.

Well that part was also misleading. That's $3k per kW and that's nowhere near enough to power a home (I live in a townhouse and my air conditioner alone is 4 kw) unless you have it running 24/7, with a large battery bank to store the excess at night (like with a solar plant). I don't think that's the preferred setup.

Anyway, that was just a throwaway comment he made. They aren't developing such a product, so it really didn't have a point except to add to the marketing hype for the purpose of keeping/generating investors. The 60 Minutes piece wasn't for news, it was a sales pitch to investors.

i guess commercial would push it well over a trillion.

The commercial market for energy is a little smaller than the residential. The industrial market is twice that size: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec2_4.pdf

In the northeast, there is a legitimate market for large commercial/industrial cogen, but right now they mostly use regular diesel generators or gas turbines. That's the market this product has to compete in.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

As for wireless energy there is a physicist named Dr Konstantin Meyl who demonstrated wireless electricity in an american conference some time ago. His work has been replicated in several other universities. I can't remember his website off the top of my head but if you want to verify my claims google Konstantin Meyl and you should find his website.

The wireless angle is what set off my crackpot detector. I did not notice more than one reference to it though I did not watch the whole thing. Am I wrong in assuming that wireless energy is too wasteful to be viable?

 

[russ_watters]

The wireless angle is what set off my crackpot detector. I did not notice more than one reference to it though I did not watch the whole thing.

I suspect that was just bad writing/reporting. I watched the whole thing and didn't see any other referenes to it.

Am I wrong in assuming that wireless energy is too wasteful to be viable?

No, you are correct, for the most part. It works fine over very short distances, in the range of milimeters (ie, my electric toothbrush). Beyond that, it isn't viable.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I suspect that was just bad writing/reporting. I watched the whole thing and didn't see any other referenes to it. No, you are correct, for the most part. It works fine over very short distances, in the range of milimeters (ie, my electric toothbrush). Beyond that, it isn't viable.

I thought they were going to try this with cell phones too. Has that been abandoned?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It works fine over very short distances, in the range of milimeters (ie, my electric toothbrush). Beyond that, it isn't viable.

I thought they were going to try this with cell phones too. Has that been abandoned?

Ah. I think I have heard of short distance "wireless". I believe the common idea is something like a contact plate or similar that can transmit power to a device without having to actually be "plugged in".

So in the instance of a cell you could perhaps set it on a charging device and recharge it similar to the cradles we have now. Maybe though they had something a little more interesting in mind.