The problem with this technology is that it arrived 20 years too late. Notwithstanding the cheaper prices it seems odd to become more dependent on fossil fuel. I'm not sure how long the Dutch will have reliable gas but the Japanese will need those bubble boats to keep coming in from places like our NW Shelf. Re which south eastern Australia will be experiencing gas supply problems within a decade. If I recall even the basin (Browse?) that supplies Perth may not keep up with demand.

I haven't run the numbers but I'm sure biogas can't get close to making up the required volumes. Therefore I think the future of home heating is local biomass, electrical or conservation. We should save gas for for crucial needs such as peak generation, fertiliser production, food processing and gas-to-liquids jet fuel.

Whispergen?
I figure fuel choice will end up being wider for the stirling approach...

A fuel burner is still a fuel burner.

The solid oxide fuel cell looks like it will save 60% of the natural gas input for the same electric output, but natural gas is disappearing.

Electricity from massive wind and solar(2 watts renewable per 1 watt of load) for with large scale energy storage and a modest fossil fuel backup will reduce natural gas by up to 80% in studies.

Fuel cells will only make sense in countries with the largest fossil fuel resources.

Renewables first!

See note Fig. 2 below.

http://www.ceere.org/rerl/projects/software/WindScreenPaper.pdf

You people are behind the times on stirlings vs fuel cells. Why not? There is too little on the web that is up with it, so I will fill you in.

1) stirlings have beaten fuel cells in recent head to head contests on a lot of things like CHP and small battery replacers and such-like little power generators. Stirlings are fuel insensitive ( run fine on diesel, or wood chips) and last a long time- many years -and are fairly efficient (maybe 20% + efficient system fuel to electricity at 100 watts out).

2) They are just metal, no magic membranes or any such $$ stuff needed. Very ordinary kinds of hardware we all know and love. No fundamental reason a stiring should cost more than a couple of times an IC of same power (needs some hot metal the IC does not need)

3) Built right (that is, free piston, not cranks), they are nearly silent and vibration-free.

4) They are way more than just a stop-gap. Anywhere fuel is being burned, a stirling could get a good bit of the available energy from that heat as electricity. This goes for now- and forever.

5) Stirlings are good for solar. Very good. and getting better.

6) "If they are so good, why can't I buy one?" Dunno. Ask the money people. Meanwhile, read the blurbs.

http://www.infiniacorp.com/technology/index.php

http://www.sunpower.com/

You don't believe me. The stuff up there is just company brags. "Where is your reference?" Hey, it's Sunday; I am not being paid for this. I hit a few search questions and didn't get what I wanted. That does not mean I am wrong- just lazy. You do it- it's out there somewhere.

Bloom Energy comments:

100 KW generation in each house? Seems a little high. Perhaps a tenth or even a hundredth of that?

$10K/unit? Yeah, that would be good, but is it realistic? No backup information on that one.

I don't know where this article got it's info from, but a brand-spanking new combined cycle nat gas plant can get as much as 60% efficency. I don't even think that simple cycle nat gas plants are even that low. Even with coal plants, even old sub-critical plants get as much as 32-33% efficency, while ultra supercritical can get up to about 40%.

Also, using nat gas for space heating/hot water heating is inefficent--unless of course you look at all the other alternatives (excluding heat pumps/solar hot water, which should be mandated by law for all new buildings because retrofits are horrifically more expensive). Using oil or electricity for those tasks are both absurdly more expensive and carbon intensive than using natural gas.

Personally, I think that the proliferation of solar will put a major dent into natural gas use for electricity. Since natural gas almost exclusively produces peak load power, which is highest in the summer during mid-day, which is when solar production peaks, new solar will do a number on natural gas consumption, particularly solar thermal in terms of nat gas consumption reduced per watt (less variable on a minute to minute basis).

This discussion once more gives me the opportunity to recommend a fascinating and free online magazine:

http://www.distributedenergy.com/de.html

This is a U.S. publication, and it is also easy in the U.S. to get on the mailing list for a free print copy bimonthly.

The area of DG(Distributed Generation)is growing fast, with technical innovations occuring and effeciency rising almost daily.

