The Bloom Box: Initial Evaluations of an Energy Breakthrough

Fuel cell company Bloom Energy made quite a stir over the weekend, with a spot on the CBS "Sixty Minutes" TV program in the United States (The Bloom Box: An Energy Breakthrough? - see the link for the video and transcript).

Bloom has spent 8 years and close to US$400 million developing their product and the company is now leaving "stealth mode" and actively promoting themselves. Fortune also has an article on the company (Is K.R. Sridhar’s 'magic box' ready for prime time?) and the company will be holding a launch event on Wednesday.

Bloom has had a number of companies testing the product in data centres, including Google, FedEx, Staples and eBay.

In the world of energy, the Holy Grail is a power source that's inexpensive and clean, with no emissions. Well over 100 start-ups in Silicon Valley are working on it, and one of them, Bloom Energy, is about to make public its invention: a little power plant-in-a-box they want to put literally in your backyard.

You'll generate your own electricity with the box and it'll be wireless. The idea is to one day replace the big power plants and transmission line grid, the way the laptop moved in on the desktop and cell phones supplanted landlines.

It has a lot of smart people believing and buzzing, even though the company has been unusually secretive - until now.

K.R. Sridhar invited "60 Minutes" correspondent Lesley Stahl for a first look at the innards of the Bloom box that he has been toiling on for nearly a decade

GreentechMedia has more background on Bloom - Video: The Bloom Box Lands, And The Unanswered Questions Are….

The Bloom Box--which costs $700,000 to $800,000 now--essentially is a device for making electricity on demand. Methane or other hydrocarbons are fed into the device along with oxygen. The mixture is heated to around 1,000 Celsius. As the gases pass through catalytic plates, the machine produces electricity, some heat, carbon dioxide and water. Other fuel cell manufacturers say they can convert 80 to 90 percent of the energy inserted into their boxes into usable energy. Bloom remains a little vague on efficiency, but if the company ranks with these competitors, the device will be more efficient than the traditional grid. Less than half the power burned at power plants turns into usable power in your home.

Bloom eventually hopes to make home units that cost around $3,000. That would be a lot less than the ones currently sold by Panasonic in Japan or ClearEdge Power in California. ClearEdge sells its 5 kilowatt system for $56,000. Ceres Power in England comes out with fuel cells for residences next year that in part are made from diesel engine components to cut costs. Utilities in the UK and Ireland will sell it.

One of our staff members, Rembrandt Koppelaar, made the following rough cost calculations of the return on investment for the Bloom Box, excluding the cost for grid connection. Based on his calculation, it takes 15 years to get back the investment cost. (The time would be longer, if the cost for grid connection were included.)

Conservative assumptions based on the video: (All amounts in US $).

- $800,000 for a Bloom Box that generates power for 100 American Households
- American household energy usage is 10,000 kWh per year (10,600 in 2001)
- Bloom Box hence generates 1 million kwh per year at an investment cost of $800,000
- Production costs US for electricity from natural gas for residential use is $ 0.10 per kwh (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_3.html)
- costs for 1000 cubic foot of natural gas for residential use is 12 dollars (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm)
- 1 cubic foot of natural gas has an energy content of 1,034 BTU
- 1 kWh is equivalent to 3413 BTU spent in an hour
- Bloom Box can turn natural gas into electricity at an 80% conversion efficiency

Calculation:

- Costs per year for 1 million kWh from natural gas from centralized power sources is $100,000.
- 1000 cubic foot of natural gas gives 1,034,000 BTU which can be converted at 80% efficiency, hence 827,200 BTU of power which is equivalent to 242 kWh, costing $12 for the fuel. So 12/242 = $ 0.05 per kWh incorporating fuel costs only. Which amounts to a total fuel cost of $50,000 for 1 million kWh.

At an investment cost of $800,000 dollars it would take approximately 15 years (800,000 / 50,000) to pay back investments, excluding the costs of connecting to the grid.

The grid tie would presumably providing considerable services--including metering the electricity, doing the billing, and maintaining the grid wiring, so the cost would not be insignificant.

The text below repeats an Oil Drum post on the cogeneration / fuel cell industry from March 2008 - Cogeneration At Home: Ceramic Fuel Cells And Bloom Energy.

Cogeneration At Home: Ceramic Fuel Cells And Bloom Energy

The Engineer-Poet recently had a post on The Cogeneration Stopgap at the Oil Drum, which looked at how the combination of cogeneration (generating combined heat and power - CHP - using natural gas) and heat pumps could be used to heat North American homes much more efficiently and extend the life of North America's dwindling natural gas reserves for a period of time while houses are retrofitted to make them more energy efficient and natural gas use is replaced with electricity. The only example of cogeneration technology touched on in the article was from Climate Energy, whose CHP unit is made by Honda.

An Australian company working in this area called Ceramic Fuel Cells was in the news recently after landing a $240 million deal with Dutch energy company Nuon to supply 50,000 CHP units by 2014. The company still needs to meet a number of commercial requirements set by Nuon - in particular improving the durability of the cells from two years to four.

The company is hoping that production will begin by June 2009 in a new €12.4 million factory in Heinsberg, Germany, which aims to produce 10,000 2 kW units per year. The cells are expected to emit 60% less carbon dioxide than traditional combustion generators. The company is also partnering with Britain's Powergen, Germany's EWE and Gaz de France.

Ceramic Fuel Cells

Ceramic's fuel cells have been under development for several years, listing on the ASX in 2004 and the AIM shortly after. The company specialises in solid oxide fuel cells, which convert natural gas (and presumably biogas) into power and heat without burning the fuel. The cells convert about 50 per cent of the energy in the fuel to electricity - traditional gas-fired power stations manage around 30 per cent - with another 35 per cent of the potential energy captured as heat from the catalytic process.

The company doesn't have any plans to market units in Australia in the foreseeable future, preferring to concentrate on the European market due to higher energy prices, specific CHP rebates in Germany, feed-in tariffs and possible carbon credits for trading on the EU emissions trading scheme (set up under the Kyoto protocol).

CHP in Britain

Reuters reported that boilers containing Ceramic's units could be sold in Britain in 2010 if utility company Powergen orders units this year. The article estimates that fuel cell units for home units will be priced between 1,500 and 2,000 pounds and that larger units priced at over 3,000 pounds will be operated by utility companies. The same report goes on to speculate that because utilities will save so much money by producing electricity using CHP (which they believe is twice as efficient as centralised generation and sending power through the grid), that they expect utilities will eventually start giving next-generation boilers to customers for free, with the units having a 4-5 year payback period.

Powergen has also previously looked at a different micro-CHP approach using Stirling Engines attached to water boilers. I can't tell what happened to this plan, though the company is assume was the prospective supplier - Disenco - is still marketing a CHP product (although full production isn't due to begin until this year, which may explain the absence of progress).

Another British CHP company called Ceres Power received an order for 37,500 units from British Gas owner Centrica in January, for delivery from 2011. These units are smaller but cheaper than Ceramic's units. Carbon Commentary have looked at this unit and claimed the main challenge facing CHP vendors in the UK is a the lack of feed-in tariffs - which would presumably affect Ceramic as much as Ceres.

Bloom Energy

Another company that has received a lot of attention in the fuel cell market is US company Bloom Energy, who are also developing solid oxide fuel cells (though there is some legal argument underway about who actually developed the technology in this case).

The company is investigating using natural gas and ethanol as fuel for the cells, and most reports speculate the cells will be able to generate 100 kw of power (the company's web site says absolutely nothing). One report from Business 2.0 claims the company is aiming to sell units for around US$10,000.

Bloom is backed by a number of high profile investors, including the omnipresent Kleiner Perkins Caulfield Byers, and has raised US$100 million in funding. According to Vinod Khosla, the company is currently building a "massive" facility in Mumbai, India.

One possible application for Bloom's fuel cells is in data centres, with the cells used to eliminate the need for uninterruptible power supplies (UPS's) and thus (in some cases) the need for additional disaster recovery (DR) facilities.

Japan

Japan has also seen trials of hydrogen fuel cells for CHP, with the hydrogen coming from reformed natural gas. The cells are leased for 1 million yen (US$9,500) for a 10-year period from Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Toyota, Honda and Toshiba are all also working on fuel cells, usually as part of efforts to develop fuel cell vehicles.

The Japanese Government is spending 2.4 billion yen (US$310 million) per year on fuel cell development and plans for 10 million homes (25% of Japanese households) to be powered by fuel cells by 2020.

The Air Car

One last note - a commenter on the "Air Car" articles noted that MDI's main business seems to be a variable-fuel stationary power supply, so presumably they could be a vendor in this market at some point as well.

Crossposted from Peak Energy

...inexpensive and clean, with no emissions...

Maybe the spin of their marketing people can be harnessed as a clean source of energy!
;-)

All the carbon in the Natural Gas (Methane) is still being emitted as CO2. If they have improved the efficiency of producing energy from natural gas, then good, but that's all they're doing.

Also the system produces significant waste heat. Useful in cold environments but presumably vented in summer.

And "wireless" transmission...? - Maybe if you beam it over the barbie it can grill your chops as well!

I'll keep buying my windmill power thanks.

All the carbon in the Natural Gas (Methane) is still being emitted as CO2. If they have improved the efficiency of producing energy from natural gas, then good, but that's all they're doing.

Yes - this is just a device for efficient, distributed power generation using natural gas as the fuel.

Its not a world changing idea, but it is useful.

"Its not a world changing idea, but it is useful."
I submit that it is either "a world changing idea" or it almost useless. That's because of the economics of large scale production.

First the alternatives-deniers said PV was no good because the sun was not always shinning. The when people said use the electricity to produce hydrogen, there was wide out-cry that hydrogen was not an energy source. Anyway, PV got effectively side tracked into focus on exotic materials. Very good for the gallium miners of Lemuria, not so for the rest of us. Small scale fuel cells were dismissed because they required high-purity hydrogen. Now a new generation of fuel cells can be dismissed because they require methane. I'm sure that when they get to the point of using propane, the production of biopropane will be shown to be "uneconomical". Back when I was current to some extent on alternative energy there were not even any Google references to biopropane.

Actually, it is less than useful, actually rather harmful, for a couple of reasons:

- It still emits CO2 unless you can feed it pure hydrogen (which is nowhere near any realistic plan).

- Changing the feedstock is rather impossible due to the technical nature of the plant (can it even use pure hydrogen?) and due to the "stranded asset" nature of it in case it must be replaced. So it is an investment that creates another batch of hard-to-get-rid-of, fossil-fuel-driven equipment.

- The overall energy efficiency must be broken down into separate efficiencies for electricity and heat. Modern gas boilers achieve up to 96% efficiency of the HHV, combined-cycle electric power plants efficiencies of close to 60% - and the reject heat could still be fed into a heat network like the ones in wide use in Denmark and Germany. Can the Bloom energy device achieve similar effective "used energy service" efficiency? The phrase "...can convert 80 to 90 percent of the energy inserted into their boxes into usable energy." does not mean it converts it all into electricity! (For experts: It all comes down to exergy, the quality of energy...)

- Individual units make bad use of the load factor which is much more balanced if you connect several or many households together. With a single user, you must assume maximum possible load as peak load - with many users, peak load per user is usually much lower due to averaging effects.

- Capital cost for small units bought by individuals is significantly higher than for corporations.

- As the very often badly adjusted and configured gas boilers in private use show, energy appliances should be maintained by educated professionals. With widely distributed generation units - of potentially a wide range of manufacturers, builds and issue dates - required maintenance effort will go up steeply or actually achieved efficiency will go down.

Cheers,

Davidyson

Most (if not all) of those criticisms don't seem to apply to the fuel cells being used in data centres.

If we assume a lifetime of 25 years for the cells, they'll probably be fine in terms of fuel supply - less efficient devices will disappear before they do and we'll still have plentiful gas for a while.

Like I said - these things are useful but not world changing.

Good post DS.
I would think they might be useful for providing distributed baseload. Because of the capacity factor issue combined with high capital cost, it would sound like distributed baseload gen might make sense (i.e. you are still connected to the grid to handle peak loads). That of course assumes two things, neither of which are assured: one capital cost is not excessive, and two exergy per BTU of fuel is really better than combined cycle.

I don't think these are a game changer, but possibly a new niche player. I am leary of NG as a fuel for baseline power, I think NG is best utilized for load following applications in conjunction with wind/solar. That later approach maximizes the utility from NG, which is a limited resource.

Really? Not useful because it emits CO2?

Natural gas alone has about a third of the CO2 emissions of coal. All things being equal, replacing coal with natural gas--and doing nothing else--would result in a *serious* reduction in CO2 emissions.

If you couple that with a near doubling in efficiency (working with 80% figure assumed here) and then eliminate losses due to long-distance transmission, you are talking about a serious reduction in CO2 emission. Worst case scenario, doubling the efficiency of natural gas power production would effectively double natural gas reserves.

ALSO, 15 years is a long time to pay back the cost of purchase; it's much faster than the time to pay back the creation of a new electric generation plant. If these were leased, so the economics were the same as conventional power plants, it would result in a significant cost savings, ignoring any potential efficiency gains.

So: I have no idea if this technology is feasible. I'm skeptical. But technology that worked as well as this company claims it will work would be a game changer.

Davidyson,

Many of your points are well taken. I have always believed that the idea situation in relation to distributed power would be neighborhood/village scale, say 60 or so homes. A small town including its small businesses would be perfect.

Having said that, I do not even want to think of the red tape that would be required, and gaining consensus from that many homes and or businesses would be an exercise in futility, at least in the U.S. market. You would be dealing with a population that would range from "I ain't payin' for that greenie crap" to the type of purists we are hearing from here who would scream "It burns natural gas, that means CARBON! It's a crime, I will have nothing to do with it!", and everyone would happily settle back into their coal powered neighborhood.

This is why many homeowners will probably end up not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and choose to handle this on their own terms in their own homes.

It is very comparable to why people hang on to private automobiles. They simply refuse to allow themselves to taken back in as slaves to the transit authorities and the rail companies, even if it requires giving up some efficiency.

RC

- It still emits CO2 unless you can feed it pure hydrogen (which is nowhere near any realistic plan).

Davidyson, did I read the post wrong, which says 2000 Japanese homes use a fuel cell with hydrogen ?

Yes - but the main subject of the post (Bloom's fuel cell) doesn't.

At the moment hydrogen is generally extracted from natural gas anyway - so there are CO2 emissions even for hydrogen fuel cells - just not from the fuel cell itself...

Good for you for posting this article.

Most people here are too emotionally invested in economic collapse to objectively evaluate future possibilities.

I don't know about being emotionally invested in economic or any other form of collapse but this technology,while it may be useful in some ways,is still dependent on fossil fuels.

Unless it can be tapped into reticulated NG it probably wouldn't be an economic proposition.This rules out the vast majority of rural applications and probably a significant number of urban dwellings.

If a householder had money to spare it would be better to install a decent size solar PV setup.With a feed-in tariff and savings on grid import there is some return without ongoing pollution.

"With a feed-in tariff and savings on grid import there is some return without ongoing pollution."
Some of us don't have enough sunlight to make that work. Enough has been said on TOD about depending on the grid. Right now the electric companies in Hawaii are attacking the VERY limited acceptance of putting PV generated power back on the grid.
I've made my personal choices -- here I am high in Hawaii, among the clouds, without enough wind to generate power. Its cold enough to be uncomfortable at times unless one has heating but never freezes and while many parts of the islands endure drought the problem here is still to keep enough rain off the crops.

Most people here are too emotionally invested in economic collapse to objectively evaluate future possibilities.

The way it looks to me is most people here are too emotionally invested in BAU or one step back from BAU to evaluate the need to raise the tried and tested for 10,000 years solar powered vehicle - the donkey. Preparing for economic collapse and being wrong has less negative results than preparing for BAU and being wrong.

The push back from the "technology will save us" crowd indicates how scared they are of BAU ending and how invested they are in believing that some rabbit will be pulled out of the hat just in time.

Preparing for economic collapse and being wrong has less negative results than preparing for BAU and being wrong.

It's possible to both prepare for collapse and attempt modification/mitigation to the BAU model. Of course, these guys' money could be better spent developing a more efficient hybrid jackass ;-)

Maybe we could consider this discussion purely academic for now.

A burro would be fun!

A hybrid jackass is called a mule.

Or a hinny, but you're right, not a burro.

I agree. It is amazing how pessimestic people are about the peaking of oil. We waste so much oil and gas that conservation can play a big role in offsetting declines - but most people here just won't let that sink in. I think that at the Rocky Mountain Institute they estimate that we in the US can prosper using less than 10% of the crude oil that we use now.

Doubling natural gas conversion to electricity is a big deal. Couple that with a potential to halve the amount of electricity that we use and we can reduce the amount of fuel used to produce electricity by 75%.

