http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/ Engadget Comments for Bloom 'Box' Energy Server hands-on (literally) with video! http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 5:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
Seems that way... I read people talking about these things being extremely hot and therefore deteriorating quickly if not running constantly (going from hot to cold etc...). I don't know anything about the technology but considering this post I'd say neither do they!]]>Feb 24th 2010 5:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
"The major thing about an SOFC versus other fuel cells is that the material composition means they can run crazy hot—up to 1800ºF, says the US Department of Energy—and have to, since the ceramic materials don't become active until they reach a certain temperature. "

Quote stolen from elsewhere.]]>Feb 24th 2010 5:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
]]>Feb 24th 2010 6:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 8:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 8:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://hight3ch.com/bloom-energy-how-does-the-bloombox-work-is-it-free-energy/]]>Feb 24th 2010 8:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.cfcl.com.au/BlueGen/ and they claim 60% efficiency. Sounds exciting!!! Might buy some shares in this!]]>Feb 24th 2010 9:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
Thanks for coming out with all this lack of misinformation Bloom Box. So what is your product? So far with the information on ceramic disks and use of a fuel it appears to be just another CHP fuel cell project, which is being worked on by another few dozen other companies, with several already with commercial releases.

@jimlivingston
Good point, because that is how these CHP fuel cells work. The efficiency stated is not the fuel-to-electricity ratio but the fuel-to-energy ratio, as the majority of energy released by the fuel cells is waste heat, which can instead be used for heating.


And they keep on going on about the miniature size of these units, yet that 100kW unit above looks roughly 30 times larger than the 25kW generators I work with.


Anybody know some real facts about this technology? Or are these guys just harvesting for investors?

]]>Feb 24th 2010 9:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 9:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
Heat implies inefficiency. Example: Internal Combustion Engine. The cooler your engine can run once up to operating heat, but better. In a given amount of Gasoline there is a finite amount of energy. The more of it that is transferred into heat, the less your car is able to use (Generally Speaking**) ]]>Feb 25th 2010 2:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
The company claims they can be rolled out to homes but I share your concerns that they will not suit variable load applications (such as a residential home).

There are significant safety concerns with other forms of green energy like solar (some panels can become faulty and start arcing and making roofs electrified). These devices would carry their own set of safety concerns.

I think they would be better purchased by the power companies and rolled out at substations. This would allow for a win-win situation with customers and the supplier in terms of energy prices and safety.]]>Feb 25th 2010 5:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/And there's this thing called thermal transfer. The heat has to go somewhere and I suspect there's no thermal conduits stuck in the ground to take it away. So, even though there's insulation, that heat will saturate it, increase it's temp and eventually pass through to heat the casing/air beyond.]]>Feb 25th 2010 9:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
@buoy Metallurgy applies to metals. Your engine manifold is not made of zirconia. The bloom membrane is. No offense, but you can't say something looks promising if you don't know what you're looking at.]]>Feb 26th 2010 7:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 5:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 5:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
hehheh.

you said beans.]]>Feb 24th 2010 8:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 5:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 5:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 5:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
Meant to be doesnt mean a damn thing.

You need to look up the myth of green energy. ]]>Feb 24th 2010 5:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
That's without you taking into account its ability to convert the waste product back into fuel by using electricity, making a bit like a big battery for your solar panels etc. In that respect it could help in making energy a whole lot cheaper, as storing energy from renewables is one of the biggest issues.]]>Feb 24th 2010 5:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 5:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Oh, I get it. It looked like you were asking a question, but you were really trying to make a statement.
#iseewhatyoudidthere]]>Feb 24th 2010 5:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
I'm still hopeful but there seems to be a complete dead end to cost efficient clean technologies.
]]>Feb 24th 2010 5:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
It still remains to be seen if they can maintain $3000 for residential use but as more units are produced cost will eventually come down.]]>Feb 24th 2010 5:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Yeah, I know... Humans have been looking into this for about 0.01% of their time on this earth and they still haven't found a solution to cheap clean energy. It is clearly a dead end.
I mean... It's not like they're making any progress.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/PVeff%28rev110707%29d.png
]]>Feb 24th 2010 6:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 5:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
"If it's too good to be true, it probably is.."

I'll have to agree with you... as promising as it sounds, think I would still wait about 4-5 years before picking one of my own at.... Walmart??]]>Feb 25th 2010 8:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 5:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 5:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 5:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 5:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/I'm sure many people would do just that, but part of the appeal of this device is the claim that it can use any fuel source. I personally don't have natural gas pipes in my neighborhood. Everything is electric. So what would a person like me do in this situation? I would either have to pay the gas company a huge amount of money to get gas lines in our neighborhood, or there would need to be some kind of fuel reservoir attached to the Bloom Server.

So my inquiry remains: How much fuel would it consume per day/month/year? Also, is it just as efficient running on gasoline or ethanol instead of natural gas?]]>Feb 24th 2010 5:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Propane Gas is what you would use.
I am in the same boat, no natural gas lines here only electric & woodburning stoves for heat.