Those involved in the various facets of this energy are very intelligent about not seeing any one solution in isolation, but instead looking at an integrated approach, using not only fossil fuels but also incorporating renewables, energy storage and conservation engineering into the mix.

I am always fascinated at how easily many here dismiss alternatives almost out of hand as not viable that the Japanese and Europeans are spending hundreds of millions of yen/Euro on, and seem fully intending to install in the millions of units. I suppose it can be assumed that the technical departments of firms such as Honda,Toshiba and Matsushita Electric are completely mistaken and wrongheaded, but I am not sure I would bet my money against them.

Distributed Generation does not in many cases create 100% freedom from fossil fuels, but in many cases it does offer the prospect of huge efficiency gains, the ability to recapture waste heat, and a way of overcoming the variability of wind and solar. In markets such as the U.K. which will have a natural gas supply for many years into the future, but at a declining rate, Distributed Generation could be path forward into leaner energy future.

Is it THE solution. No. But does it have enough potential to be worth further development and study. Absolutely.

RC

Big Gav and TOD readers should be aware that other micro-cogen systems exist, including one which is manufactured in my home state:

http://www.marathonengine.com/cogeneration.html

Note that I do not have any vested interest in promoting this company. In fact the smallest unit they manufacture at present is probably too small for most homeowners, but it appears to be appropriately sized for apartments, small businesses, and other situations with a somewhat larger year-round demand for hot water, space heating, and other low-temperature heating load.

Micro cogen need not be based on fuel cells - a properly designed diesel engine system will convert a very respectable percentage of fuel energy into electricity. As is the case with hybrid cars, people are fixated on new, sexy technology rather than stuff like the good old diesel engine, which has been steadily refined for over 100 years. (I know a number of guys who get more than 50 MPG with their turbocharged VW New Beetles.)

As for usefullness of micro cogen systems after the fossil fuel age, I would suggest that bio-methane will be a perfect "plug and play" replacement for natural gas. We can use all the existing infrastructure and devices.

This (ignoring bio-methane to replace natural gas in homes and businesses) is yet another example of the stupidity of Amerka's obsession with bio-based motor fuels. Sorry, Mr. Billy Fourwheeler, we are not gonna keep our current motor vehicle fleet running on biofuels, but wouldn't it be handy to have a nice, clean-burning biofuel to bake pizzas and cook brats with our EXISTING gas stoves?

DUH!

Hans Noeldner

"'Green' cars are certainly a step in the right direction. But for those of us who are blessed with health and opportunities, the best steps toward a sustainable Earth are often…quite literally… steps!"

There seems to be about 15% loss in this system. That seems a little strange. There is some heat missing somewhere and unless it goes up a chimney, I'm a little puzzled. If it does go up a chimney, it seems to me that more of the heat could be captured. Water heating represents about 17% of energy use in a normally insulated home. http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/uses/residence.html

So, a water heater powered this way would then cover the electric needs for lighting and appliances but not refridgeration or air conditioning. At 85% overall efficiency this seems as though it could reduce gas use for a system that uses primarily gas to generate electricity since the 40% loss from central generation would be partly avoided. For systems that use other thermal forms of generation, the fuel savings could be greater but gas use might increase.

Chris

What are the Laws of Thermodynamics?

1st Law—Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy in the universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another.

2nd Law—In all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state. This is also known as the law of entropy.

3rd Law—It is impossible to cool a body to absolute zero by any finite process. This is actually more of a postulate than a law. In any case, it has little application to our discussion and is presented here merely for thoroughness.

Lots of luck.

[Rots of ruck in Japan and China]

:-)!

cheers

I think the broader NG reticulation network is ultimately doomed. I've wondered whether NG could replaced with an alternative 'universal' gas. This is not so far fetched since the coal gas network was converted to NG post WW2. There would have to be a standard for heating value, nitrogen, carbon oxides, water vapour, premium components (eg methane, ethane, hydrogen) and presence of nasties like phenols. Standalone propane users (even BBQs) could convert to this new type of gas as would different kinds of CHP ..ICE, FC, Stirling.