Retsel

It is amazing how pessimestic people are about the peaking of oil.

That's because we understand the link between Energy Descent and debt.

Perhaps you don't see that connection yet?

Study: Mods just Delay Foreclosures, 6.1 Million to Lose Homes
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/02/study-mods-just-delay-foreclos...

Commercial Real Estate Apocalypse in 2011-2012
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/02/commercial-real-estat...

That's because we understand the link between Energy Descent and debt.

Oh so you have figured it all out, huh? Please do share this knowledge with the world, because the rest of us are lagging, I guess.

Sorry for the cynicism, but statements like that are more than a little arrogant. My guess is that you understandthat relationship about as well as classical economists understand the whole economy.

I'm going to go out on a limb (though not one so thin as yours) and say that there is no connection between energy use and debt. There is a corelation between energy use and economic activity and between economic growth and the ability to service debt. But that is not the same thing as saying current energy use is inflexibly linked to economic activity. Which is what the person above you was getting at.

Lastly, peak oil is not the same thing as energy descent... that they will occur at approx the same time is highly debatable at this point, given alternative energy sources as abundant as gas, coal, nuclear and wind.

I'm going to go out on a limb (though not one so thin as yours) and say that there is no connection between energy use and debt.

Peak Oil makes oil importing countries borrow from oil exporters, so they owe more and more. Of course, that means that oil importing countries are lending, and are owed more and more.

If you live in an oil importing country, you have the illusion that PO causes debt to rise. Oil exporters know that the net isn't growing, at least as a direct result of PO.

Of course, the great recession has meant greater debt, but again, for every borrower there is a lender - net debt doesn't rise. Leverage can rise, but net debt is always zero.

Is rising leverage always bad? Consider the change from a landlord-renter relationship to a owner-lender relationship. The owner may have exactly the same cost of living, but now they have a mortgage payment rather than a rent payment. Are they worse off? No, they're better off, because they have the benefits of ownership: capture of capital gains, control over their lives, etc. Of course, they take more risks (overborrowing, casualty loss, responsibility for maintenance, etc), but that's ok - it's better to own than rent.

Well, we've got a lot of people in my state who are going under, still trying to pay last winter's or the winter before's oil bills, which has affected their ability to keep up with their mortgages.

I'm not into economics, but your limb was pretty thin there, Andrew. Energy and Debt unrelated? That's silly just on the face of it. It's a constant and often growing expenditure, and if you're an importer, that money is leaving your nation.

Well, we've got a lot of people in my state who are going under, still trying to pay last winter's or the winter before's oil bills, which has affected their ability to keep up with their mortgages.

There are a couple of points here which are obvious, but I'll make them anyway because many people seem to have overlooked them.

1) If you are using oil for heating, stop ASAP. Find something else. There's always something else. Don't wait until you see the brick wall in front of you, read the DEAD END signs and hit the brakes.

2) Don't get overextended on your mortgage. Make allowances for things going wrong, because in the real world, where many of us live, things always go wrong.

if you're an importer, that money is leaving your nation.

And if your nation is an oil exporter, which mine is, it's all cash in the bank. My retirement plan is working really well, and my bank is doing extremely well, but those who live in less advantaged parts of the world need to look at their future prospects very hard.

How would we use 10% of the crude oil we presently use and not live like hobbits? We are not going to all grow our own food because we want to, we are not going to huddle together and live like they do in some cities in Asia and ride bikes every where and live off of $4 dollars a day.

I can live on no crude oil, but then it'd be like I'm living in the 19th century. That does not sound too appealing.

I can live on no crude oil, but then it'd be like I'm living in the 19th century. That does not sound too appealing.

Living like "the rich" did in the 19th century beats living in a poor slum of the 3rd world in the 21st century.

Both are possible futures. I know which one I'd want.

I look forward to eliminating my personal oil consumption. Most of my vehicle miles are electric train already. An ErEV or EV won't really make economic sense, because I drive so few personal vehicle miles - but it will feel good.

Hobbits? Living quiet little unremarkable lives in earth sheltered homes, eating well 4 or 5 meals a day, and smoking pipes and taking naps? With a sturdy, healthy constitution? And occasionally helping to save the world from personified evil?

If only Middle Earth were a reasonable future!

..Only if Galadriel will run her fingers through my hair!

We waste so much oil and gas that conservation can play a big role in offsetting declines - but most people here just won't let that sink in.

Conservation can play a big role only at the beginning of the descent. We don't decrease by 3% or 10% in fuel and then sit there. We decrease by 3% or more PER YEAR after we reach peak. That means in 10 years we are down 30%, 20 years 60%. No way ordinary conservation can cover that.

The way it works for individual wells and individual countries is the way it will work for the world. Back of the envelope estimates - if we have 3 percent depletion a year from 85 million barrels a day. If we conserved and cut that to 75 million barrels a day in 8 years we would use as much as if we just went with the 3% annual depletion and at the end of 8 years you drop to about 66 million barrels a day . So we would plateau at our conserved amount for 8 years and then be back on the depletion treadmill. If we conserve down to 55 million barrels a day in 32 years we use as much as we would if we just cut back 3 % a year and at the end of that time you drop to about 32 barrels a day. Then it is back to the inexorable depletion. Plateaus vs slopes result in eventual cliffs.

If the annual rate of world depletion is lower we get more time, but once we start down it is relentless and conservation will give us precious little time.

see this post from TOD - figure 3 - which predicts a 4% decline from here on out

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2716

That means in 10 years we are down 30%, 20 years 60%. No way ordinary conservation can cover that.

It can't cover you for long if it's the only thing you're doing, but it's hard to imagine that in a very high-fuel-cost environment. Hybrid and EV sales would skyrocket.

Conservation is powerful: the US could reduce overall oil consumption by 25% in 3 months with carpooling. It wouldn't be convenient, but everyone could get to work.

Well Nick, Americans have a lot of room to cut and we are certainly big users of oil ( http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption ) but 25% of of the 25% we use is 6.25% of world oil usage. So that would take 5 million barrels a day off of the 85 the world uses per day. So we haven't even come close to the 75 million barrels a day in my example. But as I illustrated even cutting by 1/3 for world usage doesn't buy us time before depletion, just gives us a longer plateau and a steeper cliff.

we haven't even come close to the 75 million barrels a day in my example.

Of course not. I was just talking about the US. The rest of the world has similar opportunities, though few quite as extravagant as the US.

even cutting by 1/3 for world usage doesn't buy us time before depletion

Sure it does. That would buy us 13 years (at 3% per year). That's enormous. In that time the US could convert all new vehicles to ErEVs like the Volt, or plug-ins like the Prius plug-in.

IIRC, from 1978 to 1982 the US reduced oil consumption by 18%, while the economy grew slightly. That's a reduction of 4.8% per year (compounded). We did that by reducing oil consumption for home heating, and for electrical generation - we could do something similar now, and sustain it as long as needed. In fact, at 13 years we would just be hitting our stride, and oil consumption reductions would be accelerating, as capex with long lead-times took effect.

Bartlett is right - most people don't understand exponential growth. It's most striking feature is that it appears to start slow, and then gains momentum later surprising quickly. Oil substitution is like that - it seems to start slow, with a few Chevy Volts here and Nissan Leafs there, and sneaks up on you.

These batteries don't make themselves, as we've seen in the recent lithium discussions here there simply is not enough lithium and the flow rates are too low. EVs will never work.

Lead Acid still works, NiMh still works. There are EV's with all of these out on the roads today.

There WILL be fewer cars.. and more people will find it 'reasonable' to live closer to work. Think about it, people with a 50 minute commute changing to a 5 minute commute are down to 10% of their commuting energy. Less if they can bike or walk.

Bob

people with a 50 minute commute changing to a 5 minute commute are down to 10% of their commuting energy.

Yes, but they're paying a lot more in rent or mortgage for the privilege.

People live where they do for solid economic reasons, and the very small additional capex for an EV won't change that*.

*And, of course, total lifecycle costs will be the same or lower.

Actually, if you re-read the recent lithium discussions you'll see that there's plenty of lithium for EVs.

There's enough lithium in the same way there's enough oil to last for a century. The stuff isn't going to come out of the ground at fast enough rates.

It's conceivable that there could be short-term supply problems, due to inadequate ramping up of mining. That's just a short-term problem, though.

There are many untapped lithium reserves in the USA alone.

Take the Salton Sea geothemal brines.  The brines can be tapped for about 30,000 tpy of zinc and contain 16,000 tpy of lithium.  Now a company called Simbol Mining is moving to mine this flow.

Putting this in perspective, a kilowatt-hour of Li-ion battery moves about 80 grams of lithium from the anode to the cathode (immobile lithium may increase the total inventory).  That's about 2 kg of active lithium in a Chevy Volt battery pack.  16,000 metric tons of lithium is enough for 8 million Volt-class batteries, or enough to convert about 2/3 of the current US vehicle market to plug-ins.

This would take a while.  By the time it was done, don't you think that we could develop some other sources?  There's a lot more than just the Salton Sea brines out there; there's the Great Salt Lake (520,000 tons), and other sources adding up to over 4 million tons.  4 million tons is enough active material for 2 billion Volt-class packs, or 400 million packs of 80 kWh apiece.  By the time we had to fall back to mining seawater to make up for recycling losses, I think we'd have more than enough to make do.

Sure it does. That would buy us 13 years (at 3% per year). That's enormous. In that time the US could convert all new vehicles to ErEVs like the Volt, or plug-ins like the Prius plug-in.

Nick, I don't think you quite understand. This is partly about what can be done and partly about what will be done. Now it turns out that we already have about 5 million more people unemployed in the US than a year or so ago. So they are already not driving and not likely to buy a new vehicle if they do get employed (even if they wanted to credit is tight). But since they are unemployed they are not doing much driving so we can ignore them. But that means we have already conserved most of the gasoline used by 5 million people. Not to mention electricity and heating oil on all those foreclosed homes. The more likely route for more conservation is higher unemployment than lots of people going out and buying new cars. In case you haven't noticed, people begin to get wary of large expenditures when things are so uncertain economically. So paying more per gallon will be more acceptable than taking out a loan for a new car. These things are connected you know. No I think you don't know.

Bartlett is right - most people don't understand exponential growth. It's most striking feature is that it appears to start slow, and then gains momentum later surprising quickly. Oil substitution is like that - it seems to start slow, with a few Chevy Volts here and Nissan Leafs there, and sneaks up on you.

Tricky Nicky - do you really think that Bartlett would agree with you on that one. If so you need to go listen to him again. Oil substitution is going to grow exponentially! Thanks for my laugh of the evening.

This is partly about what can be done and partly about what will be done.

Well, let's nail down what can be done first. Do you agree that EVs are perfectly feasible and affordable for the 85% of the population that's still fully employed?

do you really think that Bartlett would agree with you on that one.

No, not really - he hasn't changed/updated his ideas since he formulated them 30 years ago. But we can dream...

Well, let's nail down what can be done first. Do you agree that EVs are perfectly feasible and affordable for the 85% of the population that's still fully employed?

NO
1. " The Prius hybrid automobile is popular for its fuel efficiency, but its electric motor and battery guzzle rare earth metals, a little-known class of elements found in a wide range of gadgets and consumer goods.

Worldwide demand for rare earths, covering 15 entries on the periodic table of elements, is expected to exceed supply by some 40,000 tonnes annually in several years unless major new production sources are developed. One promising U.S. source is a rare earths mine slated to reopen in California by 2012.

Among the rare earths that would be most affected in a shortage is neodymium, the key component of an alloy used to make the high-power, lightweight magnets for electric motors of hybrid cars, such as the Prius, Honda Insight and Ford Focus, as well as in generators for wind turbines."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57U02B20090831

2. The economy has only begun to crash - there are the Alt A's to kick in yet, not to mention the Commerical Real Estate crash that is coming.

Regarding exponential growth, it is possible to think of anything growing exponentially, but that doesn't mean it will. One solution to the energy problem would be the exponential growth of nuclear power plants. Conceiving of that in one's mind is not hard at all, doing it is another thing. Your premise was, Bartlett who is well respected on this site talks about exponential growth of population and oil. Therefore you state that EV's will grow exponentially. I think you need a basic logic course. I could just as easily SAY that the use of donkeys will grow exponentially. Without talking about the feasibility of that happening those statements are just hot air.

Things that grow exponentially on a limited planet, always have a peak and stop and usually decline thereafter until some balance is reached. Exponential growth creates problems as Barlett points out. And if you don't think Bartlett would agree with you and note that he hasn't changed or updated his ideas why did you try to use him as an expert source in your original argument?

First, neodymium isn't essential for EV's. The Chevy Volt, for instance, doesn't use it in it's electric motor.

2nd, despite the name, rare earths aren't all that rare. See your own quote, with emphasis added: "Worldwide demand for rare earths, covering 15 entries on the periodic table of elements, is expected to exceed supply by some 40,000 tonnes annually in several years unless major new production sources are developed.".

The economy has only begun to crash - there are the Alt A's to kick in yet, not to mention the Commerical Real Estate crash that is coming

Yes, there are some resets coming. OTOH, extremely low mortgage rates are greatly softening the impact. Mainstream economists do know about these things...

Your premise was, Bartlett who is well respected on this site talks about exponential growth of population and oil. Therefore you state that EV's will grow exponentially.

No, I was just helping you to understand that even if wind, solar and EVs don't look big right now, that doesn't mean they won't be meaningful soon.

without talking about the feasibility of that happening

They're feasible. If you need more info, I'll be happy to provide it.

Things that grow exponentially on a limited planet, always have a peak and stop and usually decline thereafter until some balance is reached.

Lots of things grow to a plateau and just stay there.

No, I was just helping you to understand that even if wind, solar and EVs don't look big right now, that doesn't mean they won't be meaningful soon.

I don't buy that Nick, if you wanted to say some things grow exponentially why didn't you do that without throwing in the name of someone you think is outdated? Some things grown exponentially and plateau it is true. That doesn't mean that all things do. Just stating that some do that proves NOTHING.

Well we shall see just what happens eh? My beliefs and your beliefs will have precious little to do with what will be.

if you wanted to say some things grow exponentially why didn't you do that without throwing in the name of someone you think is outdated?

Because Bartlett isn't wrong about everything - he's right about this aspect of things: people don't understand the deceptive nature of exponential growth.

Oil production needs to be in a steep decline for the negative predictions to work. But there's not going to be a steep decline because there's too much financial incentive to find oil once past peak.

Two things I'm sure of:
1) The amount of potential energy is vast
2) Great fortunes will be made in replacing oil

What is also vast is the underestimation here of innovative responses that will occur with a doubling or tripling of oil prices. And I'm not talking about the care and management of Oxen.

Yes, it's striking how often you see the comment "x won't prevent the peak, though it may slow the decline".

If you add up a lot of things slowing the decline, you get a pretty slow decline...

And what about the Bloom Box?
Consider the following key variables applicable to various endeavors in this field:
How much does it cost to build a box if production is ramped up to a reasonable level?
How exotic are key materials for construction?
How well do the boxes stand up over time?
What is the range of types of fuel inputs the process will accept?
What are the purity requirements for the fuel?
These are the technical questions. Assuming favorable answers to these questions we come to social/ecological questions if there is wide scale deployment as would be required to have low production costs and significant impact on the energy crisis.
Assuming the initial fuel is natural gas, how will that play out in North America with its extensive but problematic natural gas resources?
Assuming a transition to other fuel sources what direction(s) could that take? The possibilities range from the very ugly to truly benign such as:

1.Wide scale collection of methane from clathrate deposits – ugly indeed
2.Coal gassification – more technically proximate than #1 above but hardly less ugly
3.Conversion of farming land and other land areas into production of biofuels – still pretty ugly
4.Advance in algae technology of an order of magnitude equal to the advance in fuel cell technology assumed above – could move us off the ecocidal path of BAU
5.Sustainable local gardening with the fuel supplied as by product of solar production of biochar – nah, that's hippie talk

Over all looms the ghost of Malthus.

This stuff isn't going to run my car or tractors, I don't see how this helps.

As to cars, why not try a YikeBike?
http://www.yikebike.com/site/gallery/video/yikebike-discovery-channel
Maybe cars and tractors are not the wave of the future.
Hence my mention of gardens, not farms. I've land considered quite useless for farming that I am turning into a sustainable garden. How many can it support? To what extent do you want to subsist on the sweet potatoes and taro?
TOD is (IMunHO) an excellent source for tracking what's going on in the unfolding of fossil fuel scarcity. That's their specialty. As to alternative energy, understanding of economic collapse, political alternatives, climate change and general ecological dilemma, I look elsewhere. Look at those issues from an other than TOD perspective and you may change your focus on "cars or tractors".

