Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bloom Unveils Its Game Changing Energy Box

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Bloom Unveils Its Game Changing Energy Box

#51

Post by wooster »

SpacemanSpiff wrote: post #43

So forgive me if this sounds jaded, but I fail to see how this technology is a "game changer." 1. Based on the EIA Annual Energy Review 2001 transmission losses only account for 3.1% of total power generation in the U.S. 2. A modern, large gas combined-cycle power plant has a quoted efficiency of over 60% http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/power-p... 3. From the presentation: "The carbon footprint i…

> Isn't the whole point of renewable energy to have a perpetually renewing "closed system"?

Nope. Renewable just means the energy source can be replenished. Technically, charcoal would fall in this category, even though it has a pretty hefty C02 output.

Re: Bloom Unveils Its Game Changing Energy Box

#52

Post by mbreese »

SpacemanSpiff wrote: post #43

So forgive me if this sounds jaded, but I fail to see how this technology is a "game changer." 1. Based on the EIA Annual Energy Review 2001 transmission losses only account for 3.1% of total power generation in the U.S. 2. A modern, large gas combined-cycle power plant has a quoted efficiency of over 60% http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/power-p... 3. From the presentation: "The carbon footprint i…

If you move from a central hub and spoke electricity distribution to a decentralized model, that alone is a game changer. You don't need to worry about the grid at all.

1. 3.1% seems low. Another estimate from 1995 says 7.2% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Los...). I suspect that the truth is closer to 5%. Also, the losses incurred are dependent upon the distance. Most power plants are located pretty far away from residential and commercial areas.

2. The power plant you're linking hasn't been completed yet. Plus, this is a cutting edge design. Most existing plants won't (couldn't?) be converted to this newer efficiency. And for cost reasons, existing inefficient plants aren't going to be shut down and replaced.

3. The fuel cell doesn't require natural gas. It can also run on biomass, which is completely renewable. And since this isn't based on combustion, you don't get the carbon monoxide, sulfurs oxides, nitrogen oxides, and heavier smog causing hydrocarbons. All of the nasties are produced with combustion. Also, since the CO2 is clean, it can be separated easily from the H2O and stored.

4. Well, they aren't burning anything, so 0% has been from burning fossil fuels. I'd guess most of it was from using natural gas as a fuel, but none of it was burned.

One interesting thing I've read is that they are claiming that this is a reversible process, which means it could be used to store PV energy collected during the day and reuse it at night. But, this system produces so much more energy than a PV cell that I'm not sure it would be of much use. You'd need a very large (sq footage) PV installation to generate this much energy.

Re: Bloom Unveils Its Game Changing Energy Box

#53

Post by holygoat »

mustpax wrote: post #14
tonystubblebine wrote: post #8

Could somebody help with some background on the science? What strikes me as odd is that you put fuel in the fuel cell. One of the examples they give is using these to charge your hyrbid car. So, by the transitive property, aren't you putting fuel into your car? I guess I'm trained to think of alternative energy sources like sun and wind, so I'm thrown off here. What's the innovation? I can see that you're generating…

I think they just announced a highly-efficient natural gas electric generator. The question is just how efficient, if it's as efficient as the large centralized power plants we now build then we don't have to waste money on building and maintaining power transmission lines. If I remember my thermodynamics correctly, the efficiency of a heat engine is constrained by the internal temperature of the engine. The higher t…

> then we don't have to waste money on building and maintaining power transmission lines.

Instead we'd just need to maintain a much larger natural gas infrastructure.

Re: Bloom Unveils Its Game Changing Energy Box

#54

Post by holygoat »

eru wrote: post #6
pkulak wrote: post #3

They say that 1 KW will power the average US home, hu? Yeah, so long as all heating is natural gas and no one ever turns on a hair dryer. Maybe they were talking about averaged load? But then they seem to have left out the 4 tonnes of lead-acid batteries you'll need.

Agreed. But --- who heats with electricity? (Heat pumps can be a good idea, though.)

My shitty uninsulated California house is entirely heated by electricity. Only the water tank is heated by gas.

Managed to break $400 for December's heating bill. I damn near lost my shit.

Re: Bloom Unveils Its Game Changing Energy Box

#57

Post by timdorr »

dantheman wrote: post #45
hop wrote: post #42

Fuel required @ rated power: 0.661 MMBtu/hr of natural gas. Rated power output (AC): 100 kW Figure fuel costs of $10 per MMBtu. So it pumps out 100kW/hr electricity for $6.60. ~$0.09/kWh for electricity in Oregon (its double that for NYC). So we pay about $9 for 100kW/hr. Thats a 30% savings in Oregon and about 70% for the East Coast. But it still releases a lot of CO2 - 773 lbs/MW-hr. http://www.bloomenergy.com/prod…

Natural Gas Figures for US ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... ) Natural gas - production: 582.2 billion cu m (2008 est.) country comparison to the world: 2 Natural gas - consumption: 657.2 billion cu m (2008 est.) country comparison to the world: 1 Natural gas - exports: 28.49 billion cu m (2008 est.) country comparison to the world: 10 Natural gas - imports: 112.7 billion cu m (2008 es…

Does that say we have a little more than 10 years of natural gas left that we know about? Or is that just in the reserve tanks?

Re: Bloom Unveils Its Game Changing Energy Box

#58

Post by tjmc »

ashishbharthi wrote: post #26

As they mentioned it can work on variety of fuel sources, they can probably create Gasoline -> Fuel Cell -> Electricity -> Motor type powertrain and create very efficient cars like 100mi/1gallon or something.

Question for mods - why was bbot's reply here and elsewhere on this thread killed?

Both times he's simply raised the very valid point that fuel cells don't run backwards. There are some woefully uninformed comments on this thread already. A little education would help.

Re: Bloom Unveils Its Game Changing Energy Box

#60

Post by SpacemanSpiff »

wooster wrote: post #51
SpacemanSpiff wrote: post #43

So forgive me if this sounds jaded, but I fail to see how this technology is a "game changer." 1. Based on the EIA Annual Energy Review 2001 transmission losses only account for 3.1% of total power generation in the U.S. 2. A modern, large gas combined-cycle power plant has a quoted efficiency of over 60% http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/power-p... 3. From the presentation: "The carbon footprint i…

> Isn't the whole point of renewable energy to have a perpetually renewing "closed system"? Nope. Renewable just means the energy source can be replenished. Technically, charcoal would fall in this category, even though it has a pretty hefty C02 output.

That's exactly my point. The process of growing the trees that produce the charcoal should remove as much co2 as is released when the charcoal is burned, thus a closed system.
Post reply on HN