OK, where does the carbon go?  And where is the supply of “clean” methanol coming from?

—

Just ran across this…

“(FedEx in Oakland), the day Bloom installed their boxes, each one costing $700-800,000….

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.

Four units have been powering a Google datacenter for 18 months. They use natural gas, but half as much as would be required for a traditional power plant. ”
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-6221135.html?pageNum=3&tag=contentMain;contentBody
Natural gas is at a historical and unsustainable low price.  I see
nothing about these things being run on renewable fuel.

And from another site…

”  Each “server” produces 100 kW of power, consists of thousands of
fuel cells, costs between $700,000 and $800,000, and pays for itself
in three to 5 years based on an energy cost of 8 to 9 cents per kW
hour.

Bloom’s device generates electricity at 50% to 55% conversion
efficiency. In comparison, solar generally produces power at between
10% to 15% efficiency. But unlike solar panels, the Bloom Energy
Server produces CO2 as a byproduct. According to the Energy
Collective, “CO2 emissions when running on natural gas would be just
under 0.8 pounds/kWh, which compares favorably to electricity from
central station coal-fired plants (2 lbs/kWh) or natural gas plants
(roughly 1.3 lbs/kWh) and the national average for on-grid electricity
(around 1.3-1.5 lbs/kWh).” If the box runs on landfill gas or biogas,
it produces net zero carbon emissions. ”

http://www.fastcompany.com/1561844/how-does-the-bloom-box-energy-server-work

The efficiency comparison with solar panels is, of course,
meaningless.  The two technologies  can be legitimately compared based
on $/kWh, CO2 production, and “availability”.  But since the input
fuel for solar is free the efficiency of a solar panel is meaningless.

What do we know?  Blooms are apparently more efficient than combined
cycle natural gas plants.  But they are apparently a lot more
expensive.  Don’t forget, taxpayer dollars are paying half the cost.
At full price they probably couldn’t compete with grid power.

If we had ample landfill/biogas then Blooms (and combined cycle gas
plants) could be carbon neutral.  But we don’t yet have enough biogas
in the pipes to make Blooms anything other than CO2 producers.

If the Bloom is $750k one has to ask what their customers are smoking.

Bloom can’t approach the price of grid power. And if you can get backup generation for 3% of the price of a Bloomer.

Seems like we might be missing some factual info here.

—

And this claim –

“The Bloom Energy Server converts air and nearly any fuel source – ranging from natural gas to a wide range of biogases – into electricity via a clean electrochemical process, not combustion.”

A fuel cell run on hydrogen produces electricity and water (H2O).

The Bloomer is running on natural gas – basically methane (CH4). Where does the carbon go?

Also “…, unlike traditional renewable energy”. There’/s nothing “traditional” about renewable energy. Eating turkey at Thanksgiving is a tradition. Making frat pledges drink themselves to unconsciousness is a tradition. Energy development isn’t like these mindless activities. You want “convention.”

Sure, the gas could from from organic waste but that’s not what is happening, is it?

We could run these things on unicorn farts, if we could only capture a few unicorns.