The specs for the YikeBike, 10 km max range, 12 km max speed, put it somewhere between a pogo stick and roller skates for transportation utility. I doubt it will replace many cars. Might be a more affordable alternative to a Segway. Although the legislation that Segway lobbied for to be sidewalk legal doesn't encompass the YikeBike. Most people will be better served by folding bicycle. For those with impairment there are relatively inexpensive electric assist systems that exceed the capabilities of the YikeBike and Segways.

As to cars, why not try a YikeBike?

That looks very cool. It would just about get me to work and back, depending on how it performs on that hill on the way back home. But at EUR 3500 to 3900, I'll stick to my manual push-iron ;).

Hmm, the YikeBike looks a lot like a device used by maintenance and security workers in Heinlein's "The Roads Must Roll". It's the late 20th century in the story, and most people in the US get around on sophisticated, solar-powered motorized walkways. (I highly recommend the story despite its early SF clunkiness... Heinlein was writing in 1940 and he assumed that we'd run short of oil in a matter of decades. He also recognized that the automobile culture would be a dead end.)

Hi Dad,

I don't know... maybe... but, I would not buy one. I just bought a cheap mountain/sport bike for running errands. I worry about my high-tech recumbent bike in parking lots. So, for little runs of 10 miles or so, most any bike will do. You can buy a lot of bike for $300-$500 - if it does get ripped off or damaged outside of the supermarket, it is not the end of the world. Changes are that it will last for many years. Also, I like to have a "utility bike" so that I get more execise. When you get to be my age the last thing you need is another gadget that you just sit on and veg out.

Purity of the fuel may be a big factor. The methane that comes out of your pipe is NOT pure methane. And I don't mean the odorant. From my work with high efficiency furnaces, natural gas leaves a white ash. Also, combustion air is contaminated with dust, sulfur, and other junk. The surface of the electrodes is where the action is. Gunk that up and your efficiency will drop. How much? What are the repair costs?

Did this come out of peer-reviewed technical journals, or was it pitched directly to the media?

If the latter, beware of pseudo-science.

Scientific breakthroughs will normally have been published in science journals, scrutinised by other scientists, and only announced to the public once scientists have agreed that the scientific breakthrough is indeed genuine. ...

A company that is trying to sell its products or ideas without having gone through this scientific scrutiny is giving out a telltale sign that their products will not stand up to scientific scrutiny. A new 'miracle breakthrough' healing device, for example, that is being sold directly to the public, but which has no science references to support it, probably doesn't work.

Remember "Cold Fusion."

If cold fusion had gotten the kind of focused money and operational validation behind it that this has gotten, then I hazard we'd all be using it today. Of course there may be technical reasons that cold fusion did not get those advantages. Often things that don't stand up to scientific scrutiny end up changing science. But it seems to me that one needs to be alert to the elusive relationship between science and technology. If you've a scientific breakthrough, publish; if a technological one, produce.

In physics we learned how much energy is needed to fuse 2 atoms, say hydrogen. The Strong Force binding the quarks (particles making up neutrons and protons) together is enormous and exceed our present capability to force them to fuse with others atoms. It is the media hype and science fiction literature that dwells on cold fusion. Even many chemical processes binding only on the outer shell of molecules need pressure and heat to fuse.

Cold fusion wasn't powering 15% of ebays electrical needs on what looked like a pretty fair sized campus.

Remember that part of what makes it attractive to ebay is electrical grid independence.

Cold Fusion was pretty well debunked before it ever got submitted to peer-review journal. Peer-review journal editors seem to have made some attempt to find reviewers who had not prejudged the paper. The work was pretty simple to repeat in a high-school chemistry lab. type facility, and nobody could repeat it. The people making the claim also couldn't repeat their first results. What surprised me about cold fusion was how the discoverers shouted from the house tops without having tried to repeat their work even once. IMHO, this is not typical behavior of lab scientists.

Bloom seems to have been around for a while. Long enough to repeat many times whatever initial experiments they made that lead them to decide to pursue commercialization. Many successful stock swindles have developed and used some very convincing public demonstration 'experiments'. Bloom seems not to have any such technology. So, what is Bloom, really?

You don't even have to invoke cold fusion, as "remember fuel cells" should be enough. I recall around Jan 2001 the Mother Earth News ran a big piece on how fuel cells were going to revolutionize energy generation. It was complete with interviews of numerous industry guys, with several companies going public and expecting to be in full production within a year or so. I invested in Plug Power myself, as one of the most promising looking.

Needless to say, they went public and the execs made millions turning over their stock options, and they burned through millions in government funding before they slipped out of the news, having gotten their product cost down from 15 million or so per unit to maybe just less than a million, if I recall right. Nothing ever came of the whole thing.

Now, I am a bit skeptical when a new fuel cell company comes out with a much-hyped and apparently re-branded product, coming in at 800k per unit, and all it needs is buckets of capital to bring it to market cost-effectively. We'll see, or maybe we won't.

Ah, Plug Power. I chucked some money down that rat hole, too. (I think I need a drink, now)

So that's where my money rain came from. Thanks.

Rat

Hi daxr,

invested in Plug Power myself

I think I had some of that stock also. The problem with these technologies, from an investor POV, is the amount of deception that occurs. They seem to go thru a standard hype curve. At first they are barely noticed and the stock is dirt cheap. Then they are hyped in the media and the stock soars. Eventually, the hype and the reality don't match and the stock price plunges dramatically. It took me awhile to figure this out - very expensive lesson.

The "holy s***" moment for me was reading the year-end report closely and realizing that they'd burned through 55 million or so in research grants in one year, had no product yet and no capital left, and were planning a massive stock offering to re-capitalize, diluting my stock value (assuming there was value) to about 15% of where it started. In the meantime the press releases just got rosier, and I timed my exit to coincide with the bump from an especially rosy one, coming out ok.

I wouldn't go quite that far. But, I am more than a little bit wary of a product being introduced in this manner. Reminds me of the Segway (which was introduced to huge media hype as a world changing product). It is also possible that they are simply trying to raise a lot of visability in order to raise funds, perhaps doing an IPO at wildly inflated valuations.

They've already raised the funds to develop the product - $400 million so far.

This is a high profile product launch which may be followed shortly thereafter with an IPO (we'll see on Wednesday).

I think the odds are at least 50% that this is a case of Pump, IPO and DUMP. Now that still leaves a decent chance that the product is real, and maybe the company can find a good enough niche to survive.

Looks interesting, hard to fix if something breaks, though.

Gas prices high enough to allow for sufficient production might be too high for the Bloom company to make a profit.

It's likely that the ongoing 'Son of Credit Crunch' will put 'paid' to Bloom Energy before they can ramp up production.

Otherwise, less noisy than a generator set to run on natgas. A generator is easier to fix and cheaper to buy. A 25kw natgas genset will cost less than $20,000 delivered (plus installation of this 3 phase unit).

http://www.generatordepot.us/winco-27kw-single-phase-standby-generator-p...

Of course, none of these approaches solve the real problem, which is too much stuff.

There's certainly enough credit around to see this through, unless we decide to get involved in some unwinnable war in some far off country.

Not really, if you look at credit multipliers, they are cratering. Few with good credit are borrowing, the rest are unable to repay and are denied credit.

The lower rated and corporate tranches of debt are drawing less investment interest. The move is into cash except at much higher interest rates. We are all Greece, now.

As for wars, the US is engaged in a bunch: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel- Hezbollah (by proxy), drugs, lower real estate prices, bank failures, sovereign defaults, dropping auto sales ...

Yowzah!

On 60 Minutes, the inventor claimed they would be selling home sized units for $3000 (by 2015 I believe). If the efficiency and price claims are true (or even close) that beats your NGas genny by a long shot. He implied that the thing will run on a variety of fuel sources. It's hard to find a good home standby generator for $3000 dollars (and they suck fuel). That would be a huge market.

That "variety of fuel sources" is IMO the real tantalizer. Does it have to be specialized per fuel source? Older diesel cars (I have been given to understand) could run on a variety of diesel fuels, more modern ones are optimized for what is standard. Methane? Propane? Alcohol? Wood gas?

Natural gas delivered to the home is expensive. Using that as a fuel will produce very expensive electricity.

In October 2009 (the last month for which prices were available), the well head price of gas was $3.60 per mcf; the average price paid by electric utilities was $5.02 per mcf; and the average price of residential natural gas was $11.62 mcf.

You run into this big differential between wholesale and retail for electricity as well. The wholesale price of electricity is far less than the retail price. The average wholesale price of electricity for 2007 (the most recent year data is available) is 5.72 cents per kWh. (Download at this link.) The average retail price for 2007 was 10.65 cents per kWh. The most recent average retail prices was 11.68 cents per kWh for 10 months ended 10/31/2009.

So residential delivery costs, for either electricity or natural gas, are huge.

Gail: Does your calculation factor in the reduction in heating costs from the waste heat? Of course, this varies with climate and hot water consumption.

Post relies on what has been. This technology probably cannot compete with BAU as of 2007. Do you really expect things to stay at that level? Haven't they already changed? BAU has the advantage of a mostly-paid-for delivery infrastructure and an adequate (for now) supply of fossil fuel. I do not expect these advantages to persist.

If you pay 11.62/mcf, have 1,028 btus per cf, and convert 3,414 btus/kwh at 70% efficiency, the kwhs cost only about 5.5 cents. That's half of retail power prices.

A unit at $3,000 could pay off pretty quickly.

the inventor claimed they would be selling home sized units for $3000

I remember GE saying they'd have a fuel cell unit for sale last decade. And I remember the promise that various firms made that they would have a stirling based CHP unit for under $5000.

So I'll believe it when I see it. At least this isn't powered by the souls of the dead.

I remember some guy at AMOCO around 2001 saying that PV cells would drop below $3/watt in 5 years. It happened in 2009. He wasn't off by much.I'm not holding my breath, though.

Yeah-

Any prediction about the speed of progress in any field, excepting chips and programming should by law have to carry a disclaimer tag saying the error factor on the down side probably ranges from three to twenty.

In this case , the guy was only off by about four years out of a predicted four.I guess he is a better or luckier guesser than most.

If you are referring to oil by 'souls of the dead' then you need to know that this IS powered by souls of the dead. Just natural gas form instead of oil form.

Its a reference to 2 weeks ago someone claiming China had a 'seeeekreeet 2kw generation source' that would cost $3000. I asked if it was powered by the souls of dead babies or the tears of angels or something like that.

I wish Bloom the best of luck and all that -- we could use some good news.

That said, I'm getting more than a little PO'd at high priced "reporters" who don't seem to know the difference any more between reporting and infommercials. Let Bloom do their own PR.

Bloom is backed by a number of high profile investors, including the omnipresent Kleiner Perkins Caulfield Byers, and has raised US$100 million in funding. According to Vinod Khosla, the company is currently building a "massive" facility in Mumbai, India.

Ooops, sorry 'Murricans. You lost out again. Would you consider working for a little less?

I watched 60 minutes with interest. A nice taxpayer subsidy was mentioned. Here is a segment from page 3 if the transcript.

"One reason the companies have signed up is that in California 20 percent of the cost is subsidized by the state, and there's a 30 percent federal tax break because it's a "green" technology. In other words: the price is cut in half."

Why can't they make it on their own without government subsidies like the oil industry?

Think of it as affirmative action for energy.

Errr - was that a joke ?

If not, please do some research into "depletion allowance" and a million other tax breaks afforded to the oil industry, not to mention allocating a fair chunk of US military expenditure to it...

Sorry, yes a wee bit sarcastic. Seems to me that oil relies more on externalizing costs (military among them) than more obvious subsidies.

Might any direct, indirect or implied oil and gas subsidies be of benefit to Bloom boxes since they require a fuel source?

You have to admit that there is something awfully 21st century about a US federal subsidy for a product that will ultimately be built in another country. Who ultimately benefits?

Before this scales up, someone is going to have to figure out how to do this without subsidies. Otherwise governments will be up to their ears in subsidy programs, and need high taxes to fund them.

The subsidies are needed to compete with current energy costs. I do not share your belief that these costs can be relied on to remain so low.

Gail did not say that they would remain low. She pointed out that there is a difference between residential and wholesale pricing and that needs to be factored in.

I wouldn't count on any subsidies remaining at all once the economy collapses.

As for the continuation of the manufacturing infrastructure underpinning these black boxes I reserve my doubts also.

Yawn. Somebody wake me up when there's a replacement for the ICE.

The Chevy Volt - reduces fuel consumption by 90%.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Can I buy one yet? Whats taking so long?

For sale in November.

In the meantime, buy a Prius and reduce your fuel consumption by 60%.

Not good enough? Convert it to a plug-in for $3,500 to $7k (depending on the battery type).

Total lifecycle analysis shows that it would be more benign to run 5 Jeep Wranglers than just 1 Toyota Prius.

Is that PDF something reffed on the front page of LATOC? The highly caustic comments are telling; there's something to be said for considerations such as utility and comfort. A lean-to has orders of magnitude less embedded energy than a stickbuilt house.

Not from LATOC. Agreed their conclusions are controversial. Still get's you thinking and even if the analysis is out by an order or two of magnitude, which I wouldn't be surprised at, it just goes to show that at the end of the day we are still talking about cars. The whole car complex is hideously wasteful and serves to encourage suburban sprawl and other poor planning choices centred around automobiles, rather than people.

That study is completely unrealistic (well past the point of dishonesty).

It assumes, for instance, that SUV's would be driven far higher lifetime mileages than hybrids, which allows them to amortize SUV energy costs over a much larger VMT base.

I noticed the same thing. They gave the Prius only 109,000 miles to amortize the energy put into it. I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, though, because they do come off to me as a credible outfit at first blush. Perhaps the first Prii aren't in fact lasting very long?

I'm afraid they have no credibility at all, and seem to have made up their data. A commentary I read a while ago suggested that they were professional hack artists. Here it is: http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/4/22/224841/147/47

According to Consumer Reports, Prii have unusually low operating costs, very low maintenance costs (those regenerative brakes make the friction brakes last a very long time, for instance), and the lowest total cost of ownership in it's size class. The batteries have an extremely low replacement rate.

The vehicles have relatively low depreciation. Combined with low repair costs, we can expect very long lives. Depreciation and maintenance are the most important predictors of lifetime, because vehicles are junked when their market value declines below the cost of repairs.

Some taxi drivers are logging extremely high mileage on Prii. Drivers I've interviewed (and others that have been interviewed as a part of fleet analyses) rave about them.

Aangel,

I can't comment on the methodology used by CNW to generate their Dust to Dust Reports as they are proprietary. Nonetheless here is their explanation of why they used the 100,000 mile benchmark for the analysis of the Prius.

Despite being jaundiced in their opinion of the purported energy efficiency benefits of the Prius they did have this to say about it;

Can the Prius be driven more than 100,000 miles? Of course. The vehicle is superbly engineered. But this assumes the average Prius driver begins using the car more often. If the Prius were driven the American average of 13,000 miles per year, it would hit the 100,000 mile mark in 7.6 years, well within its attractive (financially and technologically) useful life span. In 10 years, again about the maximum for ground-breaking technology, it would have registered 130,000 miles. Mechanically, there is no logical reason for the Prius not to last 130,000 miles or more.

Mechanically, there is no logical reason for the Prius not to last 130,000 miles or more.

There are a lot of taxi drivers who've taken it quite a bit farther. 130K is just...silly.

It's talking about ordinary users who make up the bulk of Prius owners.

The sentence in question refers to a maximum lifespan.

Several Prii have gone well over 200,000 miles in taxi service in Vancouver.  An assumption of a 109,000 mile "lifespan" is ridiculous on its face, and invalidates any conclusion derived from it.

(My 2004 VW just rolled over 120,000 miles.  About the only thing it needs right now is a wheel bearing.  I expect it to be useful for another 10 years.)

Have you seen any good data on embedded energy in cars?

The CNW study assumes ridiculously high levels (it looks like they do it the easy way - they make it up) - it would be nice to get real data...

Have you seen any good data on embedded energy in cars?

Nothing recent, though I haven't been looking.  The ILEA's 1998 MacLean-Lave study found about 120 GJ for a Taurus (roughly 1000 gallons of gasoline equivalent).  The NiMH battery in a Prius would add something, but I believe the total vehicle is lighter.

If we guesstimate 180 GJ embedded energy and 150 MPG average for a Volt, the total non-electric energy falls below the ILEA's Taurus figure in 12,600 miles.  Either a Prius or a Volt is going to kick non-hybrid butt just about any way you cut it.

The CNW study assumes ridiculously high levels (it looks like they do it the easy way - they make it up)

Man, do they ever.  6700 miles/year and 15 year lifespan?  Assuming that the status-conscious early adopters are representative of how daily drivers will be used is choosing to mislead.

Thanks, that helps.

The CNW study is an astonishing example of people making things up.

I haven't done the math carefully, but how much energy are they assuming for the manufacture of a vehicle, if after 200k miles the amortized average embedded energy per mile is still more than 1 gallon per 12 miles?? That's what, the equivalent of 17,000 gallons of gasoline?

