Apple's Options for North Carolina Fuel Cell Installation Point to Bloom Energy

[alephnull12]

Bloom's fuel cells would still be cheaper to operate than a diesel generator.

I doubt it.

If a diesel generator were used, it would be used solely as backup to grid power. Which means, those diesel generators would only be operating very, very rarely. In this case, fuel costs are not a big economic cost.

The major savings of diesel backup generators over fuel cells therefore would be in the lower capital costs for the equipment.

So far as I know, Bloom Energy does not publish precise prices for their equipment, but I'm inclined to think that a bleeding edge technology like this would always be more expensive to purchase and install than an older proven technology such as a diesel backup.

If fuels cells cannot provide electricity at a total cost (including fuel and capital equipment) less than the very cheap rates available to large businesses in North Carolina ($0.05 - $0.07 per kWh), then I'm inclined to believe that a combination of grid power with diesel backup would be cheaper.

But Apple hasn't made their costs for this equipment available to shareholders at this point, so it's hard to tell.

 

[AidenShaw]

If fuels cells cannot provide electricity at a total cost (including fuel and capital equipment) less than the very cheap rates available to large businesses in North Carolina ($0.05 - $0.07 per kWh), then I'm inclined to believe that a combination of grid power with diesel backup would be cheaper.

True, but there's another possible angle. (Pure conjecture - I'm projecting what we see here in California onto North Carolina....)

Here in California, large sites like my office can get a break on power rates by agreeing to "interruptible service". This means that when the grid is close to capacity - we have to shed load (drop to 66% to 75% of typical) or we can be turned off.

When these events occur (invariably starting at the 3rd day of a hot spell in summer), we shed as much load as we can to avoid being cut off. Non-essential lighting (e.g. hallways) is cut back to every 4th fixture, HVAC is scaled back or turned off, computer labs have to maintain a priority hierarchy of systems and power down less essential ones (e.g. the main servers stay up, but that performance run using a mainframe running oracle, several 40 core systems running Websphere, and a few hundred clients will be put on hold).

If Duke has a similar rate plan, the fuel cells could be more than just "backup". During peak loads, instead of scaling down, Apple could use fuel cell power to avoid disruptive shutdowns.

On the other hand, Apple's fuel cells at Maiden are a quarter of the size of its solar array - which also produces peak power during the sunny afternoons when power limiting would occur.

Lots of questions - none of which we can expect an answer without a PR spin from Apple.

 

[SPUY767]

As above, they are not a source of renewable energy at all. They're a way of converting a gaseous fuel to electricity. If that energy source is hydrogen produced by a wind farm, then it's renewable. If it's biogas from a landfill or hog farm, that's semi-renewable. If it's natural gas from an oil field, it might be more efficient than an internal combustion generator, but it's not renewable at all.

This isn't to say that fuel cells aren't a good technology--they are. They're just not an energy "source" by any real definition of the word. One advantage to buying fuel cells now, even if you're currently running them off a non-renewable source, is to build out infrastructure and fund future development, for when renewable fuels like solar-hydrogen become available.

I say that referring to the fact that they could be used with renewable biofuels, but they give us a transitionary cushion unlike many other options.

----------

Only about 6% is lost during distribution while 40-60% is lost through creation.

Are you referring to the generally inefficient nature of converting one form of energy into another? I misunderstood you if you were. Obviously the best power generation methods are ~50% efficient.

 

[alephnull12]

True, but there's another possible angle. (Pure conjecture - I'm projecting what we see here in California onto North Carolina....)

I doubt they are as kooky about electricity in NC as they are in California.

 

[AidenShaw]

I doubt they are as kooky about electricity in NC as they are in California.

But the base constraint is the same - how to avoid overbuilding the grid to handle occasional mid-summer day peaks.

Giving companies credit (or reduced rates) if they agree to caps is good economics.

And your doubts are unfounded - Duke is just as "kooky" as California:

• Interruptible power service rider : http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/NCRiderIS.pdf
• Parallel generation rider : http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/NCSchedulePG.pdf
• Hourly pricing for incremental load rider : http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/NCScheduleHP.pdf
• Renewable energy portfolio rider : http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/ncreps.pdf
• Solar photovoltaic distributed generation program : http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/NCSolarPVDistGen.pdf

...and many more at http://www.duke-energy.com/rates/north-carolina.asp

 

[macadoodle]

It's a waste of money as anyone who has studied the costs and benefits knows. Only companies that are rolling in cash can afford it which is why only cos. like google and apple are mentioned.

Kind of like volts and karmas for the 1%ers.

