NOVATO, CA — Fireman's Fund Insurance Company will soon join eBay, Coca-Cola, Walmart and Google as early adopters of Bloom Energy technology with the installation of six of the company's high-tech fuel cells, the insurance firm announced today.
Fireman's Fund, the first carrier to widely introduce green insurance to the U.S. commercial market, plans to install the Bloom Energy Servers -- fuel-cell energy generators better known as Bloom boxes -- at its headquarters in Novato in early 2011.
The Bloom boxes, which turn fuel into electricity through a clean electro-chemical process, will cost the insurance company about $8.2 million, an expense that is expected to be offset by tax credits and a sharp drop in energy bills. Fireman's Fund said it anticipates a return on investment plus $1.5 million in the next 10 years.
The technology will enable the insurance company to produce 60 percent of the energy it uses at its Novato site, thereby reducing the firm's carbon footprint by 15 percent, Fireman's Fund said in its announcement.
"This further demonstrates Fireman's Fund's commitment to the environment and our efforts to become a sustainable company," President and CEO Michael LaRocco said in the statement. "What we are doing is not only good for the environment and future generations, but it also makes economic sense for our company."
The company has a goal of reducing carbon emissions by 25 percent by 2012. Its efforts to cut energy use, conserve other resources and generate less waste include attaining an Energy Star rating of 92 at its headquarters campus, which also is LEED certified; earning LEED certification for buildings in Dallas and St. Louis; reducing energy use by 49 percent in 2009, compared to a decade before; and recycling 82 percent of waste in 2009.
Fireman's Fund introduced green insurance for commercial buildings in 2006 and has steadily expanded its offerings for business properties while extending coverage to green homes, vehicles and vessels as well as green energy equipment.
With its installation of the Bloom boxes, the company will become one of Bloom Energy's first 20 customers for the technology. Others include Bank of America, Staples, FedEx and Cox Enterprises.
Rendering of Bloom box and inset image courtesy of Fireman's Fund.
That article called
That article called "Understanding the Bloom Box" doesn't tell us anything.
I am not a blogger and have no experience with Bloom Boxes. I'm just a curious electrical engineer who looked at the numbers. Radical as that may be.
I'd love to know why my math is wrong. I simply did a quick number crunch to see what range we're in for costs. Most people equate 1:1 for mcf and mmbtu. Does using 1.027 make much difference? You're complaining about 1% of the cost. That doesn't come close to the 63% loss on this 10-year investment. I assumed 24/7 operation for the quick math. Let's add in some down time and maintenance costs, just to be accurate. That's more than 1%.
Please show us how these (6) units will be able to turn a profit of $1.5 million in 10-years. The only way I could make that result is with an 80% tax subsidy. And if we're going to be spending so much tax money I'd rather it was on a ZERO CO2 technology.
Don't listen to the post "The
Don't listen to the post "The numbers don't add up," for some reason there's a small group of bloggers out there who don't like the Bloom box. The calculations presented above are incorrect. For accurate calculations, see the article "Understanding the Bloom Box" from the GLG Group (can't post the link for some reason...).
Incidentally, 0.661 MM BTU/hr = 0.643 MCF, not 0.661 (1 MCF = 1.027 MMBTU).
Horse feathers! They (Bloom)
Horse feathers! They (Bloom) found a sucker that 1) was dumb enough to believe their line and 2) is using the even bigger suckers (taxpayers) to pay for most of the things.
This has been around and around. Bloom is pretty well down the list as far as fuel cell technology. They just have big name VCs pushing the thing.
Vinod Khosla should be ashamed of himself for foisting this turkey off on the public!
The numbers don't add up.
The numbers don't add up. The unit uses 0.661 thousand cubic feet of natural gas per hour to generate 100kW at peak load.
6 units * 0.661 mcf * 24 hour * 365 days * 10 years * $9.50 per mcf = $3,300,505 in natural gas cost over 10 years.
6 units * 100kW * 24 hours * 365 days * 10 years * $0.12 per kWh = $6,307,200 in electricity cost generated over 10 years.
Initial investment of $8.2 million for a $3.0 million return after 10 years. Either someone is out of a job or the tax credits are covering over 80% of the initial cost.