Fuel Cell Technology: This “Power Plant In a Box” Could Transform the Energy Sector
by Dave Fessler, Energy and Infrastructure Expert
Friday, March 12, 2010: Issue #1215
Today, we’re going on the hunt for the Holy Grail.
But Monty Python’s bumbling crew are nowhere to be seen.
I’m talking about scientists’ and engineers’ constant search for the “Holy Grail” of the energy world: A resource that’s clean, has no emissions and is inexpensive.
Simple right?
Well, the “clean” and “no emissions” parts are relatively straightforward. It’s the inexpensive part that is elusive. It just so happens to be the most important factor, too, with higher oil prices and more interest in alternative energy because of global warming.
Solve the price conundrum, though, and you can kiss dirty coal and lofty oil prices goodbye.
And the energy sector is making progress on several fronts…
What Are Fuel Cells?
There’s little doubt that getting to a low-carbon, low-cost, clean-energy economy is the ultimate goal. And driving much of the innovation is the mandate from 29 states, requiring utilities to increase their renewable energy resources.
That’s a big reason why solar, wind, and geothermal energy have all seen strong growth over the past two years. And it’s ignited a debate about which of the alternatives to coal, oil and natural gas plants are best.
That debate includes fuel cells.
In a fuel cell, a fuel and an oxidant flow into the cell, which contains an electrolyte. A chemical reaction then occurs, resulting in electricity, water and some amount of CO2 flowing out of the cell. Depending on the cell’s design, a significant amount of heat is generated.
Fuel cells aren’t new – they’ve been around for years. Most designs require pure hydrogen as a fuel source. But one company is changing that…
The Benefits of the “Bloom Box”
KR Sridhar is CEO of Bloom Energy, a privately held Californian energy company.
He invented Bloom’s solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) technology. He calls it an “energy game-changer” and a “power plant in a box.”
KR has spent much of his life as an inventor. But it was his groundbreaking work for NASA’s Mars program (converting Mars’ gases into breathable oxygen) that ultimately led to the development of the product known as the “Bloom Box.”
Unlike regular fuel cells, the Bloom Box is different. It’s a stack of ceramic plates, each coated with two different proprietary chemical mixes (the electrolyte).
Oxygen is fed into one side of the sandwich and natural gas into the other (the reactants). The two combine within the cell, and the resulting chemical reaction produces electricity. The Bloom Box has a few key benefits…
- It uses natural gas as a fuel.
- It converts as much as 90% of the input energy into electricity. Past fuel cells haven’t been able to convert more than 50%.
- It produces much less CO2 than burning natural gas in a power plant, making Bloom’s product one of the greenest.
It’s not a fad either…
Bloom Hits Big Business… Next Stop: Your Home
Among the major companies to use Bloom Boxes: Google (Nasdaq: GOOG), Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT), FedEx (NYSE: FDX), Bank of America (NYSE: BAC), Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO) and eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY).
But Bloom thinks it can scale the technology small enough – and cheap enough – to power the average home in five to ten years.
That would completely transform the power industry and virtually eliminate the need for huge, expensive power grids and controls. Power would be produced at the point of consumption.
Right now, however, Bloom Boxes aren’t profitable without large subsidies. The ones deployed in California take advantage of a 30% federal subsidy and a 20% California subsidy.
In addition, Bloom’s ceramic stacks have to be replaced every five to ten years, adding to the recurring cost.
Many energy experts feel there isn’t a single technology that’s going to transform the sector.
But John Doerr, a venture capitalist at Silicon Valley firm, Kleiner Perkins, believes that new energy technologies could be one of the largest economic opportunities of the twenty-first century. His firm pumped $100 million into Bloom Energy.
I agree with Doerr. In fact, I’ve talked about new energy technologies for nearly three years now. And you can bet that I’ll continue to watch other new developments like Bloom Energy – and report on them right here.
Good investing,
Dave Fessler
Any investment contains risk. Please see our disclaimer.
4 Responses to “Fuel Cell Technology: This “Power Plant In a Box” Could Transform the Energy Sector”
Comments
By submitting your comment you agree to adhere to our Comment Policy and Privacy Policy.