In reality, the longer you drive a Chevy Tahoe, the more your energy consumption rises. The idea that driving a Tahoe 300K miles reduces it's energy per mile is just ludicrous.

Further, the results of a study like this would be used for purchasing decisions, in which case you have to assume that the lifetime miles are identical for both vehicles, because either would be used for the same purpose.

In the meantime, buy a Prius and reduce your fuel consumption by 60%.

Not good enough? Convert it to a plug-in for $3,500 to $7k (depending on the battery type).

You think?!

I have a perfectly good 2000 Escort five speed manual, got it for $1000 out of pocket a couple of years ago when some moron ran into my little Suzuki Swift, gets about 30 mpg and I drive it less than 8k miles per year. Your comment is laughable! For less than half the price of a Prius I could even convert it to a full EV. http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3155482

Yes, there are lower cost options. Obviously there are a lot of people who want something more than the lowest cost option.

OK, so you agree that an EV option is both feasible and cheap. Why are we talking about the difficulties of converting from ICEs to EVs?

The Chevy Volt - reduces fuel consumption by 90%.

Yah, only problem is that at $40K, most Americans can't afford them -- but then maybe that's the plan.

Yes, it's possible the price will be near $40k (it hasn't been announced yet), but there will be a $7,500 federal credit.

The price plan originally was $30k (the average US new light vehicle is $28K), but then GM wangled the credit, and the rumored price rose by......about $7,500.

Nick, gimme a break(e)

Chevy Volt ... hmm ... let's see :
Weight 3500 pounds (1588 kg) .... still 1.5 tonnes of iron to bring someone around alongside the pack of cigarettes.
Engine : 111 kW (149 hp) electric motor[1] 1.4 L 4-cylinder for powering 53 kW (71 hp) generator

Little or no efforts to stem the energy crisis there. GM - the bankrupt company wont learn - they've just copied the Japanese - and made 'it' heavier and more powerful- all this in the midst of an emerging energy crisis and an ongoing recession. God shave your founding fathers.

Little or no efforts to stem the energy crisis there.

I dunno - 90% reduction in fuel consumption speaks for itself.

Little or no efforts to stem the energy crisis there.

I dunno - 90% reduction in fuel consumption speaks for itself.

But in reality what fuels are being burnt to generate that electricity?

There's a beautiful synergy between wind power and EVs: the charging is at night, when wind (and nuclear) tend to produce more power than is needed; and charging can be scheduled for peaks in wind production.

Yes, but in the world you actually live in, electricity is generated overwhelmingly by fossil fuels.

Sometimes.

If you charge in the middle of the night, you'll get a much larger % of wind and nuclear power.

An EV running on the average US mix of generating sources is much lower CO2 than an ICE car. It would still be lower even if the generation were all from coal.

And, if you want to do everything you can personally, just buy PV. It's a relatively expensive source of power, but the amount you'd need to just power an EV would cost that much.

Ok, so how many EV's and or hybrids do you suppose will be operating between now and economic collapse? Who's going to afford them after then? Even given that historically US fleet turnover is around 17 years and since the start of the big recession has blown out beyond that, it would take several decades to make significant inroads into such a vast market. Or do you suppose that we will still have a fully functioning economy out to 2020 or 2030, based on all the bad news coming out from everywhere?

how many EV's and or hybrids do you suppose will be operating between now and economic collapse?

Quite a few. Of course, I think an economic collapse is extremely unlikely.

historically US fleet turnover is around 17 years

Historically, 50% of VMT comes from vehicles less than 6 miles old. That may have risen to 8 years - still, it's nothing like 17.

based on all the bad news coming out from everywhere

The news isn't nearly as bad as that. The US economy is clearly recovering.

Nick ;"The US economy is clearly recovering".

Huh ??!! You better start to read the Shadow-News, you'll get some of them in todays Drum Beat. Else try this ; http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/

Yes, I'm aware of Stoneleigh's views.

A couple of thoughts:

1) The site assumes oil is fundamental to economic growth, which IMO leads to a circular argument: collapse causes oil supply problem, oil supply problem causes collapse. While most discussion I've read is about finance, a discussion of regional differences betrays energy assumptions (areas with better domestic existing energy supplies will do much better). Other indications of unrealistic energy assumptions: idea that suburban housing will crumble, and that oil will go to $500 or more.

2) An earlier prediction that post-2008 crash of oil prices & international shipping will be sustained has already falsified.

How can we be so certain that infrastructure will not crumble? Depending on when the peak is and decline rates post peak, we will be dealing with substantially less oil exports only a decade after the peak. It's possible the world has already peaked, or perhaps there will be a new peak, or maybe we are on a plateau and will remain on it for a bit longer.

How can we be so certain that infrastructure will not crumble?

Because there are cheap EV options that are far, far cheaper than a wholesale move from the suburbs.

The site assumes oil is fundamental to economic growth.

Ok if you don't think oil is fundamental to economic growth trying filling the tanks of the ICE fleet with sand and see what the results are for the economy.

An earlier prediction that post-2008 crash of oil prices & international shipping will be sustained has already falsified.

That's because the Fed. Reserve and the government borrowed and printed a whole ton of money, which you as a US taxpayer, are on the hook for, to make Wall St. and the Big Banks golden and keep the debt on the books. They can't very well do that if property/equity prices fall to zero, or nearabouts. Too bad the US economy will eventually be incinerated by hyperinflation as opposed to merely deep frozen by deflation. On the other hand, what difference to your pain?

trying filling the tanks of the ICE fleet with sand

I'd rather charge the batteries of an EV fleet, and deliver freight over electric railroads.

That's because the Fed. Reserve and the government borrowed and printed a whole ton of money

Absolutely. And Stoneleigh should have known they would do so.

They can't very well do that if property/equity prices fall to zero, or nearabouts.

Sure, they can. They can print all the money they want to.

Too bad the US economy will eventually be incinerated by hyperinflation

There is certainly a little bit of risk of that - OTOH, the Fed can take away that money supply just as easily as they printed it.

They can print all the money they want to.

Too bad the US economy will eventually be incinerated by hyperinflation

There is certainly a little bit of risk of that - OTOH, the Fed can take away that money supply just as easily as they printed it.

This all depends on a certain view of the nature of our current money system, a view shared by TAE and TOD folk but not myself. If one regards (as I do) that money creation takes place with the issuing of Treasury paper and the Fed controls (or tries to control) the conversion of this money into smaller denominations then the picture changes. (Stating the process as conversion of to smaller denominations should be considered a metaphor that attempts to indicate the nature of a much more complicated process.) This means our money is backed by the government's promise to tax people enough to make its paper retain value. At least that is how I have been given to understand how it all works. Given that both political parties and most of their critics agree that taxes need to be cut (with some degree of dispute as to whose taxes should be cut) and the fact that the Fed seems to be piling up defunct mortgages as a partial substitute for Treasury paper one can doubt the Fed can avoid loss of value in the dollar. On the other hand, for hyperinflation to take place there would have to be some way for the people to get their hands on money. That would be equivalent to asking the government to bail out people with mortgages rather than those who hold the mortgages. Speaking of holding, don't hold your breath on that.

one can doubt the Fed can avoid loss of value in the dollar.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean general price inflation, or a change in exchange rates?

Duplicate deleted

Quite a few.

Well, how many EV's/hybrids is quite a few? 1 million? 10 million? 30 million? What would the ICE fleet size look like? Still enormous I would imagine. Oh, and there's that pesky problem of peak oil, but let's not mention that on a site devoted to the topic.

Regarding fleet turnover, where do you get your facts from? Pollyanna? A fleet turnover of eight years means sales of around 30 million units per year! The record for car and truck sales was set back in 2000 at 17.9 million. Last year it was a dismal 10.6 million sales, even with the cash for clunkers scam operating.

I think an economic collapse is extremely unlikely.

You say that with such confidence, like a Helicopter Ben, or an Alan Greenspan. Gee, the gullible, ignorant and greedy, trusted their pronouncements on the state of the US economy too. Wonder how that all turned out for them?

So why do you think economic collapse is unlikely? It clearly almost happened in 2008. Only determined backstopping by the Fed. prevented the complete meltdown of the financial system, but at the cost of nearly everything else.

The writing is on the wall for the US economy. Treasuries are not being bought up by foreigners with nearly the same enthusiasm as before. The US is already in the beginning stages of monetising its debt, since it has written cheques for all manner of largese, for a long time, for which it cannot possibly hope to pay off, and soon not even the interest on that debt either. How long do you think foreign creditors and bondholders will hold out once monetisation really kicks off?

The news isn't nearly as bad as that. The US economy is clearly recovering.

Perhaps you should steer away from mainstream sources for your news? How can there be a recovery when the consumer is nearly 70% of the US economy, but is heavily retrenching spending, possibly facing the prospect of foreclosure and also the threat of unemployment, which is already 10% and probably nearer 16%?

Nick, can I have some of what you're smoking too?

Well, how many EV's/hybrids is quite a few?

Eventually, I expect all personal vehicles to be electric, so I'd say about 230M - the size of the current fleet.

there's that pesky problem of peak oil

Well, yes, that's the point of EV's.

A fleet turnover of eight years means sales of around 30 million units per year!

No, no, I was talking about 50% replacement of VMT - again, that only takes 6 years worth of sales. Although, sales could well rise to historic levels with a truly new kind of vehicle. Heck, I don't really understand why anyone kept on buying cars for the last 40 years - what's new since the automatic (except maybe anti-lock brakes...).

why do you think economic collapse is unlikely? It clearly almost happened in 2008.

No, we were at great risk of a depression, but not the kind of collapse talked about commonly in PO circles.

Treasuries are not being bought up by foreigners with nearly the same enthusiasm as before.

Actually, they are - T-bill auctions are doing just fine.

the consumer is nearly 70% of the US economy, but is heavily retrenching spending

The decline in consumer spending has bottomed out, and is reversing. Not with great strength or speed, but the trend is clear.

prospect of foreclosure

The home price decline has also bottomed out, and is reversing. Again, not with dramatic strength or speed, but the trend is clear.

Uh Huh, Nick. We'll see.

January foreclosures up 15% from year ago; surge on way?

The number of U.S. households facing foreclosure in January increased 15% from the same month last year, and a surge in cash-strapped homeowners who've fallen behind on mortgages could be on the way.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2010-02-11-january-foreclo...

I guess you're doing OK, though.

You have to be careful not to cherry-pick your economic indicators - you have to watch out for confirmation bias.

In this case, this is an early warning of possible foreclosure, not actually foreclosure. It's one of many things you might look at.

Overall, if you look at GDP, employment, unemployment, consumer spending, and housing prices, you see a fairly consistent picture of an economic recovery.

All I see is that the government statistics are about as truthful as Pravda circa 1975.

Well, on the one hand they have a pretty sound methodological basis, which is used by as other governments around the world.

OTOH, even if there were a problem with the methodology, that doesn't apply here - we're talking about trends which we can identify just by using consistent methods.

Let's cherry pick another stat:

In the week ending Feb. 20, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 496,000, an increase of 22,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 474,000. The 4-week moving average was 473,750, an increase of 6,000 from the previous week's revised average of 467,750.

I wish I shared your optimism, Nick.

It could be worse, I guess. OK, I feel better now..

Here's a good chart: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/S4Z-1Bj2CNI/AAAAAAAAHmc/PaaLIFhAIB...

We see that claims have clearly peaked, and are declining.

That's because people are falling off the end as they run out of insurance, or are going onto Energency Unemployment Insurance.

The chart I provided was for initial claims. You're talking about continuing claims.

Your point is well taken: unemployment is high, and not falling the way we'd like. The flip side: productivity growth is high, which is a good thing. That doesn't help the unemployed, but it's a good thing for the economy overall.

So, the signs of an economic recovery, albeit "jobless", are pretty clear.

So, the signs of an economic recovery, albeit "jobless", are pretty clear.

This can only last until oilprices go above $100 again

That's a little too strong. On the one hand, $80 oil is supporting production (have you looked at N Dakota lately?), and suppressing consumption. OTOH, whether oil importing countries can withstand $100 oil depends on the robustness of petrodollar recycling, which broke down in dramatic fashion recently.

On the 3rd hand...I agree that rising oil prices will push importing country economies towards stagnation. I hope we accelerate our drive to eliminate our dependence on oil.

That's a little too strong.

Nick, I agree. 100$ is a psychological mark to mention and reach. Could be that things start to detiororate from $110-120/barrel on.

have you looked at N Dakota lately?)

Yes, every amount helps, OTOH this diminishes feelings of urgency. But last year, with oilprices around $30, a lot of projects were delayed or cancelled. That is why the next price spike is going to come soon IMO. Besides geology, politics and economics what is the most important is geopolitics, that can trump all the others I read. One can imagine.

I agree that rising oil prices will push importing country economies towards stagnation.

Also because when prices of gasoline and food start soaring, people can spend less on other things.

I hope we accelerate our drive to eliminate our dependence on oil.

Yes, but with this you are more optimistic than I am.

last year, with oilprices around $30, a lot of projects were delayed or cancelled.

Prices didn't stay at that level for long. Also, the largest companies (XOM in particular) don't pay that much attention to short-term pricing - this was frustrating when prices peaked, but helpful when they bottomed.

when prices of gasoline and food start soaring, people can spend less on other things.

That depends a lot on petro-dollar recycling. Governments borrow these fund back, to compensate: they spend more, or lower taxes, to compensate for higher living costs.

I hope we accelerate our drive to eliminate our dependence on oil. - Yes, but with this you are more optimistic than I am.

It is happening: look at the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf. It would be nice to have it happen faster - this is partly a question of national public policy (rather than technological, geological or resource-related limits), and that can change quickly, depending on the change in national mood.

Prices didn't stay at that level for long. Also, the largest companies (XOM in particular) don't pay that much attention to short-term pricing

The 6 month or so that oil stayed below $60
I read a lot of ODAC newsletters. Regularly several spokes(wo)men were complaining about cancelled projects. Some may have started again, surely also some will wait.

Governments borrow these fund back, to compensate: they spend more, or lower taxes, to compensate for higher living costs.

What I read on Drumbeat is that f.i. people in Japan are confronted with deflation: same or lower salary, but fuel and food still rising. In the U.S. lot of people who work ,work less hours and get less paid. People without work spent less anyway. I agree with some comments here that it is not bad to read some other news such as f.i. 'breaking news' from the LATOC site: the economy is not so recovering as a lot of MSM say or write.

cancelled projects. Some may have started again, surely also some will wait.

All of them can be started again eventually, right? So they'll slow the decline in oil production.

deflation: same or lower salary, but fuel and food still rising

No, that's inflation.

the economy is not so recovering as a lot of MSM say or write.

It's not recovering dramatically quickly, but there's little doubt that it is recovering.

All of them can be started again eventually, right

It is 'waiting' now for the next oilspike, after which oilprices will plunge again. With projects cancelled the spike will become more early. When after that oilprices are low again, the story repeats itself. Too much volality.

No, that's inflation.

Inflation in a healthy economy goes together with increasing salary. And I wrote: price of fuel and food rising. Prices of other things stay(ed) the same or are going (went) down.

It is 'waiting' now for the next oilspike

I don't think you have any evidence for that. I'd say they're waiting to be sure that current high prices will continue and can be relied upon.

Too much volality.

I don't see much volatility. I see very stable prices. I see OPEC setting oil prices at a level high enough to prevent another spike and crash.

price of fuel and food rising. Prices of other things stay(ed) the same or are going (went) down.

Actually, if you look at Japan's GDP and prices, you'll see that GDP grew very slowly - that means that the average Japanese had a very slowly rising net income. Nominal incomes fell, but overall prices fell faster, meaning that in the end, incomes rose.

I don't think you have any evidence for that. I'd say they're waiting to be sure that current high prices will continue and can be relied upon.

No, it is a guess after what I read on Drumbeat and from you. First, I don't believe OPEC to have so much spare capacity as they say. Maybe they have 2-3 mbd. Second, I thought that the economy maybe indeed can keep on recovering. And still a growing economy will consume more oil. Maybe not in 10-20 years, but now certainly.

That from Japan is what I read from someone who lives in Japan. And he was not only writing about his own income. He wrote also that a lot of people there rent a small apartment because they cannot afford more, and that therefore a lot stay single.

Edit:from westexas on Drumbeat today:

"Chindia's" combined net oil imports increased at 9%/year from 2005 to 2008, from 4.6 mbpd to 6.0 mbpd (EIA), resulting in their net imports, as a percentage of total net exports from the (2005) top five net oil exporters, increasing from 19% to 27% in just three years.

I thought that the economy maybe indeed can keep on recovering. And still a growing economy will consume more oil.

