Comments for Why is Bloom Energy Lying to Us? at http://www.ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 43 out of 20 comments http://www.ecogeek.org Wed, 22 May 2013 15:34:32 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-37392 Hey smarty-pants... Where exactly do you think the carbon in CO2 that animals exhale comes from? It comes from plants that those animals eat. And the plants get the carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere during photosynthesis. I know this may be complicated for you, so let's review... Plants get carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere --> Animals get carbon from plants --> Animals exhale CO2 back into the atmosphere = NO NET INCREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 In contrast, releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels that have been buried deep in the earth for millions of years DOES increase atmospheric CO2 levels. That's why it's not the same as the CO2 we exhale. GET IT? - Jeff Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:46:08 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-37172 By the way . Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. If you think it is then your very act of living and all air breathing animal area polluting right this second.Please think for your self and logically come to a conclusion. - wtf Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:10:27 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-37170 Just a thought.The product being discussed has miss leading claims.I understand that companies do hype up their product.That is were your ability to separate BS from the claims is your own responsibility. Now to diverge from the advertisement claims.You can purchase a sterling engine generator (try looking in the marine industry) and have the fuel source customized for natural gas(methane).If you do not understand were I am going with this you have completely missed both concepts from the Boom's company Idea and how a sterling engine works. good luck - wtf Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:03:24 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36783 Great article, agree with you whole-heartedly! But it was my understanding that natural gas could be used as a fuel sources as well, not just methane... I believe that's what Google was using. - Diana Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:25:20 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36696 These things will put out a lot of heat, which can be utilized to heat nearby homes and buildings or businesses. Perhaps that is part of the payback equation? - bbm Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:33:42 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36649 4) the thing that annoys me the most is the presenter of the BloomBox. He's... well, annoying. I need say no more. just watch. Its not what the tech does that I have a problem with, but how its presented. I don't even call 'bullsh*t" I can easily where it would and probably does work... I call 'annoying' He'd do really well to look to the CEO's of a few other prominent technologies.... think Eric Schmidt would present a product like this? even Steve Jobs? (though he's come close) .... I would say 'Bill Gates' but it'd probably blow up on stage and its not the injured viewers fault the presenter is a jynxing retard - Justin Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:17:43 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36648 1 - works with any gasified fuel. EBAY uses the methane from the local landfill, but that's a special case. Get your facts straight on that one. 2 - a little math goes a long way here, there's a boatload of subsidy in the current payback. Why is this any different than the mumbo jumbo the local Solar supplier uses trying to get me to put up an array at home. They don't pay for themselve either. 3 - You're just too much of a skeptic on this one. Any fuel cell providing local power is more efficient than the grid with its line loss, so its all about affordability. Venture capitalist aren't idiots, there has to be some potential reality to this considering they're 2-400 million into this already and its not a gift. Basically, as I interpret the technology, its a really cool catalytic converter and they've figured out how to do it without a precious metal. The rest is just economy of scale if they've really figured that out. - Paul Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:49:44 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36646 I am by now means technical in this aspect, but even I could see through their marketing. It is a great technology and much better than the current system but it sucks in comparison to wind, solar or geothermal, in regard to energy in energy out and how clean it is. Frankly I am surprised a company like Google got to suckered by it. - Mark Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:45:35 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36606 Have to agree with Shawn. Don't believe the lie of 10 cents per kwh from the electric co. That's the lie they tell me but my total bill says it cost me over 15 cents per kwh on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. - cncmike Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:33:54 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36601 Okay. Actually point one is at best hype. I'll give you that one. Point two: I think this point has already been made, but obviously the cost of the first couple dozen essentially hand-built prototype units is going to be higher than mass production stuff. The marketing dilemma is that the first few units are going to be much more expensive than to build than subsequent units and will be sold to the corporate equivalent of early adopters--cash flush corporations that are willing to spend extra for the prestige of having the 'next big thing' before anybody else. The marketing for Bloom boxes needs to talk about the payback once they get to mass-production, because that's the only point where it makes sense for most people. At the same time they don't want to tell potential early adopters that prices will be much lower if they wait a few years. The early adopters undoubtedly know that, but why rub their faces in it? Point three is poorly phrased, but they do have a potentially valid point. A Bloom box would presumably be cleaner and more efficient than traditional power sources, and more reliably available than wind or solar. I could see it being a good supplement to solar, cutting CO2 as an interim tech while we get our act together on storage and smart grid. The claim of using solar left me shaking my head too, but apparently the guy was talking about an option that Bloom has toyed with where the box is used to generate and store fuel. I would call their marketing more confusing than deceptive. - Barry R. Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:23:33 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36584 I don't even think fuel cells are promising and don't see how theirs is any different, the capital cost is enormous, as you noted, and the benefits are minimal. The most recent reading I did on the subject found that for fuel cells to be viable, their cost would have to decrease by a factor of 30. The more important question is where you get the fuel and what kind you use, not what type of machine you use to burn it. - Jeremy Abramowitz Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:13:40 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36572 Another UPS for buildings possibly. You still need fuel (methane). An alternative for homeowners for the electric grid? No way. This is a technology angling for government subsidies and hoping for the same thing that corn ethanol got. It made a few people rich. It was marginally useful in very special situations. But it was an overall dumb idea. - Sve Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:03:28 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36568 the bloom cells will probably end up as range-extenders for cars. storage can be done better by hydro or isentropic heat storage-device. if they bring price down to what they say for a range extender with 20 000 hours of operation this is way cool. what would really knock me out would be a cell that transforms co2 into methane for storage with 100% renewable energy. maybe somebody will come up with that someday. technically it is possible today with a reformer and additional hydrogen but is still too expensive. - ds Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:18:09 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36532 There are mistakes in the assumptions above-- you have to add natural gas fuel prices to the amortized equipment cost to compute payback, but then you subtract the cost you would pay for the electricity it generates. The $.09/kWh must assume a low gas price (see below), very low interest loan (or ~0% ROI), and 50% subsidy. You have to take the press releases with some skepticism. The competing solution is an internal combustion generator, less than 10x the fuel cell price. The Sunnyvale (where Bloom is) landfill and sewage treatment plant uses these to make electricty already. The ICE engines are around 37% efficient vs 52% for the fuel cell, so an advantage in fuel cost and CO2 emissions, but not much. (The fuel cell doesn't have the NOx, etc. emissions of an ICE engine, so is clean in that sense.) PG&E is the utility that serves Bloom, Google, and eBay. The Bloom boxes emit 48% *more* CO2/kWh than the PG&E grid average. Unless there is an offset reusing industrial or building heat, these fuel cells are less efficient than a combined cycle power plant. (The 52% fuel cell efficiency is better than the ~30% peaker turbine efficiency, but they run only during peak day use, not 24x7.) Based on the prior 2 year PG&E commercial gas price, average fuel cost is $.06/kWh, but in 2008 prices fluctuated between $.03-.10/kWh. Spread over 10 years with no interest or subsidy, the $700K comes out at 8 cents/kWh, or 4 cents/kWh with a 50% tax subsidy and 0% interest loan. The savings quoted are questionable. If gas prices go back up, then the cost of electricity would be high. With fossil fuel, it's not green because it uses more gas/kWh than existing gas power plants and emits more CO2, unless the fuel cell used for industrial or building heat. It could be great running off biogas-- the only problem there is cost. An internal combustion engine is less efficient but is way cheaper now. - Carl Hage Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:05:55 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36522 The lies bug me as well and as more truthy details seep out this sounds more and more like they are lying for the same reason people always lie -- the truth isn't enough. It looks to me like they need another $400 million dollars from the IPO. I don't remember Google lying to us prior to their IPO and for all of the hype about the Segway, at least it wasn't a lie. In fact I don't know how they can even get away with the deception with an IPO pending. Do "green" companies just get an automatic pass from the SEC? According to Forbes, the actual cost is not $700K or $800K, but more like $900K or a cool million. In addition, from another NYT article the cells only last for THREE YEARS. That's right, the system has a 10-year lifecycle but the fuel cells will need to be replaced twice. So who pays for that? They claim costs of $0.08 to $0.10 cents per kwh, but that is clearly including major subsidies. Using extremely rosy assumptions I estimated a price of $0.13/kwh but I used a 15 year life cycle, assumed maintenance was included in the sticker price and didn't include the state subsidies to Bloom which Forbes mentions. All in all if they'll lie about these things then they will lie about anything. I was optimistic because it seemed like a reasonable breakthrough, but increasingly it's becoming clear that they haven't even gotten close to producing an economical SOFC and are just looking fund another 10 years of R&D. It's actually very slimy, especially since they are sucking oxygen from