Check out our selection of daily investment research:
 |
 |
David Fessler is the energy and infrastructure expert for Investment U.
A business that will make the cost zero, to the buyer.
Real traders are taught that the Holy Grail to Investing doesn’t exist. Real people were taught that all the planet’s move about the earth, don’t go to far out into the ocean(you’ll fall off the earth), on and on……….
When one looks outside the box(inventor), goes against the group(thinks for self), said they found(developed) something that is supposed to be impossible(airplanes), they were once killed. Now these people are called bad names and delegated to be unheard, and ignored group.
The ultimate business solution. The ability to cut the cost of any business expense, or just plain invest.
I developed multiple arbitrages that enable me to trade(not invest) in the financial markets, without risk(The Holy Grail to Investing), or arbitrage that anyone can do. Over 30% a year.
Thomas Adair
Reply
Hi, Dave. This is a pretty ‘glowing report’ from a so-called energy expert. You have not asked the hard questions that need to be independently verified. I could get this type of ‘cheerleading’ from Bloom’s own website. Did you do any research on this before you ‘wrote’ this stuff? Where do you get a 90% energy conversion figure from? I watched the 60 MIN segment and heard K.R. himself say that is perhaps 60%. He didn’t sound convincing when he said it either. I have read much about this Bloom Box lately, and as much as I was excited about it when I first heard of it I have since noticed too many contradictory and statements made by people at Bloom who should be on the same page say things about the product, waste heat, conversion factor, costs, reliability, timelines for cost reductions and household sized units, reasons for this product’s existence. The burden is now on them to “prove” their statements through independent analysis from reputable energy research labs (they have patent protection, right) I don’t need to hear that a customers’ ceo is impressed with the device. I am sure his company’s shareholders do. I would appreciate more objectivity and not another reiteration of what has been said already. The coming out party was 2-24? Today is 3-12? The hype can fade…. let the ‘facts’ be the story next time, please!
Reply
Dave, I hate to be rude, but then again, this *is* the internet. Anyway, your fuel cell fundamentals could be a little more accurate:
1. Fuel cells need not produce CO2 (this depends on the input fuel).
2. All SOFCs are, essentially, “a stack of ceramic plates” (unless you’re using a tubular geometry). Sure, the anode is the supporting element in most attempts at SOFC commercialization, but a planar, electrolyte-supported SOFC is not something new or unique.
3. The “two proprietary chemical mixes” are not the electrolyte. The ceramic plate is.
4. Many/most SOFCs can run on natural gas. That’s one of the benefits of SOFCs – they are fuel flexible. Running on natural gas vs. Butane, for example, just requires a different reforming process.
I’m not saying that these things don’t have any relation to Bloom’s apparent/reported successes, relative to other attempts at commercial SOFCs, but I’d hate to see people get the wrong idea about Bloom and SOFCs based on what they read here.
Reply
In 1967 I discovered the technology of the Flying Saucer. I patented it later.
A Flying Saucer does not use oil or nuclear power, it “taps” energy right out of the aether.
I believe, that Tesla used it in 1931, to power his Pierce Arrow Car.
That system can also be used to power every home, anywhwere, which is the reason that after a death threat from Pierpont Morgan, Tesla did not dare to patent it.
Even though it was offered to Nasa as a new propulsion system for the Shuttles, the Propulsion Engineers were against it.
A shuttle that would be at the ISS in one hour?
A Shuttle that could land on the Moon in a few hours?
A Shuttle that could land on Mars in one day?
“Not interested, thank you for the copy of your Patent!”
After the Space Disasters, the Glenn Research Engineers experimented with it, did not ask me for advice like I had urged and caused another disaster: The big black-out of 2004.
Then Nasa rejected it outright.
So, now I need capital to safely develop it.
Units will be installed by electricians and antenna erectors for homes, will be leased only to give investors and Taxman their due.
The invention was evaluated at $600 Billion if the USA would have it before Russia and that was for the gravity control aspect alone.
The free power tapping spian-off might be worth a bit more.
Reply