I agree. I think, however, that the economy will grow slowly (in part due to high oil prices), and oil consumption will rise slowly, so prices will rise slowly.

Japan...He wrote also that a lot of people there rent a small apartment because they cannot afford more, and that therefore a lot stay single.

Yes, but that's always been the case. The difference now? Women are unwilling to move into the home of their husband's parents (and mother-in-law).

I think, however, that the economy will grow slowly (in part due to high oil prices), and oil consumption will rise slowly, so prices will rise slowly.

In a tight oilmarket even a slow growth (recovery) can put pressure on oilexports. A lot depends on OPEC spare capacity, mainly from KSA. It seems that Ghawar is in decline (KSA action plans (CO2-EOR and exploring under the Red Sea) could speak more than their words) and they have few big projects left to compensate.

Another variable is declining consumption in Germany, Italy, Japan and the US.

For instance, I'd love to see good data on fuel oil consumption for home heating, especially in the US. That was a big factor in the 18% decline in US consumption from 1978-82, and it should be again now.

Another variable is declining consumption in Germany, Italy, Japan and the US.

This gains are more than offset by increase by Chindia (look at data from westexas on Drumbeat yesterday and today).
In the '80s a lot of electricity producing oilplants converted to gas/coal/nuclear. In Europe heating oil is not used in most countries. When the economy keeps on recovering people start to drive more again, this in the U.S. and Europe still mostly in ICE cars. You wrote about the Volt, I saw the price in another post: $40k. That is way to high for most people.

increase by Chindia

India's not really growing that fast - China is far more important. I see a projection of about 1M b/d increase next year for China - that's not that bad.

data from westexas

Could you reproduce it? I tend to rely more on the monthly production reports on TOD - westexas tends to focus too much on exports, and is way too repetitive.

the Volt, I saw the price in another post: $40k.

1) that's speculation - the price hasn't been set. 2) That's before a $7,500 tax credit. 3) that's for the 1st year, which will undoubtedly sell out due to early adopter enthusiasm - think iPhone.

Could you reproduce it? I tend to rely more on the monthly production reports on TOD - westexas tends to focus too much on exports, and is way too repetitive.

Yes. Repetitive indeed, maybe because it is so important and/or for the new readers.

ELM 2.0 takes into account Chindia's rapidly increasing net oil imports, which went from 4.6 mbpd in 2005 to 6.0 mbpd in 2008 (EIA), a rate of change of +9.0%/year. Extrapolated out to 2010, they would be net importing about 7.2 mbpd. Expressed as a percentage of net exports from the (2005) top five net exporters, Chindia's net imports increased from 19% of the top five in 2005 to 27% in 2008, to a projected 33% in 2010. One can see where the trend is headed, as combined net exports from the (2005) top five showed a -2%/year rate of change, from 2005 to 2008.

Again, this really doesn't seem helpful to me. Why focus on net exports? Why focus on the top 5 exporters?

Also, extrapolating using the period from 2006 to 2008 is a good example of the pitfalls of simple extrapolation: both Russia and KSA dipped in 2008, then started growing again. Russia reached a new peak in 2009.

If you're still losing jobs, the economy isn't recovering. The only signs of economic recovery in the US that I can see is share prices. Productivity growth will be high because the remaining workers are going hard at it and working additional hours for no O/T because they fear for their jobs.

If you're still losing jobs, the economy isn't recovering.

It would be nice if more people thought that way, I suppose, but the general definition is based on GDP growth. GDP has been growing for the last two quarters - the last quarter grew 5.9% (on an annual basis)!

Most GDP, however, produces nothing. A classic example if the auto execs who all took seperate planes when summoned to Washington. If they'd taken a single plane, or AMTRAK, they wouldn't have raised GDP as much.
And after all, how much of the GDP 'increase' was the government borrowing money from itself (double-counting). If I withdraw $500 from my bank account, then deposit that $500 back into the same account, I'm not $500 richer, because I'm not using the governments dodgy accounting. ;)

You're starting to get a little punchy here (for non USer's, that means silly).

GDP is a consistent measure, and it says the economy is recovering.

Eventually, I expect all personal vehicles to be electric, so I'd say about 230M - the size of the current fleet.

Well, for that to happen people have to decide to buy them. Most are waiting for the necessary infrastructure changes, and the ones who have to change the infrastructure are waiting until people massively start to buy EV's. Besides, the recent problem with the Prius will make a lot of people sceptical about the reliability of EV's.

there's that pesky problem of peak oil

Well, yes, that's the point of EV's.

Nick, I'm convinced that most people aware of peakoil cannot imagine the changes that will take place past peak. It will be a 'different world' with different rules. And there is the risk of 'receding horizons'.

Most are waiting for the necessary infrastructure changes

Yes, I think pure EVs will be a niche market for a while. ErEVs like the Chevy Volt, and plugins like the Prius plugin, will take the lead for quite a while.

the recent problem with the Prius will make a lot of people sceptical about the reliability of EV's.

It shouldn't. The Prius is still much more reliable than most cars, both overall and electronically.

I'm convinced that most people aware of peakoil cannot imagine the changes that will take place past peak.

People seem to have trouble imagining things like a world of EREVs, PHEVs and EVs. So, I have to agree with you there.

there is the risk of 'receding horizons'.

Not really. Wind, nuclear and coal have very high E-ROI, so 'receding horizons' don't apply to them. EREVs, PHEVs and EVs have relatively low energy inputs as a % of cost, so it won't apply to them either.

It shouldn't. The Prius is still much more reliable than most cars, both overall and electronically.

Yes, it shouldn't. But I think you know how most people are. Why giving up something that worked well so many decades ?

Wind, nuclear and coal have very high E-ROI, so 'receding horizons' don't apply to them.

What is meant is that scaling them up rapidly takes yearly considerable amounts of oil. While that is not a problem pre peak or with oilproduction on plateau, it can become a problem past peak. Especially because of finance problems in a situation with BAU suffering.

Why giving up something that worked well so many decades ?

I dunno. In Japan, the Prius is the number one seller, and they still have a 5 month waiting list. The latest thing about the brakes hasn't hurt sales at all. I haven't seen stats for the US yet - still looking. Prius buyers tend to be well educated - I don't think this will put them off.

scaling them up rapidly takes yearly considerable amounts of oil.

Actually, it doesn't. Take wind, the most important candidate. It has an E-ROI of 50, which means making them and installing them doesn't take much energy. Further, most of that energy is electricity in the manufacturing process, not oil.

Especially because of finance problems in a situation with BAU suffering.

Peak Oil will certainly make things difficult, but the link between PO and finance is badly exaggerated on TOD - people just assume that PO will cause finance problems, rather than showing the links, feedbacks, etc. In fact, the relationship between oil and finance is very indirect.

"the relationship between oil and finance is very indirect"
Buying oil abroad and not selling much of anything does harsh things to trade balance which, as time goes on, threatens finance very much. Indirect perhaps but very powerful. An unverifiable theory I hold is that the debt-house-of-cards took a big wobble when oil hit that peak with (here's conspiracy part) hidden investors readjusting their holdings, not because of immediate concrete effects, but looking down the line at how much money would be shipped abroad. Cutting back on Chinese manufactured goods is a lot easier than cutting back on oil consumption.

I agree: the effect of oil imports on trade balances is important. OTOH, I don't think it's that hard to cut back on oil consumption - we don't do so because of the resistance of oil and car industries, mainly.

Actually, it doesn't. Take wind, the most important candidate. It has an E-ROI of 50, which means making them and installing them doesn't take much energy.

Making and installing them is only part of the whole process. And after that there is maintanance.

Peak Oil will certainly make things difficult, but the link between PO and finance is badly exaggerated on TOD - people just assume that PO will cause finance problems, rather than showing the links, feedbacks, etc. In fact, the relationship between oil and finance is very indirect.

Nick, If you read the book 'from mass economy to information economy' written in the '80s after rising oilprices, maybe you think different. The articles of Gail on TOD describe something similar.

after that there is maintanance.

Maintenance is very low. It doesn't change E-ROI much.

from mass economy to information economy

I'll take a look.

More later...

Maintenance is very low. It doesn't change E-ROI much.

I referred to the comments lately that are saying that offshore windmills don't have yet sufficient reliability. A few failures out of 100 turbines per year.

The book is written by Paul Hawken. Very interesting.

offshore windmills don't have yet sufficient reliability

I think that's a temporary problem, that's been mostly solved.

Is "The Next Economy" the title you're referring to?

No, IIRC the title is "from mass economy (industry)to information economy" The writer is Paul Hawken.

I couldn't find that on Amazon - you might want to check that title.

Strange. I cannot check right now, because I borrowed that book from the library 1,5 years ago. Did you search on the web with the name of the writer ?

Well, according to Wikipedia:

"Hawken has authored six books including The Next Economy [1], Growing a Business[2], and The Ecology of Commerce[3], wherein he coined the term the "restoration economy." His book, Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution[4] with Amory Lovins and Hunter Lovins, popularized the now-standard idea of natural capital and direct accounting for nature's services.

His most recent book was Blessed Unrest, How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming[5] published by Viking Press (New York) May, 2007. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hawken

Nick, then it must be "the next economy" (with the subtitle I wrote) It is written in the '80's

I'm convinced that most people aware of peakoil cannot imagine the changes that will take place past peak.

People seem to have trouble imagining things like a world of EREVs, PHEVs and EVs. So, I have to agree with you there.

Nick, that is not what I mean. If in 2020 there are 5%, 10% or 20% EV's, etc worldwide, that doesn't make the difference that counts most. If oilproduction declines with 1%,2% or 3%, yes that will make a big difference. But in no matter which decline percentage, the situation will become a mess. During rising oilprices, the speculators will be blamed; there will be people who talk about Peakoil, but they will not be believed or the next day it is forgotten. Just like in 2008: the real cause will be overlooked or ignored. The difference with 2008 is that it is going to get a lot worse. If you think that it will be the overall production and consumption that counts and less a matter of ELM hitting the exports hard, then you must believe in a world depression that affects also the oil-exporting countries.

During rising oilprices, the speculators will be blamed; there will be people who talk about Peakoil, but they will not be believed or the next day it is forgotten.

Car industries around the world are beginning to believe in Peak Oil, and are gearing up to deal with it. The conversion to electric transportion is huge, and is highly unlikely to reverse.

you must believe in a world depression that affects also the oil-exporting countries.

There are a lot of ways to reduce consumption without depression. This is the thing that many people on TOD have great difficulty imagining.

The conversion to electric transportion is huge, and is highly unlikely to reverse.

Nick, if 20% drives electric in 2020 it would be huge. The rest will drive less, carpool, walk, take(electric)bike or train. Still I believe that one poster here interpretes Bartlett right: because of fossil fuels the exponential growth of industrialism and population is (was) possible, but to think that exponential growth of suitable alternatives to replace oil is possible, is more than very optimistic.

There are a lot of ways to reduce consumption without depression. This is the thing that many people on TOD have great difficulty imagining.

It gives me a hard time to try to imagine this possibility. Which means: I can't. Because I think it will have to be more than a small reduction in consumption.

Nick, if 20% drives electric in 2020 it would be huge. The rest will drive less, carpool, walk, take(electric)bike or train.

Toyota expects that all of their vehicle models will be hybrid by then. Right now, hybrids account for 10% of their overall sales.

to think that exponential growth of suitable alternatives to replace oil is possible, is more than very optimistic.

Not at all. They'll grow much faster than ICE vehicles did, because they'll be needed more.

It gives me a hard time to try to imagine this possibility.

Imagine selling your Chevy Tahoe, which gets 12 MPG, and buying a Prius, which gets 50 MPG. In one day, reduce your personal oil consumption by 75%.

Imagine replacing your home-heating boiler, powered by fuel oil, with an air-source heat pump.

Imagine long-haul trucking replaced by rail.

Toyota expects that all of their vehicle models will be hybrid by then (2020). Right now, hybrids account for 10% of their overall sales.

That could be so in Japan. But if still 90% car sales are ICE, is it realistic that in 2020 on the road 100% are hyrids ? Let's say in 2015 still 50% car sales is ICE and in 2018 20% ICE. Are all the people who bought a ICE car in 2015 and after replace their car before 2020 ?
And other countries will be much slower. You know what is going on in China and India. That is the best example of exponentional growth, but with ICE cars.

They'll grow much faster than ICE vehicles did, because they'll be needed more.

They could be growing much faster. That's a big if for me, because I still think it is very likely for a depression to happen.

Imagine selling your Chevy Tahoe, which gets 12 MPG, and buying a Prius, which gets 50 MPG. In one day, reduce your personal oil consumption by 75%.

Yes, right: your personal consumption. But exponential growth also is about increase of population.
Each day the population growths with 200.000 people. In China and India many millions are going to buy their first car, a ICE car. In a lot of other countries, some of them oilexporting, many people are buying their first ICE cars. That are the exponentials that are going on now in the world, with oilproduction peaking. Like nothing has changed. Sales of hybrids and Volts,etc should have started 20 years ago.

Imagine long-haul trucking replaced by rail.

I can imagine that, but when they are going to seriously get that going in most countries. Not in 1 or 2 countries, that is not a solution with worldpopulation growing with more than 70 million/year.
That means every year one rather populated country extra, or 3 Mexico city's. Every year.

if still 90% car sales are ICE, is it realistic that in 2020 on the road 100% are hyrids ?

No, but they don't have to be: we just need to make a large dent, not get 100%.

You know what is going on in China and India. That is the best example of exponentional growth, but with ICE cars.

Actually, electric bikes outsell ICE cars about 2.5:1 in China. China has much higher MPG standards than the US.

I still think it is very likely for a depression to happen.

I think that's unrealistic. Yes, oil shocks cause economic volatility. OTOH, there's no reason to expect a depression. Further, a big oil shock isn't that likely, given that oil prices are staying high, which will encourage production and depress consumption.

long-haul trucking replaced by rail. - I can imagine that, but when they are going to seriously get that going in most countries.

It's happening right now, in the US. Europe is slower - right now they're working on common standards.

that is not a solution with worldpopulation growing with more than 70 million/year.

That's about 1% growth, and mostly in poor countries where per capita consumption is lower. We can reduce consumption much faster than that.

Actually, electric bikes outsell ICE cars about 2.5:1 in China. China has much higher MPG standards than the US.

I look most at the rise of car sales in China. That is enormous. Higher standards but a lot of people in China like SUV's also. So, while the U.S.,Japan and Europa are converting to hybrids, the gains there are more than lost by increasing amounts of cars in China and India (and Mexico, S-Africa, Russia,etc). That is why they say:"(oil)supply is old, but demand is young".
And I read that GM started again to sell a new SUV model. Short memories is a big problem.

That's about 1% growth, and mostly in poor countries where per capita consumption is lower.

Poor countries or developing countries like China and India. And the birth rate in countries like KSA is very high. That is what makes me wonder a lot of things.

while the U.S.,Japan and Europa are converting to hybrids, the gains there are more than lost by increasing amounts of cars in China and India (and Mexico, S-Africa, Russia,etc).

Cars in developing countries will go hybrid and electric as well. Again, MPG standards in China (by far the most important country for this discussion) are much higher than in the US, and that means hybridization or very small size.

China recently eliminated price controls for gasoline. The next step is to do the same for natural gas, which is a natural substitute for oil, but which is underutilized in China due to old price controls which suppressed production.

The concern is often heard that growing vehicle sales in China will necessarily cause demand for oil to skyrocket. So, will Chinese oil demand grow?

No, not necessarily. According to the well -respected Industrial Engineering consulting firm McKinsey & Co.:

"China is quietly laying the foundation to become a global contender in the development of hybrid and electric vehicles....The Chinese government has been actively promoting the development of the electric vehicle industry..."

They estimate that EV market penetration will be roughly 3-4 as great in China, compared to the world market.*

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/the_electric_vehicle_oppo...

*Their estimate of EV market penetration in 2030 are very conservative: 5-10% for the world, and 20-30% for China. They do not attempt to evaluate whether Chinese oil consumption can grow to the level found in simple growth projections, which they indicate is 17M bbl/day in 2030. I think we can expect EV market penetration to be much larger, based on growing shortfalls in oil production.

Cars in developing countries will go hybrid and electric as well. Again, MPG standards in China (by far the most important country for this discussion) are much higher than in the US, and that means hybridization or very small size.

In a comment a few days ago, here above, you wrote that EV's will be niche market for a while. I don't expect EV's to be more than 5% of all cars in the world in 2020. There will be a lot of hybrids then (maybe 10% of total), but the total amount of cars is also much higher in 2020, unless oilproduction drops sharply from 2012-2015 on.
So hybrid SUV's in China because of the standards, but they will love to drive around in their first car. Like a toy they will drive unnecessary miles. Higher efficiency means Jevson's paradox (for those who can afford it) and SUV drivers can afford it.