 

[AidenShaw]

It's a waste of money as anyone who has studied the costs and benefits knows. Only companies that are rolling in cash can afford it which is why only cos. like google and apple are mentioned.

Kind of like volts and karmas for the 1%ers.

The 8.5 kW array that I had placed on my roof here on the Peninsula has a payback period of 6.5 years assuming the rates don't change and my consumption doesn't change. (I pay $0/year for electricity now.)

In places like California with tiered power prices, you can pay off the panels in as little as 4 years if you put up a much smaller panel that eliminates the higher tiered consumption.

If the rates go up and/or my consumption goes up, the payback date is even shorter. (And this is ignoring the fact that when the panels went up, the appraised value of my home went up by double the cost of the panels.)

Your FUD is simply wrong - in sunny areas PV panels can pay for themselves rather quickly.

 

[alephnull12]

But the base constraint is the same - how to avoid overbuilding the grid to handle occasional mid-summer day peaks.

Giving companies credit (or reduced rates) if they agree to caps is good economics.

And your doubts are unfounded - Duke is just as "kooky" as California:

[*]Interruptible power service rider : http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/NCRiderIS.pdf

"This Rider is closed and not available to new customers after February 26, 2009."

[*]Parallel generation rider : http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/NCSchedulePG.pdf

A rider that allows the power company to buy back electricity from the facility.

[*]Hourly pricing for incremental load rider : http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/NCScheduleHP.pdf

Optional rider.

[*]Renewable energy portfolio rider : http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/ncreps.pdf
[*]Solar photovoltaic distributed generation program : http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/NCSolarPVDistGen.pdf

Renewable energy portfolio rider: $2.44 per month.
Solar photovoltaic distributed generation program: "The Company will install a PV system on the owner’s property, under a separate lease agreement with the owner." Are you suggesting Duke energy is installing solar panels for Apple under a lease agreement? This might be nice, but I think they'd still be paying Duke for the electricity generated from it. If I understand the program correctly, probably a waste for utility customers, but might be good for Apple. Let's see the terms.

...and many more at http://www.duke-energy.com/rates/north-carolina.asp

I already posted the link.

 

[AidenShaw]

"This Rider is closed and not available to new customers after February 26, 2009."

Check the other OPT-* riders, it's unclear from reading them whether a cutoff (interruption) is permitted (ala AT&T) - or whether the rates will rise quickly at peak periods.

You can't possibly consider those rate schedules not to be "kooky", though. If you need several lawyers to understand your electric bill - that's "kooky".

 

[alephnull12]

Check the other OPT-* riders, it's unclear from reading them whether a cutoff (interruption) is permitted (ala AT&T) - or whether the rates will rise quickly at peak periods.

You can't possibly consider those rate schedules not to be "kooky", though. If you need several lawyers to understand your electric bill - that's "kooky".

It's pretty clear that they won't be cutting off power. That's the interruptible power service rider, provided at low rates, which is no longer offered. Most of those riders are optional, anyway.

 

[AidenShaw]

It's pretty clear that they won't be cutting off power. That's the interruptible power service rider, provided at low rates, which is no longer offered. Most of those riders are optional, anyway.

The question is - is it "kooky" or not?

I think that it's so complicated and convoluted that it's "kooky".

I'm replying to your comment:

I doubt they are as kooky about electricity in NC as they are in California.

 

[alephnull12]

The question is - is it "kooky" or not?

I think that it's so complicated and convoluted that it's "kooky".

I'm replying to your comment:

That depends on why it's being done and why. The California utility sector is known for being kooky for decades, with many artificial shortages brought about by government policy due to too few power generation permits being issued and the regulatory environment being overly burdensome. Thus, you have very large price differentials between peak and non-peak usage in California. Peak rates for residential in parts of California can be as high as $0.40 per kwh vs. $0.12 per kwh non-peak.

This is as opposed to Duke energy North Carolina, where a residential customer chooses a "time of use contract" the rates are currently $0.067 peak vs. $0.056 non-peak per kwh.

You also had a badly deregulated market several years back, which, combined with a long history of not building adequate supply because of permits, resulted in rolling blackouts and all manner of different problems.

http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/NCScheduleRT.pdf

So yes, the California electricity market is extremely kooky. I think anyone rational thinking person would say so.

 

[AidenShaw]

So yes, the California electricity market is extremely kooky. I think anyone rational thinking person would say so.

But, did I ever claim that California wasn't "kooky"? No, I've been arguing that there are "kooky" things in North Carolina as well.

For example, from the attachment, the Duke on-peak/off-peak rates call 10:00 "peak" in the winter, and "off-peak" in the summer.