If they can build one for $3k and the running cost via propane is low per year, like one tank a year for me to justify the cost. My PG&E bill runs just $40-60 a month so the yearly cost would have to be about te same. A little highter would be fine if it produced the power output to run my houses 'large' Heater/AC unit, then I can stop using my dirty woodstove for heat in the winter, then cool my whole house, not just my bedroom with a protable AC unit, in the summer. ]]>Feb 24th 2010 7:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
This math is no good, those ratings must not be comparable. Because if the box took in 125 cu ft of gas per hour, that'd be 1.25 therms, or 125,000 BTUs (36.6kWh) worth of energy. If it then produced 661,000 BTU of power per hour (193.75kWh) it would be running at about 528% efficiency, which is impossible.]]>Feb 24th 2010 7:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/The website says that it uses .661 MMBTU (661,000) BTUS per hour to produce the rated power. The rated power on the datasheet they published is 100 kilowatts. Given that the input is equivalent to 193 kilowatts, this thing is running at 52% efficiency. 93 kilowatts is being expended as heat by-product.

Anyways, I was hoping they would of produced modules that would fit in a car rather than this. 52% efficiency is a lot better than ICEs.]]>Feb 24th 2010 11:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/The 60 minutes interview said it can also be powered by solar. The 60 minutes segments can be found on youtube.]]>Feb 24th 2010 11:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/The 60 Minutes article said they thought you could use solar energy to break water into hydrogen and oxygen, then put it in this and get power back from it. That makes it a way to store solar energy, not produce energy. It cannot be fed from solar energy as a fuel.

nate:
that math at least produces a plausible number, but the box is clearly marked as taking at max 125 cu ft of gas an hour, which is only 125,000 BTU.

http://www.engadget.com/photos/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on/#2739666

So even though this is a plausible efficiency figure, I can't see how it is correct either.]]>Feb 25th 2010 1:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/I ran the same maths... Considering the efficiency of the whole system (ie removing the loss from grid transmission) it works out well, considering that traditional gas burning power stations get similar levels of efficiency. However the amount of CO2 these things release directly is not insignificant: they quote 773lb/MWh, which is still 68% less than the average for a gas powered station (1135lb/MWh). I guess if you could feed it with pure hydrogen it wouldn't have any CO2/CO at all...]]>Feb 25th 2010 5:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
I also ran the calcs but got slightly different value. Are you sure you're making the distinction that the pressure is 15 PSIG (not 15 PSIA).

Even still, I'm getting around 87kW (296707 BTU/hr) of energy in CNG at that rate of flow and pressure. That still doesn't comply with the claimed 100kW output (lol 115% efficient).

My values used
125ft^3/hr (.00983 m^3/s) claimed input rate
1.65kg/m^3 Approx density of CNG at 29.7PSIA (15PSIG + ATM)
53600000 J/kg Specific energy of Natural Gas

]]>Feb 25th 2010 11:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 5:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
Is that right?

If so, there must be waste products left over from the process. Where do they go? Am I missing the point?

]]>Feb 24th 2010 5:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
I believe the only byproduct of fuel cell is water, in vapor form.]]>Feb 24th 2010 5:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/Feb 24th 2010 6:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10457410-54.html?tag=mncol;txt

Here's a link to the 60 Minutes piece. It runs on gas - normally natural gas; but Google is using a carbon-neutral biofuel. Most companies/homes would just hook it up to their natural gas pipe and away it goes.]]>Feb 24th 2010 6:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/The basic idea AFAIK: Bloom Boxes can use regular hydrocarbon fuels; they can convert the energy in the energy source into electricity more efficiently than by fuel combustion; they don't locally produce harmful pollutants which would be produced by hydrocarbon combustion. Other than fuel, the only other requirement is atmospheric oxygen. So, mainly, it is inherently more efficient and cleaner than burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. The fact that it can use widely available fossil fuels makes the Bloom Box more competitive than if it required a more expensive source of fuel and can fit into existing energy infrastructure more easily.

If the source of fuel is natural gas and there is a natural gas pipeline system in place, then the only source of dangerous pollutants is due to the initial processing of the natural gas. If the fuel were diesel, for instance, like in an undeveloped nation where there is no natural gas pipeline, one would have to refine oil into diesel and transport the diesel to the Bloom Box. ]]>Feb 24th 2010 6:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/well chemistry doesn't change it isn't magic. If it uses Natural Gas or Propane then it burns mostly Methane which is CH4. It has to have CO2 and H2O as byproducts.
I don't know what biofuel would be used which is carbon neutral except alcohol. If it used that then the byproduct could be only water. Their claims of no emissions must be made on using the biofuel alcohol. ]]>Feb 24th 2010 9:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/
carbon neutral != no emissions ]]>Feb 25th 2010 8:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/bloom-box-energy-server-hands-on-literally-with-video/http://www.proconlists.com/list/technology-science/bloom-energy-fuel-cells/6]]>Feb 24th 2010 5:44PM