They estimate that EV market penetration will be roughly 3-4 as great in China, compared to the world market.*

Good news, but I remind that China has almost 4 times as many people as the U.S.
Although many will never be able to buy a car, there are a few hundred millions who are going to drive their first car and a lot of it is ICE.

So hybrid SUV's in China because of the standards, but they will love to drive around in their first car. Like a toy they will drive unnecessary miles.

Actually, no. Chinese drive about 33% as much as Americans, on average. See http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/01/where-are-chinese-cars-in-their-oi...

There are a lot of ways to reduce consumption without depression. This is the thing that many people on TOD have great difficulty imagining.

Nick, If this will happen then what you describe as 'overall production and consumption (the balance) is more important than ELM' will be problematic. Because without worldwide depression oilconsumption in the oilexporting countries will not be reduced. Besides, the population in many Middle East countries is rapidly growing and with that their oilconsumption. The oilconsumption in the oil-importing countries then have to diminish pretty fast if oilproduction declines with 2-3%. Then there is the problem with departments like EIA. Yesterday it was published in the newspaper that EIA predicts oilprices in 2020 to be $100 and in 2030 to be $150. This way people don't get the urgency. And as long as for instance ICE cars are sold much more than hybrids or Volt's the necessary exponential growth of alternatives will not start 5 minutes to 12 but after 12 o'clock, that is when oilproduction is decliing.

without worldwide depression oilconsumption in the oilexporting countries will not be reduced.

You might want to look at the percentage of world oil consumption in exporting countries with price controls and subsidies. It's perhaps 20%, which I suspect is not as high as you think. Further, that % is likely to drop with time.

the necessary exponential growth of alternatives will not start 5 minutes to 12 but after 12 o'clock,

It won't be as fast as would be ideal, but it is happening right now.

You might want to look at the percentage of world oil consumption in exporting countries with price controls and subsidies. It's perhaps 20%, which I suspect is not as high as you think. Further, that % is likely to drop with time.

20% of total oilconsumption ? What counts is growth and that is high enough to frighten. Look at the work of westexas and see what happened with the exports of countries past peak, even with countries where oilconsumption was nearly flat, like England. In all mentioned countries, the CNOE as a percentage of total exports past peak was very high the first years and after 5-10 years exports reached (almost) zero. And that are not predictions, but facts because that's what happened in the past. Very alarming. When KSA and Russia start to decline at about the same time 'we' well could be toast. Not that exports will reach almost zero within 10 years, because the percentage oilexports of total production is high, but 4-5% decline/year from the 2 biggest oilexporters is a lot of oil.

It won't be as fast as would be ideal, but it is happening right now.

It is happening in some countries, like Japan. Even there I don't believe that in 2020 most cars they sell will be hybrids or EV's, let alone what is driving on the road. Anyhow cars is not the only things that count, there is so much more. Every activity in the world needs oil, also in a world with a lot of EV's, windmills and solar energy. In fact the coming years the world needs more oil each year, as China and India and a lot of other countries are developing, and mostly developing with activities that use oil. So it keeps going on there like nothing has changed.

20% of total oilconsumption ? What counts is growth and that is high enough to frighten.

% growth is part of the picture, but the absolute amount of growth is more important.

Look at the work of westexas and see what happened with the exports of countries past peak

It's useful to a point, but misleading after that. This kind of decline has been happening ever since Pennsylvania peaked in the 1800's.

When KSA and Russia start to decline at about the same time 'we' well could be toast.

It wouldn't help! OTOH, when will that be? Many people assumed that KSA had peaked in 2005, and Russia peaked in 2008 (both, of course, for the 2nd time), and then...they grew again.

Every activity in the world needs oil, also in a world with a lot of EV's, windmills and solar energy

That's not true at all. Nothing requires oil. Some things will take longer, and be more inconvenient or expensive to do without oil (like aviation), but nothing requires oil.

% growth is part of the picture, but the absolute amount of growth is more important.

ok Nick, but both are alarming enough. And even with almost flat consumption in an oilexporting country, there is a big problem past peak.

It's useful to a point, but misleading after that. This kind of decline has been happening ever since Pennsylvania peaked in the 1800's.

Nick, now it's not about one region, but about the whole world, with most countries past peak and some very close to it and some very close to leave their oil-export status behind. There is nothing misleading with that. The work of westexas just shows what happens with oilexport from a past peak country, no matter what country. The only exceptions will be KSA and Russia. So from 2025 or so on, the world depends mainly on KSA and Russia. That is not too good.

Many people assumed that KSA had peaked in 2005, and Russia peaked in 2008 (both, of course, for the 2nd time), and then...they grew again.

Russia has now what the U.S. had with Alaska north slope, only difference is that they have a new region that comes on stream in about the same moment when they peaked. Their (super)giants in other regions are very mature. KSA grew again ? Exports were falling though, or was it that they couldn't find buyers for their light sweet crude oil. Like everywhere, also KSA doesn't have magical non depleting fields.

Nothing requires oil. Some things will take longer, and be more inconvenient or expensive to do without oil (like aviation), but nothing requires oil.

Indeed,in a world without plastics, medicines, medical equipment, paints,lubricants, pesticides, etc. After that almost everything can be done without oil, like mining and most transportation. But you are making a very, very big step when you start to think of a world like that.

it's not about one region, but about the whole world...The work of westexas just shows what happens with oilexport from a past peak country, no matter what country

Exactly my point: it's the balance of production vs consumption for the whole world that matters.

So from 2025 or so on, the world depends mainly on KSA and Russia. That is not too good.

True - OTOH, 2025 is a ways off. We can reduce our consumption quite a bit by then, and I think we will.

KSA grew again ? Exports were falling though

That's shifting the goal posts. Many people predicted an absolute decline in production, which didn't happen.

Nothing requires oil....Indeed,in a world without plastics, medicines, medical equipment, paints,lubricants, pesticides

Those things can be produced without oil. Oils and hydrocarbon feedstocks can come from other sources. Don't forget that in the large picture, these are small volume uses, and can be recycled if necessary. Hydrocarbon sources such as biomass would be more than sufficient.

you are making a very, very big step when you start to think of a world like that.

Not really - these applications take a small % of oil and other FFs. We'll have enough for many decades, so we'll have time to convert.

Exactly my point: it's the balance of production vs consumption for the whole world that matters.

Imagine what happens when Mexico not only will not export oil (to the U.S.) anymore, but also needs to import oil. That is a big net-effect. And the 'missing' oil has to come from somewhere. Now the U.S. gets it from Africa but that will go down, because China signed a lot of contracts there recently. And what happens with Mexico will happen this decade with some more countries. You're right when you write about balance but with lesser and lesser oilexporting countries which need to import oil, the problem gets ugly this decade.

We'll have enough for many decades, so we'll have time to convert.

Will there be cooperation ? Do you expect that the superpowers will stay on speaking terms with each other ? What I know is that economic growth the last 50-100 year was mainly oil(and gas)-based and because the energy from that is so big and easy to transport it will be very difficult to cope with yearly 1-3% less production.

Now the U.S. gets it from Africa but that will go down, because China signed a lot of contracts there recently

China still pays market prices for those contracts, right? So, China hasn't really locked it in - if prices rise, China has to pay the price, or it will go to other buyers. IOW, oil is fungible, and goes to the highest bidder.

economic growth the last 50-100 year was mainly oil(and gas)-based

Coal, wind and other sources will do just fine. Oil was a bit cheaper, and a bit more convenient. Now it's not, and consumption will go to other things.

China still pays market prices for those contracts, right?

It is possible that China in that way will take some oil away from the market, as some think.

Coal, wind and other sources will do just fine. Oil was a bit cheaper, and a bit more convenient. Now it's not, and consumption will go to other things.

I hope so, moreover rising tension in the world can result in 'black swan' events. Australia will rise its coalexport to China but IIRC total Australian coalexport is only 10% of total use of China. That is to realise the tremendous amount of coal China uses, and still rising.

It is possible that China in that way will take some oil away from the market

If China is paying market prices, then they are not taking oil away from the market.

total Australian coalexport is only 10% of total use of China

That doesn't sound right. Could you check that?

If China is paying market prices, then they are not taking oil away from the market.

If things are getting tight, nobody knows what happens. Black market (getting that oil from African countries without putting it on the market first; after oil China is helping some African countries to built infrastructure,etc), hoarding,etc.

That doesn't sound right. Could you check that?

Yes. It was something with 10%, if you know the data roughly, maybe I remember what I read 1-2 weeks ago.

Black market..hoarding

These are the very antithesis of a contract. So, the fact that China is writing contracts for oil doesn't tell us that they will buy things on the Black Market - it suggests just the opposite. Remember, the black market normally exists to avoid price controls - it's the best example of selling to the highest bidder.

I really see no reason to read anything bad into the fact that China is writing contracts for oil delivery.

I really see no reason to read anything bad into the fact that China is writing contracts for oil delivery.

ok, but maybe they do more than that. I don't trust them for one penny. They know they will need a lot of oil and last year they have build large oilstorage containers. They want to become world's biggest economy and are planning to rise the living standards of hundreds of millions of people with it, and for that to happen they know they need maybe to import 5-6 mbod in a few years. I wonder if they are so smart to know or to care that peakoil can come in the way very soon. Past peak there can happen a lot of strange things, like hoarding, and I would be surprised when things continue smoothly.

Utterly laughable. Leslie Stahl says "solar?..." and Sridhar says "we can use solar." Of course he doesn't say that that would make the BloomBox pointless. He certainly is a good salesman!

A fuel cell could replace the batteries in a photovoltaic system and provide backup power for a solar hot water system.

Big deal. You haven't even said that it would be more efficient or cheaper than currently marketed technology. I'm guessing that's because you can't have any confidence is saying that.

The sixty minutes report begins with "the Holy Grail is a power source that's inexpensive and clean, with no emissions," and by implication is suggesting the Bloombox is such a thing. That's pretty much just a lie.

I'd agree the sixty minutes report is over-hyped - "inexpensive" is still debatable (in the absence of any hard figures) and "no emissions" seems extremely unlikely ("much less emissions than coal" being closer to the mark).

We are talking here of what *could be* a new, more efficient technology, not a new primary energy source.
Therefore i don't understand how this can be a "solution", a "holy grail" or an "energy breakthrough" in any way, as it still relies on fossil energy sources.

It maybe is a "technology breakthrough", but it doesn't change anything to the main problematic :
Oil, NG and Coal are available in finite quantities, with Oil and NG production peaking soon (if not already).

Benjamin.

Quite obviously the potential breakthrough aspects are with respect to (1)infrastructure and (2)utilization of biofuels. That we are facing severe infrastructure problems has been made clear frequently on TOD. The decentralization potential of the Bloombox or something like it depend on the cost, with the Bloombox numbers given being very optimistic. The biofuels potential could be benign or, if the ethanol model were followed, disastrous.

"Oil, NG and Coal are available in finite quantities"
I really wish TODers would get off of bringing in this irrelevant "finite" stuff. It leads to people not taking the problems seriously. The people causing the trouble know quite will about the finiteness of it, but they think we have 100 years left. Or whatever number for what ever resource. If we could up our production a million fold and keep it up for a million years, this would be perfectly consistent with finiteness. Unless you all have some other meaning of the words than I know about.

"I really wish TODers would get off of bringing in this irrelevant "finite" stuff. [...]If we could up our production a million fold and keep it up for a million years, this would be perfectly consistent with finiteness."

Well, maybe you would have understood it better if you hadn't truncated my sentence !
"Oil, NG and Coal are available in finite quantities, with Oil and NG production peaking soon (if not already)."
But of course if you prefer reading half sentences, then lots of things can become irrelevant or pointless.

Thanks !

Benjamin.

I don't think there is anything I did not understand. I did not say get off of "with Oil and NG production peaking soon (if not already)" because that's not the part I objected to. Deniers will pick on the weak points, not the strong ones. There is admittedly some difficulty in saying just what peaking means. To me it comes down to that graph with oil price going up, up, up year after year and production bumping along a little up, a little down, a little up, etc. I guess what I personally mean by peak oil is that an increase in price does not produce an increase in production. Short term, okay. Year after year? Nah

We agree on the definition of peaking, but this doesn't tell me how you previous message had anything to do with mine...!
Your point was "stop saying resources are finite, we could have finite resources and multiply production by 10^6 for a million year", even though my initial message was clear about the fact that production was near, if not already, peaking, therefore your point was totally baseless.

And now you're trying to argue about "peaking", that people would understand what it means... it does look like you just wanna argue on some semantics without even reading people's messages ?

You seem to think I do not read your message. A strange idea. I objected to a portion of because I think that the point of being finite is not relevant and opens the door to dismissing what is relevant which you also included and in fact put first.

Lots of people do not have it in their head that fossil fuels are finite, and there are also a few loons out there who argue that they are not finite. Reminding people that FFs are finite is a perfectly good place to start with the general public.

Ben.
Please let me enjoy my moment in the sun.

Macbeth:
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

400 million dollars...
For an invention that runs on natural gas...
Now, I know I'm just your Average Joe, but c'mon...

I think the "?" in the story's title says it all... "What the?"

Regards, Matt B

Agreed.
CNN should have sent Matt Simmons instead of Lesley Stahlmate, isn't she too old for these important and hi-tech issues?
I reckon the entire Bloom-report would have been debunked straight on the air - with any other reporter doing the Quiz-thingy. She forgot to ask about 10 very important questions.IMVHO

400 million dollars... there is a hell of a lot of eMergy (embedded and spent energy) right there. If Rembrandt's back of the envelope numbers up-top is correct (15 y to break even) I'm getting a very bad EROEI- feeling right now, b/c the 400 million dollars... well they are mostly put into hardware (wages)..... but the fuels to actually run these things have to be purchased on the fly, in the future.

I can virtually hear the announced efficiency-gains blow in the wind ....

Fuel cells like this one typically do not have long lives.

Natural gas combined cycle is 60% efficient, so you save transmission losses and gain 20% efficiency, but have to pay retail for gas and bear the cost of depreciation and maintenance.

The one big advantage is that the waste heat can be used for space heating.

The one big advantage is that the waste heat can be used for space heating.

Or hot water. And you can collect the waste water for your petunias!

I have spent decades dreaming over all the new tecnnologies written up every month n popular magazines.Long ago It became obvious that maybe one out of a hundred or less of these new technologies would be commercialized within one human lifespan.

But in spite of the odds against success , one or another new tech does break thru and go commercial every few years, although wide scale low cost production may take decades.

Maybe luck is with us and this compaany this time.If not , there WILL be a breakthroughof some sort in energy within the next few years, if history is any guide.

Workable and reasonably cheap fuel cells of the kind described in this article could buy us a lot of breatheing room,and would be a near priceless assett to our wobbly economy.

Close to my sentiments except not so certain as to "WILL". If a break through comes quite likely it will sound more like this than like cold fusion did. What keeps me doomy and gloomy is the human response with its unnecessary disbelieving as shown in this thread and the potential for misuse -- like turning more land into growing energy instead of food.

The price of high C rate lithium polymer batteries has been dropping very dramatically recently. And their quality has gotten dramatically better. I don't know if there has been any breakthrough, but the recent progress in light of years of very slow change has been stunning. I have no idea if this progress will continue, but if it does for even a short while, then lipo powered bicycles, scooters, motorcycles and perhaps even cars will have compelling performance for the price. I'm already thrilled with the price for the performance I'm getting with my home built lipo powered bikes.

Still I harbor no illusions that technological advance has anything to do with our ability to protect or preserve the environment. My expectation is that advances will most likely be used to support growth while holding off the day of reckoning a few more days.

"I'm already thrilled with the price for the performance I'm getting with my home built lipo powered bikes."

which is ???

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3470/3361124121_8520b62c8d_b.jpg

mine were not cheap

Do you suppose that the people building these things know about the lives of fuel cells? You are assuming that what they have is "typical". Yes if so, no big deal. If these people have some integrity (rare commodity these days) I assume they believe they have or can overcome these problems. Let us find out about the technology before assuming its just "typical". Yes people who put forth these kinds of things are optimists. That projected price figure sure looks optimistic.

Venture capital companies work on the blockbuster model. Out of ten companies, five die outright, two limp along never making the investment back but not quite dying, two are moderate successes and one makes a ton of money when it goes public earning enough back to pay for all the flops.

The odds for venture-backed firms are not very good. Bloom may or may not reach all their goals, that's just part of the game. The market will soon decide.

Sounds about right for venture capital, but ...
What are the numbers we are talking about. Not an area in which I have much feel for the numbers but seems that more money has been put into this than can be shrugged off as a 1 in 10 odds -- or is that 3 in 10? Like, who can make 10 bets of this size? Are there 10 such bets out there?

