The Future Of Energy?

Event 1: Bloom Energy Boxes

Over the past several years, there’s been no shortage of talk about alternative energy, and its potential to change the world. The problem is that most of it is just that — talk. But on February 22nd., a report that aired on 60 Minutes showed one alternative that is not only real, it’s already being tested by companies such as Google and eBay.

Bloom Energy are producing tiny fuel cell boxes they call “Bloom Boxes.” Two of these can apparently power a U.S. home (and only one for homes in countries that use less power). So how small are they? Look at the picture above, each device isn’t much bigger than a standard brick. Of course, they need to be surrounded by a larger unit that takes in an energy source (such as natural gas). But still, these units look to be about the size of a refrigerator and can easily fit outside of a home, providing it with clean, cheap energy.

Currently, these boxes cost some $700,000 - $800,000, but eventually, founder K.R. Sridhar envisions one in every home — and he thinks he can get the cost below $3,000 for a unit to make that happen. And he’s talking a 5 to 10 year timeframe for this.

You simply have to watch this clip (from 60 Minutes on CBS): The Bloom Box

What is a fuel cell?
How does this specific solid-oxide-fuel-cell (SOFC) work?

Comment 1: Any effect on CO2 emissions?
I found the following on CO2 emissions from traditional natural gas- and coal fired powerplants: The average emissions rate from natural gas-fired generation is 515 kg (1135 lbs)/MWh of carbon dioxide. Compared to the average emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide.

Bloom Energy claims in their Datasheet that the CO2 emissions will be 350 kg (773 lbs) / MWh when running on natural gas (carbon neutral on Directed Biogas). This is only 67% of the emissions from a traditional powerplant based on natural gas combustion - and hence this looks like a good alternative to the big centralised powerplants burning natural gas (and even better when you compare it to coal).

Comment 2: What other positive effects could we expect?

• More effective electricity generation:
• They claim that they get more electricity out of the gas. Normal gas power stations have an efficiency of 50%, and an (achievable) efficiency of 80% for such a device therefore means half price per kWh, for the same amount of gas you burn (and almost half the CO2 emissions as previously discussed).    
• The loss of energy associated with transport of electricity over the powergrid is dramatically reduced in a scenario with a network of distributed Bloom boxes (anything less than 100% efficiency with a pressurized gas line is a leak that needs to be serviced).
• Replacing one grid with another: gas must be transported to each of these Bloom boxes.
• In USA 50% of the houses are hooked up to the gas network (and many more could), but in other countries like Norway there are very few houses hooked up to a distribution system for natural gas 
• The cost of building a distribution system for natural gas is probably too high. Regions without such a network will probably not see a Bloom box in every home - but bigger regional poverplants based on the same SOFC technology         
• 
  
  More robust energy distribution system:  
• Removing many SPOFs (single point of failure) such as the big powerplants, critical powerlines etc. Black-outs are therefore less likely in a scenario with millions of distributed Bloom boxes
•  There is of course the possibility of failure in the gas-supply, but I would be surprised if they do not include a small tank of LNG with every Bloom box installation (allowing it to operate for a few hours without supply of gas through the network).  

Comment 3: What could this technology have done to the current "energy crisis" in Norway?

• The CEO of Statoil, Helge Lund, would be very happy because this scenario would lead to a massive demand for "his" natural gas. He has for a long time argued that all coal-based powerplants should be converted to gas to cut the CO2 emissions in half (50%).   
• 
  
  We wouldn't be so dependant on nuclear power from Sweden (producing more energy ourselves - using our own natural gas)
• 
  
  Our lack of capacity in the powergrid has led to very different prices depending on which region you live in. This problem would not exist if we had a network of thousands micro-powerplants (in all regions) 
• 
  
  The concern about the vulnerability in the energy supplychain would fade with this transition from a centralized to a distributed infrastructure    

BUT, even though the CO2 emissions are lower than from traditional gas-fueled powerplants, there would be more CO2 emissions from Norway than what we have today. 

• It would replace clean nuclear power from Sweden (no CO2 emissions)
• It could increase the available electricity in the marketplace and prices would therefore drop - leading to an increase in demand

I believe there is too much talk about increasing the energy-production today. What we need today is better incentives for those who initiate energysaving projects (and we all know that lower energyprices will have the opposite effect).

The Bloom boxes will probably have limited success in Norway - due to the availability of clean energy (hydroelectric power) and a lack of gas distribution infrastructure. Agri businesses/farmers could, however, run their whole operations from methane and other gases that are produced from composting and slurrystores (manure).

In the USA where they have limited amounts of clean energy, huge reserves of gas and a good distribution network for the gas - the Bloom boxes might turn out to be a huge hit.
 
Progress:
Today the ventilation subcontractor finally replaced the big and noisy fan - with a smaller and less noisy fan. He also took out some instrumentation from the system and brought it back to the office. They will  now analyse the results and then disucss with the project leader who should be responsible for fixing the "too warm attic problem".