Ecology

 

Power Plant in a Box

Submit A Comment | View Comments


Residential and commercial-scale bloom boxes 

What’s bigger than a bread box and puts out a lot of power?
 
K.R. Sridhar’s “Bloom Box” fuel cell, widely reported since premiering on CBS’ 60 Minutes last Sunday, is being called the “Holy Grail of clean energy.” Fuel cells convert hydrogen and oxygen into water and produce electricity in the process—quietly, without harmful emissions. Sridhar’s innovative technology does it in the size of a refrigerator, with a payback of only three to five years, so it could do to the power plant what the laptop did to the desktop computer by making energy small, portable, and affordable. Ladies and gentleman, iPower has arrived.
 
Google, eBay, FedEx, and Wal-Mart already have ordered commercial-scale versions for their offices, and Sridhar wants to put one in every American home over the next decade. The Bloom Box is just the latest concept for clean point-source power, or “distributed generation,” which eliminates emissions but also eliminates the grid itself. Producing power on-site saves energy by avoiding the inefficiencies of sending electricity through miles of cable and saves costs by eliminating the utility infrastructure.
 
But distributed generation also cleans up communities in many ways, by removing unsightly power lines and poles (and their resulting electromagnetic waves) and entire power plants, which often cut communities off from natural amenities such as rivers, lakes, and lower real estate values in surrounding neighborhoods. On-site energy, then, actually can alleviate urban blight. We can save energy and emissions and save communities at the same time.

 

 
 

Comments (14 Total)

  • Posted by: Anonymous | Time: 8:35 PM Friday, March 05, 2010

    "hijacked by technocentrism"?...Well, we are architects after all....and God is in the details...right?... Anyway, concerning "how technology affects culture and community," perhaps we should all read or re-read Leo Marx's 'Machine in the Garden' or perhaps read the essays contained in 'Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism' ...for my part I would suggest that technologies will gain a foothold if they are practical, user friendly, and affordable. The bloom box appears to be scoring high marks in all these categories and thus appears to have great potential....but before we start pulling down the power lines shouldn't we consider the benefits of grid tied systems and net metering within the context of 'smart' grids? Thus, we might all benefit from one another's efficiencies.

    Report this as offensive

  • Posted by: lancehosey | Time: 1:23 PM Tuesday, March 02, 2010

    Wow, the flood gates have opened! Re: information, it's all in the links I listed. Re: cost, Sridhar says the residential units are $3,000 now and hopes to get them down to $2,000, which, according to Fuel Cell Today, is a “big improvement from the $800,000 box of today.” So, as written, the supposed benefits of the Bloom Box over other fuel cells are cost and size. Re: how fuel cells work, yes, you need a fuel source to feed it, of course, but the benefit is zero emissions, except potable water, which in some cases is used as a drinking supply. My intention with the piece was not to debate the merits of fuel cells versus any other tech du jour but, rather, to use the press for Bloom to discuss how point-source energy might change the character of communities. However, as usual, the conversation has gotten hijacked by technocentrism. Can we shift the debate from a narrow focus on technology itself to a broader interest in how technology affects culture and community?

    Report this as offensive

  • Posted by: Anonymous | Time: 12:55 PM Tuesday, March 02, 2010

    Google and others are most likely seeing this as a solution to the problem of how to store solar power, i.e. they're using these as batteries for their PV systems (Photovoltaic[DC] > Fuel Cell > Hydrogen, then Hydrogen > Fuel Cell > DC or AC). Also, considering transmission losses are considerable (about 7 percent according to the DOE) local generation seems like a viable option. Additionally, natural gas networks are already in place in most cities for those who can't have or don't want solar PV.

    Report this as offensive

  • Posted by: Anonymous | Time: 9:49 AM Tuesday, March 02, 2010

    Other fuel cells use water to get the hydrogen and oxygen. A guy in Florida made one as a welder initially but later to run his Taurus wagon. Then he went to the big car companies and was never heard from again! We just need more info here.