What "kooky" things do western North Carolinians do on winter mornings to warrant "peak" rates? California seems to be more rational, in that "summer peaks" track air conditioning loads, and "winter peaks" track the evening meal preparation and lighting times. (If I were paying for electricity, it would be 10.3 ¢/kWh from 17:00 to 20:00, and 9.1 ¢/kWh the rest of the day.)

Anyway - this has become a pointless "he said, she said" argument. I'm out of here unless something concrete is brought up.

 

[alephnull12]

But, did I ever claim that California wasn't "kooky"? No, I've been arguing that there are "kooky" things in North Carolina as well.

For example, from the attachment, the Duke on-peak/off-peak rates call 10:00 "peak" in the winter, and "off-peak" in the summer.

What "kooky" things do western North Carolinians do on winter mornings to warrant "peak" rates? California seems to be more rational, in that "summer peaks" track air conditioning loads, and "winter peaks" track the evening meal preparation and lighting times. (If I were paying for electricity, it would be 10.3 ¢/kWh from 17:00 to 20:00, and 9.1 ¢/kWh the rest of the day.)

Anyway - this has become a pointless "he said, she said" argument. I'm out of here unless something concrete is brought up.

Winter mornings? I don't know. Maybe they turn on the the lights and the coffee machines? It could be morning heating, if North Carolina is warm enough that it's less costly to install an electrical heater, rather than a natural gas line and natural gas heater? Maybe there are still a lot of people with electric water heaters who are taking showers. I'm not really sure. But anyway, peak vs. non-peak is apparently a cent in NC, whereas it can be up to 25 or 30 cents in California - kooky.

 

[ncbill]

Yes, I was referring to operating costs.

Fuel cells should be roughly twice as efficient as a diesel generator, plus the fuel cost for natural gas currently would be about 1/3 that of diesel.

Again, I believe there would be incentives for both the solar and fuel cell installations not available for diesel generators.

So I would expect any capital cost difference (after incentives are taken into account) to not be significant once discounted over the lifetime of the equipment.

I doubt it.

If a diesel generator were used, it would be used solely as backup to grid power. Which means, those diesel generators would only be operating very, very rarely. In this case, fuel costs are not a big economic cost.

The major savings of diesel backup generators over fuel cells therefore would be in the lower capital costs for the equipment.

So far as I know, Bloom Energy does not publish precise prices for their equipment, but I'm inclined to think that a bleeding edge technology like this would always be more expensive to purchase and install than an older proven technology such as a diesel backup.

If fuels cells cannot provide electricity at a total cost (including fuel and capital equipment) less than the very cheap rates available to large businesses in North Carolina ($0.05 - $0.07 per kWh), then I'm inclined to believe that a combination of grid power with diesel backup would be cheaper.

But Apple hasn't made their costs for this equipment available to shareholders at this point, so it's hard to tell.

 

[alephnull12]

Yes, I was referring to operating costs.

Fuel cells should be roughly twice as efficient as a diesel generator, plus the fuel cost for natural gas currently would be about 1/3 that of diesel.

Again, I believe there would be incentives for both the solar and fuel cell installations not available for diesel generators.

So I would expect any capital cost difference (after incentives are taken into account) to not be significant once discounted over the lifetime of the equipment.

I doubt it. A diesel backup would be used uncommonly, and I doubt diesel fuel costs would be a significant factor.

Not really certain if there are incentives for fuel cells in North Carolina or not. I don't see any here, unless they are going to build in and get a credit for cogeneration at a data center that probably doesn't need much in the way of heat (which would be silly):

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?getRE=1?re=undefined&ee=1&spv=0&st=0&srp=1&state=NC

 

[appsforkids]

I'm so happy Apple is making the new data center as green as possible, what a great way to invest some of their cash!

 

[Ping Guo]

Exactly. That's my hope for this. If big companies like Apple keep pushing alternative energy solutions for their business, hopefully that will increase research and production and push the cost of these solutions down. I'd love to take my house off the grid, but currently it's impossible for me to fund the up-front costs (even with government rebates). It makes so much sense to have individual homes generate most of their own energy.

I'd also love to be off the grid, but this bloom box system does not generate energy in the sense that it substitutes as a primary energy source. (Solar, fossil fuels, nuclear fission, etc). It requires energy inputs such as natural gas or biomass.

In this case the electrochemical reactions using a cathode and anode are up to 200% more efficient than similar combustion generators, with fewer emissions. It's a very interesting technology in terms of efficiency, but still dependent on fossil fuels.