Bloom Unveils Its Game Changing Energy Box • Hacker News Board

Re: Bloom Unveils Its Game Changing Energy Box

#61

Post by SpacemanSpiff » Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 11:12 AM UTC

mbreese wrote: post #52

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 loc…

The points you make are good, and I agree with what you are saying. My point was that from an environmental perspective, this device is basically on par with available power generation in terms of efficiency, and when used with natural gas simply moves the co2 generation from a centralized location to many distributed locations, but doesn't cut it down significantly per unit energy produced.

IF the device were to be used with biomass fuel, it would certainly be a huge step forward environmentally, but I don't see where the incentive would be outside of environmental stewardship, which some companies value but many do not. From your reply: "...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." This is exactly why I wouldn't call it a game changer from an environmental standpoint. Basically we're still stuck with the fact that it's much easier to produce power by burning, oxidizing in a fuel cell, etc. than by using solar, wind etc. In my book a game changer would be a technology that enables a move to truly renewable power generation while remaining practical and cost effective. Could the energy server fit that description? Perhaps, but it depends highly upon how it is operated.

Re: Bloom Unveils Its Game Changing Energy Box

#62

Post by mbreese » Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 6:28 PM UTC

SpacemanSpiff wrote: post #61

mbreese wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 loc…

The points you make are good, and I agree with what you are saying. My point was that from an environmental perspective, this device is basically on par with available power generation in terms of efficiency, and when used with natural gas simply moves the co2 generation from a centralized location to many distributed locations, but doesn't cut it down significantly per unit energy produced. IF the device were to be…

* that it's much easier to produce power by burning, oxidizing in a fuel cell, etc. than by using solar, wind etc*

I agree... it would be nice if it was easier to use solar, wind, anything with zero-carbon footprint. I just don't know if they are going to be sufficiently powerful enough to replace the current coal / gas fired plants. But, if you could effectively use a fuel cell as a battery to produce H2 from H2O during the day, and then consume the same H2 at night, that would be a very good thing since the biggest problem with PV and wind isn't the technology, it's storing the energy produced so you can deliver electricity when its cloudy.

Re: Bloom Unveils Its Game Changing Energy Box

#63

Post by wooster » Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 8:49 PM UTC

SpacemanSpiff wrote: post #60

wooster wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Carbon footprint = carbon output - offsets

Much of the charcoal used in tropical regions is made by slash-and-charring rain forests. These forests aren't replanted. So, since the carbon output is high, and there is no offset, it has a huge carbon footprint.

You don't get to count the initial carbon sequestration as the carbon offset. If you could, then coal and oil would have carbon footprints of zero.

If you develop a closed loop system, like much charcoal production in North America, then yeah, your carbon footprint is low.

So, when they say "The carbon footprint is 50% cleaner than the grid and 100% renewable" they mean it produces half the carbon output per amount of energy generated (they claim to be more efficient than many power plants), and has the possibility of using renewable energy such as biomass gas (which is not currently produced in large quantities).