    Report this as offensive

  • Posted by: Anonymous | Time: 9:46 AM Tuesday, March 02, 2010

    How about some details and data that are missing in the text? How much does it cost? How much energy does it produce? Is it A/C of D/C? Where can more information be found? Do they have a website? Where can I get one?

    Report this as offensive

  • Posted by: Claflin | Time: 5:47 PM Monday, March 01, 2010

    This sounds like the Emporer's new clothes! Unless you use renwable sources to produce and deliver the Hydrogen and Ozygen there is still fossil fuel utilized. In either case you are simply creating another conversion which inherently loses energy.

    Report this as offensive

  • Posted by: Anonymous | Time: 2:56 PM Monday, March 01, 2010

    Hydrogen is most commonly generated by using electricity to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. That electricity has to come from somewhere- coal, natural gas, hydro, or atomic. This does not solve anything.

    Report this as offensive

  • Posted by: don t. | Time: 2:20 PM Monday, March 01, 2010

    There must be a sound argument for the Bloom Box. K.R. Sridhar’, the developer, has raised $400,000,000 from investors., who have subjected the theory of Bloom Boxes to exhaustive tests. This has been going on for eight years,

    Report this as offensive

  • Posted by: richardbuilds | Time: 2:01 PM Monday, March 01, 2010

    I'm surprised that 60 Minutes didn't stress the amount of fuel needed to power this unit. And further, what the sources for the fuel would be. This is critical!

    Report this as offensive

  • Posted by: Anonymous | Time: 1:55 PM Monday, March 01, 2010

    If we are utilizing less fuel (i.e. natural gas) than we normally would, why not consider this as a viable technology for the masses? Based on the newscast there was a tremendous cost savings to the end-users. That, in itself is credible. Clean technology, in any form, will result in a better environment for all of us.

    Report this as offensive

  • Posted by: Bob M | Time: 1:23 PM Monday, March 01, 2010

    The world has gone mad. Like batteries, fuel cells are energy storage devices not energy sources.

    Report this as offensive

  • Posted by: Anonymous | Time: 1:12 PM Monday, March 01, 2010

    Further to the post of BjDunn42 -- what are the costs of the hydrogen and oxygen and how much energy is used to create them -- since neither element is just sitting around in a natural state for use? And if natural gas is used, that further muddies the subject. Another question: the blog post above says it will eliminate the grid, i.e., utility infrastructure, but presumably requires a new infrastructure to delivery hydrogen and oxygen (and natural gas?) [and are they all volatile gases?] as well as the need to maintain the Bloom box (even if it is relatively maintenance free). Currently, no user has to maintain their electrical service because once installed it just sits there and pumps electrons into our houses and buildings.

    Report this as offensive

  • Posted by: Anonymous | Time: 12:53 PM Monday, March 01, 2010

    See page 2 of pdf file that appears when you click on the "Bloom Box" link....It sounds like natural gas will be the most common fuel source, at least initially, it is not entirely clear though.

    Report this as offensive

  • Posted by: BjDunn42 | Time: 12:39 PM Monday, March 01, 2010

    Please explain how you get the Hydrogen and Oxygen to begin with.

    Report this as offensive

Comment on this Post

Post your comment below. If you wish, enter a username and password though they are not required. Please read our Content Guidelines before posting.

 

Enter the code shown in the image

Username is optional

 

Enter a password if you want a username

 
 

About the Blogger

Lance Hosey

thumbnail image Contributing editor and author of ARCHITECT’s monthly Eco column, Lance Hosey, AIA, LEED AP, Hon. FIGP, is an architect and former director with William McDonough + Partners. With Kira Gould, he is the co-author of Women in Green: Voices of Sustainable Design (2007); his forthcoming book, The Shape of Green: Aesthetics, Ecology, and Design, studies how form and image can enhance conservation, comfort, and community at every scale of design, from products to cities. Lance studied architecture at Yale and Columbia and jazz at the High School for the Performing and Visual Arts in Houston.