Very Skeptical of "Bloom Energy" / "Fuel Cell Technology" vs. Solar PV

I'm very skeptical of "Bloom Energy". MY BONA FIDES / CAVEAT: As many of you may know, I'm very into green technology. I took Unitek College's "Boots on the Roof" Intensive Solar course last year and continually read about assorted green technology. Currently, I'm a partner at RandyHallSolar.com (as a Solar Consultant and state-licensed salesperson in California) and I'm still developing Prontia.com (a new independent-broker system to match good candidates for solar installation with qualified installers). So here's the big caveat: I'm admittedly biased for Solar PV. With that in mind, I'm still extremely skeptical of "Bloom Energy" after seeing a puff piece about them on 60 Minutes and reading what I can about them on the web. SOURCES: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/60minutes/main6221135.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_Energy http://www.nydailynews.com/tech_guide/2010/02/22/2010-02-22_bloom_energy_inventor_kr_sridhar_makes_big_promise_with_bloom_box.html http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/411/ http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2009/gb2009127_746740.htm http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/biz2/0708/gallery.next_disruptors.biz2/8.html HERE'S WHY: A lot of people seem to be framing their rosy predictions about Bloom Energy around machine/unit cost (they say "sure the units cost $700k a piece now but eventually they'll cost consumers $3k"). That's because everyone knows how much exponentially cheaper/more powerful computers have become over time and these people apply that paradigm/analogy to their understanding of Bloom Energy's expensive fuel cells. And if cost of the unit was the sole factor then I might be a cheerleader for them, too. But cost of the unit is not the only factor when it comes to "fuel cell" technology because the units need fuel. It seems so obvious but that fact was virtually entirely overlooked in the 60 Minutes segment. PROBLEMS: Every fuel... 1) Needs to be collected somehow (e.g. harvested, drilled for etc.) 2) Needs to be processed somehow (e.g. filtered, fermented, refined etc.) 3) Needs to be distributed somehow (e.g. in pipes, trucks, tankers etc.) 4) Has inherent dangers in collection,processing & distribution (e.g. spills, fires, terrorism etc.) 5) Has inherent dangers at the consumer's location (e.g. fires, explosions etc.) All of those things (that need to be done for ultimately delivering fuel to the consumer) have costs and all of those dangers need to be managed and insured against. That adds up to real money. Especially since all of those costs are on a marginal-use basis (i.e. once you've reach maximum economies-of-scale, 10 mWh of energy has twice the cost of 5 mWh). *Note that Solar PV power has none of those problematic downsides.* Solar PV uses sunlight as its fuel (conveniently delivered to consumers' roofs for free by the sun). Whereas with "Fuel Cell" technology, consumers are still paying for every marginal unit of electricity they want to use. They are still at the mercy of the "fuel providers". "60 Minutes" oddly made a big point about Bloom Energy "getting rid of the (electrical) grid" without noting the necessary increase in fuel delivery currently in the form of natural gas (which is combustible and poisonous). While I concede that Bloom Energy's fuel cell technology may indeed already or may soon become less expensive that current utility companies' fossil fuel-based systems that's nevertheless short term thinking. Solar PV already leapfrogs all of those problems. Here are other downsides to Bloom Energy (and all "fuel cell" technologies): - Fuel Cell technologies are at least somewhat mechanically based (because fuel has to be piped-in) and thus are prone to mechanical breakdown. - Fuel Cell technologies are untested long-term and so their cost per kWh is unknowable. If the units only end up lasting 8 years then their cost per kWh will be amortized to be much higher and less viable. (Now compare that to solar panels which are guaranteed to last for 25 years and actually are lasting 30-40+ years). - Fuel Cell technologies are dependent on fuel markets, which can spike or be manipulated (like any market). - NOTE: that I haven't even mentioned the environment or "climate change" (which is certainly not insignificant to the energy debate. But Bloom Energy hype can be deflated on the economics alone). so here's the biggest problem in a nutshell link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelised_energy_cost In my opinion, these kinds of problems occur with everything except Solar PV and Wind. (especially the joke that is "nuclear energy" --- just read about the "Price Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act" that has American taxpayers providing free unlimited insurance to the nuclear energy industry to give the illusion that it's economically viable). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants CONCLUSION: While the hype around Bloom Energy is white-hot right now (February 22, 2010), I wouldn't invest in it long term and if I could short it, I would. My Little Personal Pitch for Solar... The plain fact is that Solar is the most safe & reliable energy and now it's also the least expensive for consumers. The equipment costs & installation fees have dropped so much that Solar PV is economically viable right now (depending on the area of the country) without state rebates & federal tax incentives. But with those rebates and incentives the ROI for Solar PV can easily be well over 15% every year for 25+ years (compared to other investments, installing Solar PV can be better than over 99% of all mutual funds). If you own your own house be sure to run some numbers to see just how good it can be. Californians: http://gosolarcalifornia.cleanpowerestimator.com/gosolarcalifornia.htm New Yorkers: http://nyserda.cleanpowerestimator.com/nyserda.htm Change These Factors in the Calculator:  - Your electric use is probably between 600kWh - 1,500kWh ($100 - $400) per month - Escalation should be 5.0% to 6.5% per year (that's the historic average range) - PV size should be 6k to 12k depending on energy use - Cost should be $7,500 per kW-ac (or LESS => it could be as low as $6,500 if you get a great deal on a big system) And please contact me if you want my help or advice about solar. Thanks and good karma to you. www.RandyHallSolar.com www.Prontia.com