The bloom is not yet off the Bloom Box. All the fuss about Bloomenergy's rollout is really just marketing the opportunity to invest in a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC hereafter). Made from sand, indeed! But the subject of developing and exploiting SOFCs is quite valid; the where, how, why, and how long are all in need of better definition. Hype aside, we're going to need better economics and science, public promotion notwithstanding.
Whether eBay, Google and Wal-Mart invest in Bloomenergy or not, the current SOFC economics needs much improvement to exist sans subsidy.
Applying the experience curve, valid across many kinds of activities and products, gives a forecast that the current 100KW module price of $750,000 mas o menos can be brought down to $20,000 or even $12,000 if we can just find a way to sell a million of these SOFC modules. As shown above, even if a hundred thousand or so can be manufactured, we might expect learning and experience to drive the capital cost down to between $50,000 and $100,000. Then, we would be talking competitive!
And that means we can't just target corporate HQs on the grid. Earlier in its evolution, the SOFC must generate electric power off-grid, even way-off-grid. To give an SOFC maximum advantage, also, it should not need pure, high cost gaseous energy, but should operate on synthesis gas with an inexpensive source. I believe we have identified several good places to do this, but a couple of the best are remote, prairie ranches and any of the isolated villages of the developing world. Both of these sites offer excess vegetable fuel and low-grade land to grow more of it. Both of these sites need energy for various activities but are so far away from reliable grid power that power value is set by other, expensive alternatives. And both of these would benefit from upgrading the land, generating a separate source of value, beyond the electricity.
Let me explain. What ties this together logically is another green technology called BioChar. By taking cellulose-rich plants into a pyrolyzer, using plants as fuel to raise the temperature to 800+ F. (425+ C.) in an oxygen-deficient vessel, you generate a CO2-rich stream from plant combustion and 3 product streams. Pyrolysis is a Neolithic process used to make charcoal, a similar process to BioChar. Obviously, it can be done in a village or on a prairie. The result - total energy independence via three product streams:
[click to enlarge]
The first product stream is a liquid biofuel, reported to be close to a biodiesel fuel. This goes to tractors, trucks and other mobile diesel engines.
The second product stream is a gaseous fuel stream of CO, H2, H2O, CO2 which is driven off from the plant's cellulose and other molecules. This is much of the energy derived from the plants and is fed without much cleanup into a SOFCell. Bio-synthesis gas is the key to empowering the village, since electricity can be gotten from plants, not imported as fossil fuels.
The third, valuable stream is BioChar, which has been shown to improve the productivity of weak soil in much the same way as plant matter or hummus improves soil productivity. Some sources suggest that practically 1/4 of the dry plant matter can be produced as BioChar, which can improve any of the land of the prairie or village. And the more it operates, the more it improves the land.
Now back to the original stream, the combustion gases from heating the input plant material. These are rich in CO2 and water. If we initially release these flue gasses into the atmosphere, the whole process will be deemed to be "carbon neutral." But eventually, these flue gasses can be captured by a plastic ductwork, routed back to some fields to grow plants, and the process will become "carbon negative." Perhaps carbon emitters would invest in the ducting equipment in order to gain carbon credits.
A prairie ranch, let's say one of Ted Turner's ranches with bison and elk, is another possible way to employ SOFCs. Ted has a major advantage to developing country villages: he has more money! Alas, from the perspective of SOFC development, he has the same disadvantage as Google: he does not need a million SOFCs so we can get our blessed experience.
There you have it. We find an investor (WalMart, Mitui Trading, Cargill, or a local food conglomerate) who is motivated to empower villages with SOFC units. We develop suitable pyrolysis units for processing whatever plants villages or ranches have available locally. Why should this be done in Amsterdam or Palo Alto when it can be done in developing countries much less expensively? We develop a suitable bioPyrolyzer/SOFC, betting that it will not be contained in a stainless steel box. The key, it seems to me, is a relationship or business structure that will motivate some private company, probably with public subsidies or NGO support, to start putting SOFCs in villages and on ranches initially at a loss.
Experience is the best teacher. Only by building thousands of SOFCs will the cost come down markedly. But when it does come down way-off-grid, the system will offer such good economics that SOFC will be competitive in markets where it is not used today. And once experience has created a much lower cost SOFC, it seems likely to better able to compete in store buildings, apartment houses, and yes, even in vehicles.
Leave a comment