See http://cleantech.com/about/pressreleases/20090106.cfm

$5.6 billion in 2009 and cumulatively about $30 billion since 2002. The big VC firms here in the Valley all have cleantech investment groups and lots of money is still pouring in. It's seen here as the next place to invest. Many people here are trained in science and well aware of the planet's condition (including global warming). They also know we have to get off oil but haven't connected all the dots yet w/r to oil's decline and the Great Credit Unwind (despite my best efforts).

So $400 million is a larger-than-normal investment but other companies will have gotten into the hundreds of millions, too. Investors know that this sector requires lots of cash, unlike the Internet company phase when money was thrown at companies even though they didn't strictly need it.

Better Place has received a similar amount of funding, as has Airtricity...

And Solyndra got more than that.

Our electricity (Hydro) averages 60-70 dollars per month with electric hot water....wood pre heat. A Bloom box for 3,000, plus the ng costs to run it just doesn't cut it. Insulation and a good wood stove is a far better investment. Plus, you have independence. Tie yourself to someone's game and rules, you are stuck.

In my old house I converted to ng when the pipeline arrived. It seemed a much better deal than an oil furnace. We used it as back up for wood. It took about ten years for the prices to level out, just about the same time most folks converted. Now, we heat with just wood, with a few plug-ins if we are away. It is a very comfortable and low cost lifestyle.

Fuel cells are simply too expensive and complicated. Service contracts? Inspections?

Certainly on an individual basis right now a good wood stove can be a better investment. Hydro-power is good where it is available. Not much room for expansion, not available to a lot of people. Burning wood for energy is pretty inefficient even with a good stove. I'd say we're burning too much wood now and looks like we'll be burning more. So what if you didn't have hydro available, how would you get electricity out of wood? Efficiently?

In my part of the US (the great Northwest) wood is cheap, and I have a nice central fireplace I rebuilt myself, but air quality is bad enough here that about 50% of winter this year has been under air quality advisory "no burn" restrictions...

Trying to figure this out. It sounds like it uses NG for fuel. And, that by applying HEAT it creates elecrticity at 80% efficiency as to the NG used. Does that efficiency include the energy used to create the heat?

What are the chemical components? What is the energy/carbon cost of manufacture. How long will it last? What does it cost to service? Is it like my catolytic converter on my car, and needs to be replaced, or a siginficant part needs to be replaced every so often? How often? At what cost, in dollars, energy and carbon?

Who has tested this and verified it? The comments above on the science are telling.

Finally, if it uses NG, or methane for fuel, it sounds like it boosts efficiency from 50%, give or take, to 80%, give or take. That's nice, but related to costs, potential costs, etc., it does not sound like much more than a short term sop to buy a few years. And, it sounds like Bloom is trying to get individuals to invest directly as producers, with no guarantee that there will be any way to effectively market it. (The costs for the metering, distributing part are strangely absent).

Having said that, I'm not ready to invest yet. Certainly not at $800K a pop. Probably not at 10K; maybe at 2K or 3K usd.

:>(

Craig

Edit: I think this, on nanomaterials, is more interesting, and probably as impractical.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100220204808.htm

I'm really interested in whether this company has perhaps defeated the great Achilles heel of every other fuel cell that's been promoted over the past decade, namely cost of platinum catalyst. 1) That "present-day cost" of $800,000 each sounds (to me) like it's full of platinum, otherwise where's the money going for a 100 kw unit? 2) If they're actually putting $700,000 worth of platinum into present models, what makes them think they can get the unit cost down to (what was it?) below $10,000 at ANY time in the future? Platinum prices are sure not going down in future if they start selling volumes of this. 3) IF they've actually developed an alternative catalyst to platinum (I heard some were proposing nickel alloys, but very poor efficiency and not yet near prime time) then why are they quoting $800k for first-offs?

This smells bad.

No platinum according to the 60 minute transcript.

"Sridhar told Stahl there is a secret formula. "And you take that and you apply that. You paint that on either side of this white ceramic to get a green layer and a black layer. And…that's it."

Sridhar told Stahl the finished product, a skinny fuel cell, would generate power.

One disk powers one light bulb; the taller the stack of disks, the more power it generates. In between each disk there's a metal plate, but instead of platinum, Sridhar uses a cheap metal alloy. "

Yes - the Ceramic Fuel Cells guys have a similar cell - these aren't to be confused with traditional hydrogen fuel cells...

Platinum is only required to lower the activation energy to allow reactions to occur near room temperature.  SOFC's run at 600°C and up; at those temperatures, reactions proceed more than fast enough without further help.

A problem I have with residential CHP is that of the cold week and the hot week. At night in the cold week you watch your LCD TV that draws a few watts. The hot water tank is maxed out. You need room heating, not much electricity. Conversely during the heat wave you have to vent all that unwanted exhaust to keep your 3-4 kw of air conditioning going. Maybe it's simpler to do most cooling and heating with electricity alone.

I'm not sure that some alternative gases will substitute for natgas. Untreated biogas can already be 25% CO2. If the catalyst is platinum it won't like 'sour' components like H2S. I presume there is some kind of trade-in system for the plates after however many years. Note that long run we want 80% CO2 reductions. CHP won't get us there even if gas stays cheap.

After my experienmce with Ballard, I'm quite confident fuel cells will only be employed in very specific niches and only with a goodly amount of socialism. This model's reliance on a fossil fuel means it solves zero longterm problems.

If I remember the hype right, Ballard was supposed to have a fuel cell in the works that would replace the ICE, economically, by about now.

Yeah, that was the hype. Ahhhhh, the Hydrogen Economy or Hydrogen based Transport. But there's no fuel distribution network; so, buses, forklifts and other industrial material movers--very niche applications--and very specific stationary electrical power generation--another niche--is what is left of the Hydrogen Economy. Ballard stock is at $2.25CDN, and without corporate socialism it would have ceased operations long ago. The story is much the same with other fuel cell companies. There may come a time when the majority of motorized vehicles are powered by fuel cells, but that will be a time long in the future when there will be very few motorized vehicles.

The story is much the same with other fuel cell companies.

Well, it is claimed that the ceramic based cells are a whole different kettle of fish. So it remains to be seen if they are different in a viable way, or just different. One of the things I saw in the computer industry was that the worst possible fate for a good idea was for the initial implementation to suck. When that happens the good idea becomes radioactive, and no one can get backing to try it again. That happens quite often, as getting a new concept implemented right first time isn't easy.

You'll note I said nothing about performance; my whole critique has to do with application, and those applications being limited in scope by the distance to the hydrogen fuel source. NatGas powered fuel cells have their own particular baggage as I noted above. I unfortunately swallowed the hype about the future potential of fuel cells and bought a small amount of Ballard stock in early 2001 only to sell it at quite a loss in late 2004. It now sells for 1/18th of what I paid. So I have every reason to be skeptical regarding a technology that has yet to deliver anything close to what was promised by the hype.

My daughter wants a solar powered camper van.
(Please don't lecture me about practicalities.)
The Bloom Box might cut the mustard. Not quite solar, but electric never-the-less.
At 50% efficiency conversion it should beat an ICE.

I want a self launch glider so that I can rise above you all.
Some thing like this one
Seems like this might have the best compromises.

or a nice little u tube video

Go Bloom.

If this is being pushed by Forbes I would be careful as hell.

If these things work and are widely deployed, it may help reduce demand on the electric grid but to what effect on the natgas systems. Are these systems overbuilt enough to meet this increased demand? Would we end up like Great Britain this winter, with the natgas system barely able to cope?

This Bloom Box, if performance/price meets claims, would fit nicely into an off grid solar/wind system, replacing the ICE generator most off-gridders use (assuming propane). It would solve several issues: better efficiency, long term fuel storage, noise and pollution, oil changes, etc. If propane is an option, these things could eventually replace portable/small/standby ICE generators, a huge market. If they can be made small enough they could replace the ICE in PHEVs (using CNG). Large electric trucks?

As for the level of investment, how much spent so far to develop PHEVs/EVs? PV? Wind? Nuclear? Stupid toys many of us have?

The only place where I think this technology might find a niche is as a part of a district heating plant. If the feedstock is not NG but rather biogas from municipal wastes, and if the power goes to run a large-scale geothermal heat pump that then distributes heated water to residences in the winter and maybe cool water in the summer (maybe to conventional residential heat pumps, boosting their efficiency enormously), then you might just have an interesting system concept. The optimal sizing for such a fuel cell in such an application might be a bit different than what they are initially conceptualizing here.

This is added rather late in the discussion, but might be useful:

Bloom seems to claim that their fuel-cell technology can be used with a wide variety of fuel feed stocks. I couple this claim with a book I have in my library, "Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy", by Olah, Goeppert, & Prakash (ISBN 3-527-31275-7). Olah won Nobel Prize in Chemistry (a real Nobel) in 1994 for real science closely related to the topic of this book.

Olah, et al., believe that methanol is a much better energy storage fuel than hydrogen and advocate a "methanol economy" as an intelligent substitute for the "hydrogen economy" of policy wonkery fame. Their case seems to good to me, but I'm only a Physics PhD, and not really up to their level in hydrocarbon chemistry. Anyway ---

One thing they admitted was lacking in their proposal at the time of publication is published work on methanol fuel cells. If Bloom has unpublished work that covers this, they might be part of a viable way forward --- a sort of a modified biologised, carbon-chemistry based, BAU.

I can't say if I like this or not. That's why I bring it up for discussion - to see what people here think.

There never was any Hydrogen-economy - as there never will be any Methanol-economy. Didn't you know that Methanol blinds you ?

Geek7- you are a long time member here, didn't you learn anything about 'those scaling issues'?

Didn't you know that Methanol blinds you ?

Gasoline isn't exactly a health elixir either.

Possibly so, but still we have a Gasoline-ish-Economy .

I read The Methanol Economy last year. It was loaned to me by a new graduate Chemical Engineer. LOL :<)

It reminded me of the old saw about having only a hammer and seeing all the world's problems as nails.

These guys agreed that methanol was not an energy source. Their solution? Just build a zillion nuclear plants to make the ethanol. Or maybe convert a bunch of coal. There was not a whisper of serious system analysis in the book, just a lot of technical details about how to chemically convert a bunch of other stuff into methanol and how nice that would be. They were almost silent on the overall, society wide, issues on changing to a "transfer" fuel instead of a pure fossil fuel (e.g coal, nat gas or oil and their derivitives).

A couple of points:

1) This is a potential IMPROVEMENT of a hopeful technology that has to date been too expensive.

2) $400,000,000 - Spending that much doesn't mean it works well enough for mass use. But that amount of money does mean that very smart people have looked at the science.

3) The machine is working at real businesses. We don't know how much those units cost. We don't know the uptime. We don't know the amount of "hand holding" those units get from Bloom engineers. But the units are working.

4) It's a great match with solar technologies in areas, like the U.S., that have abundant natural gas.

5) It may not be carbon neutral, but its better than burning oil (if it works)

Another hopeful aspect of this announcement is that other companies are likely working in the same direction. Available working fuel cells are expensive and use relatively expensive fuels.

dcmiller,

Your second point bothers me. You state that because $400. Million dollars have been spent on this some very smart people have looked at the science.

I strongly disagree that the two items follow logically. In the first place few of these financial people have the technical expertise to properly evaluate the technical aspects of this kind of thing. Secondly in my experience few or none of the financial "geniuses" out there are willing to hire genuine experts to evaluate what they don't understand.

I have lived through enough "rushes" to recognize one when I see one. Clean alternate energy is in a "mania" phase where money is poured out in the rush not to be left out. Due dilligence is often ignored.

Bloom may work but do not let the hype go to your head.

$400m... Isn't that about the annual budget for an F1 team?

Excuse me did I see Vinod Khosla is part of the team?

Vinod =21st Century Flim Flam Man. Somebody cue up how his Ethanol Plan was going to save us all.

Never met a government subsidy he didn't like or wouldn't ask for, matter of fact you should get a warm fuzzy by giving it to him.

Grab your wallet and run screaming into the hills.... how long before they lock him up?

Its past time already

I don't see it as a great match to solar. What solar (and wind) need is low capital cost per kilowatt peaking plants to make up for supply gaps. Something that encourages NG as baseline will just use up our limited NG that much sooner. They have to get the capital cost comparable to or lower than NG peakers to make it a load following technology.

Any chance thats a Sterling engine variation tucked in there?

That would explain the multiple fuels claim.

Still the last thing we need is to ramp up the mass production of any big box thing.

Personally I think what is important about the Bloom box and other fuel cell systems is not where the energy comes from, obviously it's still hydrocarbon based and so solves nothng long term, what is important is where the energy is produced, at the point of use. (or very near to it).

It strikes me that if everyone had one of these things in their backyard, then at least there would be the basis for a fully distributed energy generating grid. One that would be much more easily switched to real clean, independent energy generation (solar/wind/hydro) when that becomes possible.

Resilience is key post peak-oil and I do think this is a step in the right direction.

A prior poster commented about the "doom and gloom" bias on TOD. Yes, there is such a bias amongst commenters on this blog, whether the primary blog authors have such or not. Further, my own inclination is to assume the worst.

However, I would caution people that a key tenet of Tainter's complexity thesis is that a society collapses when it is unable to further increase it's complexity and that complexity appears directly tied to energy usage. Therefore, while highly improbable, the absolutist position that there cannot be a scientific breakthrough (or multiple breakthroughs) that allow for increasing complexity and therefore continuation of business as usual must be false. Such a possibility exists simply because we can demonstrate systems today that have higher energy efficiencies than those we currently employ. As to the argument that there is not time to reshape society, that too is simply an assumption. A key point made by Stuart Staniford years ago was that the rate of decline of global oil production would likely be the deciding factor between a collapsing society and a continuing but changing society.

Thus, the peak of global oil production is less important than the shape of the global oil production curve. If we enter a long plateau or if the rate of decline turns out to be very moderate for several decades, society could reinvent itself. The current peak/plateau is roughly 5 years long at this point and the mere existence of that plateau is producing pressures on society to consider changes. The early changes may not be huge but society is attempting to respond. In the end, we return to Matthew Simmons call for transparency and verification in oil reserves data. Without such transparency and verification, we simply cannot know whether society will have the time to reorganize or not. Because of this ambiguity, I make preparations for collapse but I certainly hope that we can find a way to alter our behavior and lifestyles in such a way as to eventually produce a sustainable civilization. I freely admit that my personal bias leads me to suspect we will not succeed but I also am aware that it is my personal bias and that confirmatory data in either direction is lacking at the current time and that therefore I must keep an open mind.

Good on you.

There is no precedent for our situation. No previous society/civilization had accumulated as much knowledge as we have at present, and none, to my knowledge, had accumulations of knowledge so widely distributed, with an even more widely distributed number of access points.

No previous society/civilization has had access to a communications system as extensive and as cheap as ours.

An economic crisis does not mean the end of law and order. If it is ongoing, as it may well be given the inertia of entrenched expectations, it is likely to undermine and then end the legitimacy of the reigning dogma regarding economic affairs.

So what then? Does violent struggle ensue? If it does, will it scale up? Will it endure? Do people, in the multiple elites common to our civilization, or among the common folk, abandon their historically evident, hardwired (see research on brain circuitry for social intelligence), preference for law and order?

Or does another story (new economic dogma) emerge? From our accumulating scientifically based knowledge of human nature. From small and not so small successful experiments in social and economic organization in counties or countries. From the desires of elites to maintain position and some semblance of their privileges. From average folk wanting the stability that comes from sharing a consensus view and common goals.

That a new guiding narrative emerges from the difficulty of adjusting to a declining and increasingly expensive stock of fossil fuels is, in my opinion, very probable. It would occur even if we were not facing the likelihood of difficulties stemming from climate change, especially in relation to agricultural production. The likelihood of an unpredictable disruptions in food supply will shape and speed the adoption of a new narrative.

In concrete terms, I expect, but don't conclusively know, that the 'selfishness is natural and the best means to achieve the optimal way of life' mentality will be thoroughly discredited, although adherents will continue to sing the praises of this worldview. I don't expect that the new guiding narrative, the story we tell ourselves, each other and our progeny, will replace the old without some blood being spilled. Will it be as much blood as is currently being spilled to defend the authority of the current narrative, I don't know.

Will life for Juanita average get better or worse? More violent or less? I don't know anymore than anyone else does.

What I do know is that we confront the future with enormous and widely disseminated accumulations of knowledge and a simply amazing capacity to communicate.

The doomer, of course, knows that communications systems will crash, food production will crash, food distribution systems will crash, weapons and ammunition systems will flourish, political, economic, legal, social systems will crash
... and all this shortly into the decline of worldwide oil production.

The doomer seeks the comfort of other doomers. In this way the doomer cements his/her certainty.

I believe the judeo-christian apocalyptic tradition has framed the thinking of most doomers in euro-amerika, theists or atheists. The doomer mantra of 'give-up, there is no future worth living, except maybe for a few, but I don't care anyway because thankfully I'll be dead', flows from this tradition as much as it feeds it.