all of the HONEST people working on fuel cells. -Mercy - Mercy Vetsel Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:52:23 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36519 This device (in it's current form at least) could actually be the biggest impediment, and threat to green technology invented yet. And could have drastic consequences politically. While at the moment there is a kind of balance between the use of electricity supply from fossil fuel power stations(that use Coal fired, and Nuclear Systems) and other applications that use gas directly (Heating, oven etc.) This essentially hands an opportunity to gas suppliers to create a greater monopoly on energy supply across the board, making it less viable for these other forms of electricity production, which will not only have a massive and detremental effect on price to the consumer, but make it so that these other companies can afford less to spend on cleaning up their act, and we all know what happens when a single company or sector gains such a monopoly... it gives them greater power to supress emergent technologies that would threaten their new monopoly. But also, while the political effects may be less in the US, or elsewhere around the world, in Europe, many countries are already under the cosh from Russian dominance of the gas market, which they have already used to great effect as an "energy weapon" against Ukraine and other European states, to make these nations even more dependent than they already are on Russia, could increase tensions, and have disasterous consequences. So while on the face of it, this looks agood idea, and may well be so for many elsewhere around the world in certain situations, it should, in my opinion be re-named "Pandora's Box" - Matthew Yacomine Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:27:10 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36511 Well mud in my face. They are claiming energy storage, input your extra solor, wind, whatever and it converts it to feul which can then be used later. I will say this, more comments than I seen in a long time. So fuel cell really rev people up. A lot more on their web site today than 3 days ago when it was just a short clip. Interest in the environment section "Humidity 20%-95%". Not sure exactly what that mean, can't use them in the desert, on rainly days, or the month of Aug the Ohio river valley. I just hope they do in fact bring down their cost. - Matt Peffly Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:50:18 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36510 "Add in the cost of the fuel (in whatever form) the cost of maintenence and financing, and I doubt these companies are saving more than $60,000 per year per box. So I don't see how they're going to pay for a $700,000 piece of equipment (even with a 50% government subsidy that won't last forever) over the course of three years." If I get a 50% subsidy (forever) then the gov picks up half, leaving me $350,000. Divide by your $60k/year and I get 6 years. It's marketing math. Of course if rates go up, which I sure is the assumption they make to up justify. Then you can get to 5 years. And when I read line in the paper this morning "can use Solor, wind, ..." I thought some interviewer was not on their toes. How the #$% does a fuel cell use solor or wind? Or can you run this one in reverse input electric and water get fuel, not likely. - Matt Peffly Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:34:53 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36508 I don't know if this would also factor in to the pay off on the $700k cost, but what about savings from continuing efforts at efficiency? If they're using less energy but still creating the same amount with the Bloom boxes, that's more they're sending back to the power company and thus quicker pay off. I don't know if it would make up the difference or not but I can't imagine Google or similar large modern company not continuing to bring their energy use down. And what if they produce their own biogas off their own organic waste? Aunty Proton - Aunty Proton Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:38:16 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/3084-why-is-bloom-energy-lying-to-us#comment-36507 But... It is true that they are a commercial company, and their job is to make money. ANY time you include ANY marketing, it is going to be trumpted up, over blown, surprising/exciting, and at worst...boldfaced lies. I have been reading a lot of the buzz, been excited to see/hear the details, and impressed by what info there was before the "announcement". Gotta be honest though, I am impressed with the fact that they are actually USING the tech, it does work, and there is actual savings in the cost of power. Overall though, I was impressed with the guy that designed/invented it. I was truly touched by his statement "we have to stop looking at the world for what it is, and start looking at it for what it could be..." or something like that. That is compelling! Until someone in the green tech industry stops trying to make things "better" on their tech, and decides to just go into mass production (as Bloom has started) so that consumer prices will drop, then what is it all for? I get so tired of reading about CiGS, algae, blah, blah, blah, and not being able to purchase ANY of them for less than 20 years salary! Time to create consumer level pricing by producing mass quantities, and then, only then, will you start to see some type of green on every house/building/skyscraper/etc. I like Bloom because they are selling (or about to sell I guess) an actual product, and at the scale that their units provide power, it is understandable that it will be a while before I can pick one up at Lowes....Solar/CiGS neither one have that excuse. There should be DiY solar kits in every home improvement store by now! I just think it is time to start BEING green, and stop DEVELOPING green! We have multitudes of tech....no products! Sorry for the long post.... smooter - smooter Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:39:38 +0100