However I don't think that scale is supportable. Sure Swedish trains run on sewage methane but that's not a whole city. Maybe the right kind of scale is something like a kibbutz combining a farm with community housing. CHP heats and lights the houses while the digester waste goes back on the fields.

any process by which we extend our energy and use it more efficiently is good.

U.S. thermal power plants alone throw away in waste heat as much energy as Japan uses for every purpose! That’s more than 20 quads. And that doesn’t even count the heat thrown away in industrial processes. Now the smartest thing to do with that heat for the next few decades is obviously either generate electricity with it or use it for heating buildings or industrial processes.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/30/air-capture/

why waste power producing something else? imagine if the by manufacturing legos we produced pots and pans as a waste product and threw them out? you'd think they were nuts. why should power be any different.

I wonder about the value of this complexity, except in special cases.

Readily available NG condensing gas furnaces are 95% or so efficient. Extracting part of that energy and putting into electrical wires may have some value (more gas will have to be burned to get the needed heat), but is local winter electrical generation worth the added cost and complexity ?

In the typical case, I do not see it.

Alan

These ideas that squeeze a little more efficiency out of fossil fuels are desperate attempts to keep our current lifestyles in spite of global warming and peak oil, however they at least show a willingness to aim for a Plan B.

If the Olduvai Theory carries any validity and if Peak Oil really was 2005 (or any date in the next century) I think we are all missing the fundamental.

Olduvai mentions in passing that 4 BILLION people may have to be returned for recycling, once our free energy sources diminish.

Sure, the above lovely little co-generation units are good. However if we have 8 billion of them, it may be a different game.

The Russian and Scandinavian immigrants who came to the Prairies two hundred years ago understood precisely how to heat their Sod houses with limited resources.

The traditional Eskimos solved similar problems.

If we do not get serious about the way we waste energy, this historical cycle will definitely repeat itself.

We keep striving for energy savings and reductions of a few percent. It is like telling the condemned prisoner that the governor has postponed the execution for a few more days.

When do we start telling the people the truth, about what appears to be a scientifically verifiable reality. If we are wrong our ancestors will thank us that they still have energy available to use.

Do we understand that all our complacency will eventually lead to Legislation. "Legislation" is always made by the Powerful to protect themselves. Feudal overlords will again be the order of the day, and they will not be American.

These Overlords may well take the "First Night" privileges, and only their progeny will be allowed to survive.

50,000 units for $240,000,000 works out to $4800 each. Each unit generates only 2 kw of electrical power which works out to $2.40 per watt of generating capacity. If the 4 year lifetime can be achieved it works out over 25 cents/kwh. This is only a small fraction of the peak electrical power needs of most homes. The cost of batteries and an adequate inverter must be added or the cost of staying connected to the grid for a substantial percentage of you electrical needs must be paid for. 50% efficiency means it also generates 2 kw of heat. That is only about 7,000 btu/hr. This is not even close to meeting the heating requirements of a northern latitude home which means a conventional heating and hot water system must also be purchased. For many if not most applications this is a case of conversion efficiency working against the purchase and use of this product. For instance my old house in Michigan used about 5 times more energy in the form of nat gas than in the form of electricity. This was after adding new insulation and included an electric water heater and old inefficient air conditioning. For a new super insulated passive solar home this might be a good idea for meeting some of your electrical and hot water needs.

GE pitched a unit like this last century - to ship in under 2 years.

I'll believe this unit or any 'affordable' CHiP unit when I can buy one.

(Personally I'd prefer a stirling engine based one)

Hey thanks for the great blog, I love this stuff. I don’t usually do much for Earth Day but with everyone going green these days, I thought I’d try to do my part.

I am trying to find easy, simple things I can do to help stop global warming (I don’t plan on buying a hybrid). Has anyone seen that www.EarthLab.com is promoting their Earth Day (month) challenge, with the goal to get 1 million people to take their carbon footprint test in April? I took the test, it was easy and only took me about 2 minutes and I am planning on lowering my score with some of their tips.

I am looking for more easy fun stuff to do. If you know of any other sites worth my time let me know.