Toilforoil -

I've visited most major PO-related sites on the internet. TOD is the only one I pay any attention to now, because TOD is the most free of doomer groupthink. Even though I am relatively doomerish and do not buy into the hype about hydrogen/fuel cells/ect and believe that a "doomer" scenario is a real possibility, I also think that North Americans have a long way to fall in terms of energy consumption before things get really bad (AKA Doom).

TOD is the most free of doomer groupthink.

Wow!

You might want to try http://www.grist.org/ .

TOD is the most free of doomer groupthink despite the high doomer population here. It's not the doomers that I have an issue with, it is groupthink. I'll check out that site.

Grist doesn't really qualify as a PO site though it does mention the topic occasionally.

TOD has doomer groupthink amongst the doomers, but thankfully the population remains diverse (even if the occasional doombat muttering darkly about cannibalism or genocide in the comments does put some sane people off the site).

Toilforoil:
I respectfully disagree with your last paragraph. The Christians of the evangelical and Left Behind stripe don't believe in death...they believe they are going to live forever in a magical place full of (nice) relatives and pets, while the rest of us are subject to everlasting torment at the hands of a benevolent God. I really don't consider them doomers at all.

The "judeo-christian apocalyptic tradition" may permeate our culture in several ways, but if I've learned anything about the U.S., it's that the myth of the "city on a hill" and "American Dream" is the defining aspect of our culture and swamps the doomer mindset. I know who my influences are; see Malthus, Darwin, Hubbert-hardly individuals who toed the church line and retreated to monasteries. And see how many Christians you can find who agree with them, much less understand them.

The doomer mindset, rational or not, is not confined to, nor caused by, either judaism or christianity.

Greer argues quite convincingly about the influence of apocalyptic myth.

While other traditions also have these myths, it is most prominent in J-C-M tradition.

Don't blame Judaism for Heaven and Hell.
The older versions of Judaism did not have a Heaven or Hell. Apparently these notions were adopted during the Babylonian conquest.

However, the older versions of Judaism did have the idea of building a survival (Noah's) ark or a 7-year (Joseph's) food storage silo. Those who partied like there was no tomorrow got swallowed up by the deluge or the famine. The few who planned ahead survived (and so did their pet dinosaurs --just kidding on that last part).

_______________
That's a good one to pass onto Bill Maher about a "benevolent" God who tortures, torments and waterboards (as well as French Frying) all those who are outside the special and deserving group of true believers. Only the truly deserving get the 72 virgins; although I'm not sure whether the latter qualifies as Heaven or Hell.

Hi David,

re: "Thus, the peak of global oil production is less important than the shape of the global oil production curve"

Isn't it the case that there are many factors that enter into the shape of the curve?

re: "In the end, we return to Matthew Simmons call for transparency and verification in oil reserves data. Without such transparency and verification, we simply cannot know whether society will have the time to reorganize or not."

My questions about this - I wonder if the oil reserves data verification really matters so much.

If it's the case that "ELM" appears to be accurate, then there's the issue of what some call "resource nationalism" and I call "uneven distribution" or "from the point of view of X, there may as well be no oil."

If it's the case the different approaches to estimating "peak" and decline appear to coincide - (megaprojects, HL, "Satellite O'er the Desert" - then, doesn't that tell us a lot?

Then, there's the price issue and the impact of volatility on both production and the economy.

On the latter point, there's the issue of "rebuilding" or transforming when people don't realize that at each point in time, they are, indeed, experience the maximum available energy to use for the transition.

In other words, how to reshape if some/most/all/key people do not understand that "to reshape" is the primary, number one endeavor?

If it's the case that "ELM" appears to be accurate

That's a big if. I'd argue that overall consumption and production (the balance between the two) for the globe is far more important than just consumption and production in exporting countries.

Transparency of the unknowable in a multinational and multicorporate world doesn't mean anything. We don't know how much oil is available at any future date beyond short term. We never will.

If we were headed towards a sharp decline in supply the rational behavior of resource owners today would be to stop pumping oil. Why sell at a low price?

I’m staying on the grid. In North Carolina we have wonderful nuclear power stations if the loonies don’t shut them down. No Volt for me when you buy a new Hyundai for $10,000 that gets close to 40MPG. In rural NC wood is still inexpensive and renewable. I have several acres of beautiful trees just waiting for me to cut them if my power is ever turned off. If you don’t know how to fix this electric gizmo box I would leave it alone at least until other people with money to burn have used it for ten years. Time to get into my 1992 Oldsmobile station wagon and drive thirty miles to Cracker Barrel. Love that place.
hotrod

Funny you mention this as I've looked and looked and come to the conclusion that living in the right place i.e one with plenty of trees and arable land and coppicing is the future.

http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/~GEL115/index.html

You should read this he is amazingly close to my viewpoint on a lot of things. On oil I don't dismiss his view point but as he gets closer to home i.e without the lens of history and knowing the end story he fails at being a presentstorian/futurstorian. But thats normal and does not detract from his hist view on historical events. A bit amazing how someone with such a fantastic grasp on depletion does not take it through with oil !

In any case a return to a sustainable charcoal age seems to be the only answer and just as obvious and telling the population that can be supported via a sustainable charcoal based society is very low.

The sustainable population depends on the efficiency.  Consider charcoal used in direct-carbon fuel cells (up to 80% efficiency).  The production of charcoal creates combustible gas, which can also be used for energy or chemicals.

This device appears to be a gas reformer, using air and natural gas to make hydrogen, followed by a solid oxide fuel cell. It isn't a new idea.

Let's look at likely overall fuel energy to electrical energy efficiency.

Fuel cell - 50%

Reforming - An industrial-scale steam reforming setup might get 80% efficiency, but this a small-scale air-based one, so I think that 60% would be optimistic.

That would give an overall efficiency of 30%, but the calculation neglects electrical power consumed within the box. This can amount to a substantial portion of the output - 20% internal use would not surprise me.

The useful electricity production would in that case be 24% of the fuel energy in the gas.

See here for a thermodynamic analysis of what is possible for a combination of steam reforming with a PEM fuel cell. The authors give 40% as the attainable efficiency for this type of unit. The PEM fuel cell would be comparable in efficiency with a solid oxide one, but the air reformer would not be as good as the steam one.

I would expect the overall gas energy to electricity efficiency of the Bloom Box would be about 25%. I can see how it could be a little higher or lower, but I doubt very much that it would be over 30%.

Comparable efficiencies are attainable with normal reciprocating internal combustion engines, and it is not hard to set up a cogeneration system with this type of engine. IC engines have the advantages of being cheap, reliable, easy to maintain and very common indeed.

For comparison, big combined-cycle gas turbine installations achieve about 55% efficiency in the production of electricity from natural gas.

Libelle,

I am not an engineer but I have a prety good grasp of the reasons why new technologies are so expensive.

SfaIcs,there is essentially NO new tech necessary to the building of small combined heat and power systems utilizing small ic engines.Certainly it appears that the necessary electronics are readily available and probably off patent to boot, ditto the engine and generaor technology.Most or all of the equipment used to tie such a genset into a residential system is also off patent by now,and there are plenty of established dealers , with trained staff, eager to add a new product line.

I am not a fully qualified generator technician , but I know small ice inside and out, and it is very easy to build one for stationary apps that is essentially trouble free and needs only a few minutes a year of unskilled maintainence.If you build in the quality, there is no reason such an engine should not last for ten thousand hours or more before it needs an overhaul.

It would appear that the only thing holding back this technology is the fact that energy is still dirt cheap in real terms.

I think the high prices of such systems as are currently on the market are in very large part due to low volume and that these systems will become much cheaper , in terms of real money, within the next decade or so.

energy is still dirt cheap in real terms

I agree completely. The extreme cheapness of energy, especially in North America, means that almost no-one can be bothered with anything but the simplest of heating and cooling systems in very large and inefficient buildings. The fact that it's already pretty straightforward to build good cogen systems isn't enough to make them popular.

The 15 year payback calculations compare the cost of electricity through this method with the cost of natural gas derived electricity from the electrical company. I wonder if that is the only comparison to consider. For instance:

In the short term, it appears that oil availability may be a bigger problem than natural gas availability. If so, I wonder what the current excess power plant capacity is? In other words, how much more electricity could power plants produce with just an increase in natural gas usage? If large, the average cost of traditional natural gas-derived electricity would go down. I think that also assumes that the grid could handle the additional electricity transmissions.

If the current suppliers of natural gas-derived electricity have no excess capacity to use more natural gas, the comparison might be against the cost of constructing additional natural gas fired plants plus the cost of the gas.

One other comparison that may hold value is the comparison to the cost of oil. Electric scooters exist and plug in hybrids or full EVs "seem" to be on the horizon. If so, and if oil becomes less available, then a comparison of electricity for transport and oil for transport may be a stronger determining factor.

There's been questions about what the Bloom CEO meant by the product working with solar. From the NYT:

"One byproduct of fuel cells is water, and Bloom has patented and proved a fuel-cell design that could also tap electricity generated by solar panels and wind farms to electrolyze water to produce hydrogen that could be used as fuel in the cell."

I know it bothers many people that hydrogen is simply a way to store and move energy. But if it can take wind energy or fision and replace liquid fuels it may still be a way to go.

Another complaint about "over negativity". When Obama announced the nuclear loan guarantee, I couldn't find a word about it on TOD. I believe in the U.S. we will have a fission reactor on every corner before Americans give up their A/C (or hoe corn).

(Where I went to University 30 years ago there was a working fission reactor in the entry to the Electrical Engineering building. One could look down at the glow through 20 feet of water. Yet we're going to go back to subsistence farming. Right.)

My question: why not use batteries for energy storage instead?

Electrolysis->hydrogen->electricity is very inefficient. Unless this system is much cheaper, or much more efficient than before, it won't be useful for energy storage. Even then, I can't see it for personal transportation due to infrastructure problems - fleet applications would be the logical place.

Fuel cell vehicles are EV's, that have onboard fuel cell generators, aka Extended Range EV's. For personal transportation, I suspect an ICE ErEV like the Chevy Volt (which reduces fuel consumption by 90%)will be much more cost effective for a long time.

I'm assuming batteries won't have the energy density or speed of recharge needed for many current liquid fuel applications. I haven't looked at numbers, but do we even have the metals to build vast amounts of any type of battery? Lead prices are up a lot.

I don't know the practical watts per volume of compressed hydrogen. Anyone know what that is with current storage schemes?

batteries won't have the energy density or speed of recharge needed for many current liquid fuel applications.

Most liquid fuels are used for personal transportation, for which batteries do just fine. The best approach is an extended range EV, like the Chevy Volt, which addresses all of these questions, and reduces fuel consumption by 90%. Water shipping could also use batteries with a range extender.

Eventually the range extender in fleet applications might be a fuel cell. Personal transportation won't use fuel cells for a very long time, due to the very poor ROI of the required infrastructure.

Long-haul trucking is best replaced with electric trains (or diesel, in the medium-term -trains are 3x as efficient).

Lithium and lead supplies are adequate - see a TOD article just a few days ago regarding lithium.

"One byproduct of fuel cells is water, and Bloom has patented and proved a fuel-cell design that could also tap electricity generated by solar panels and wind farms to electrolyze water to produce hydrogen that could be used as fuel in the cell."

They want to use electricity to produce Hydrogen which they will 'burn' to produce more electricity (and water). Sweet tapdancing Jesus, are they serious?

I agree that this could be a game changer in some respects. Without knowing the actual efficiency of the Bloom box and how "Green" it is with it's CO2 emissions, it is an exercise in speculation at the moment. If it could slow down the production of coal-fired power plants, then that certainly would be a plus as far as climate is concerned. Natural gas is finite too though so it would only be a delaying measure in the switch to coal (longer-term).

If the efficiency of the Bloom Box is twice as efficient as a current gas-fired power plant, then the Bloom Box might extend Peak Gas another ten years or more. BUT, if they are going to try to expand the market for electricity in general (Africa, Asia, etc.) then it may result in an acceleration of Peak Gas to rival that of Peak Oil. The current unit cost ($800k) and the proposed ($3k for a residential unit) are problematic. A high cost unit will keep sales down except for larger companies(corporations, utilities, etc). If the cost of a residential unit in the $3k range is doable, then it will cause an explosion in the market for electricity and a resulting higher demand for natural gas.

If the Bloom Box is truly multi-fuel, the issue still remains about how to get enough fuel of whatever variety to run the boxes. Using Solar panels to power the box (which their CEO indicated would work) seems like a lateral move. The same for wind power. Natural gas demand would almost certainly intensify I would think. Biogas could be possible but in the quantities that they would need if the demand for the boxes skyrocketed (assuming customer preference over natural gas)?

Also, if the boxes could be placed in every household, assuming a reasonable cost, there might be an increased interest in electric or PHEV vehicles. That could help slow down the curve a bit with Peak Oil. Of course, if it meant that more cars overall were sold worldwide, again increasing that demand for resources, Peak Oil might not be affected much at all.

The worst thing that I can see about this invention is that it makes people believe that our energy problems can always be solved by technology and takes the focus off the impending resource problems that we have out there.

I do think we have to try to find technologies to help slow down the resource issues that we face, but realize that if that technology results in increased pressure on current and future resources, then it may wind up doing more harm than good. I think that we must get the resources in place first, short-term and long-term, and then develop the technologies to use those available resources in the most efficient way. Otherwise, the technologies that are developed, not matter how efficient, will still be working against a backdrop of relatively limited resources.

From my perspective the main advantage of Bloom’s device is the economical replacement of complicated and expensive diesel/battery uninterruptible power supplies. Data centers, and on line transaction systems, ( ebay, Google, FedEx, etc), can’t afford the loss of more than one or two cycles in their plants. At the present time this power quality is insured by solid state UPS systems backed up with a diesel generator for long term load support, (a few minutes to several days). If the Bloom Box can operate at 70% efficiency on natural gas its electricity would be about 20% lower in cost than utility power. With the Bloom Box suppling the main load the utility would be the backup supply.
As for the practicality of one of these units on a private residence, at only a 20% savings over utility power, and a unit cost of say $3,000 it would take more than ten years to pay back even if there was zero installation cost, no maintenance, and a zero cost of money. You have to do better than that to be practical as a home unit.

Bloom’s development has a niche market place, but it is no silver bullet in reducing FF use.

If you pay 11.62/mcf, have 1,028 btus per cf, and convert 3,414 btus/kwh at 70% efficiency, the kwhs cost only about 5.5 cents. That's half of retail power prices.

A unit at $3,000 could pay off pretty quickly.

Whilst the Bloom Box might be the subject of an inordinate amount of rather typical silicon valley spin and attendance at the launch might be more a result of the A-list celebs on th epanel, it is still a step in the right direction. However, they are a very long way behind some other developers such as Kyocera in Japan and CFCL in the UK (and Australia) who have already achieved 60% electrical efficiency (compared with Bloom at ~45% converted to HCV rather than questionable LCV).
Unfortunately the remainder of the (reprinted) article is way out of date and rather innacurate. Rather than itemising the errors, I suggest those interested in fuel cells and other low carbon (micro) CHP might care to visit:
www.microchap.info

I think the figures for the Bloom Box are a little strange.  $8/watt is considerably higher than even the inflated cost of the first EPR, and the EPR's fuel is vastly cheaper and in much greater abundance.  Amortizing a $8/W unit over 20 years at 14% interest costs $.14/kWh before the cost of fuel.  Why would anyone buy such a thing (absent large subsidies)?

Some time ago the US DoE fuel-cell program was aiming at $400/kW for units intended for mobile use.  The electric efficiency was much lower, but much of this was likely due to the need to reform diesel fuel into a non-coking gas.  Likely none of this would be necessary with a methane feed.  The target efficiency is 25%, which is adequate if CHP is the only use; total efficiency could easily be equal to the best condensing furnaces.

A system with 25% electric efficiency and 95% overall efficiency, burning 100 therms of gas per month (30.5 days), would yield 732 kWh/month of electricity (about 1 kW continuous) plus 7 million BTU of heat (about 9600 BTU/hr).  Such a system could easily run flat-out during the entire heating season, producing space heat and DHW.  The DOE's lifespan of 250 cycles would not be exhausted in 20 years of seasonal operation.

If we assume a 10-year lifespan and $400/kW with no residual value, with operation for 2920 hr/yr, the amortized cost of the system at 12% (less risk) is about 3¢/kWh.  Fuel at $1.20/therm adds about 4¢/kWh overall (assuming the heat would be required anyway and losses are the same as a condensing furnace).

Now, I don't know about you, but a system delivering juice at 7¢/kWh with fuel included is going to get my attention.  A system costing 14¢/kWh before I get the fuel bill doesn't interest me.

(All financial figures calculated using OOCalc's PMT() function.)