I do know something about this.

Fuel cells produce essentially no particulate pollution whereas gas turbines do produce some (although gas turbines are far cleaner today than they were in the past). In terms of social costs, even though it is more efficient to locate gas turbine generators near their point of use, thus saving the electrical losses due to transportation and transformation, the location of pollution sources in populated areas negates this benefit. By not producing human-hasardous emissions, using fuel cells restores it. Fuel cells also tend to be more efficient than gas turbines, saving greenhouse emissions and theoretically operating at a lower cost. So it's a win all around.

BUT...

I've been following Bloom Energy and their technology for a few years now. I really want to believe that they've come up with an amazing breakthrough that makes fuel cells practical and affordable. In the absence of any concrete information to the contrary from the company, I've concluded that their energy servers are merely a somewhat more elegant fuel cell than is otherwise available that is heavily subsidized by investor dollars and is being installed for high profile customers (such as Google and Apple) in order to attract more of those investor dollars.

A practical fuel cell would be of tremendous benefit to mankind in general and the information economy in particular since it demands so much electricity in highly populated areas. I'd love to be wrong about Bloom energy but I see them as diverting resources that should be used to develop such a fuel cell towards the illusion of such development.

Quote:

Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz

Help me to understand.

Fuel cells turn natural gas into electricity, but cost a lot more than traditional turbines per unit of output. So they are neither cheap nor "renewable" energy.

Duke is required to buy power from renewable sources, so how can it buy power produced by fuel cells?


Do fuel cells produce less pollutants than traditional turbine units per mWh? Why else would anybody want to use fuel cells?

I do hope these fuel cells and other microturbine systems become practical for home use in a reasonable time frame. I'd like to see the public utilities disappear in favor of more reliable and cheaper home or neighborhood-scale power production in my lifetime.

As I wrote to Tim Cook on why I won't be buying any Apple products...

I - Their supply chain labor exploitation needs to end...
a) Even the latest investigation & commitments to fix exploitations
fail to address key worker rights.
b) Many jobs must be returned to the US.
c) Their valuation & cash on hand are obscene, given a) & b).

II - Their Maiden, NC plant is not environmentally respectable...
a) They consumed 100 acres of forest to use inexpensive land.
b) There are hundreds of 'brown-field' sites available.
c) Their solar 'farm' cleared about 50 acres of forest.
d) They could have instead encouraged/underwritten local solar.
e) The use of Bloom means they need gas piped in.
f) Bloom is at best 50% efficient, so their emissions equal
any gas power plant's -- 55% of a coal plant's.

In the future, it will be a poster child for phony environmentalism by a company that clearly thinks first about its bottom line, not the environment. .
--
Dr. A. Cannara
Menlo Park, Calif.
650-400-3071 (Tim, feel free to call me)