CFU - Ceramic Fuel Cells

[noco]

Efficiency isn't really important when you have a free source of fuel (wind, sun etc) that is effectively unlimited. That is very different to using, say, oil where the resource is limited and costly, hence there is a benefit in efficient use. But we're not going to use up the sun or wind by installing inefficient solar panels or wind turbines.

What does matter is (1) cost and (2) practicality as a source of electricity generation.

Wind and solar are intermittent sources that can not be counted on to be operating at the time of system peak demand that is certainly true and a big downside. But unless the Bluegen is under centralised dispatch, that is the householder does not have control of the operation of the unit, then it too has serious limitations. It would work technically as a means of effectively reducing net residential / small business load on the distribution system, but not as a major source of generation for the system as a whole.

A more significant issue however is the inflexibility in operation. We already have a growing issue with variability in demand now that hydro development, the traditional and most flexible source of peaking generation, has effectively ended in this country.

Adding a new baseload source not under centralised dispatch, Bluegen, only makes the daily load changes on conventional power stations even larger than they are now. And the practical way to deal with that is to build less technically efficient power stations, and operate them less efficiently. That's what actually happens in order to meet high peaks relative to baseload demand on conventional generation. Other than hydro, peaking generation is either incredibly expensive or it is inefficient and polluting and in some cases it is both (a good reason to avoid using power at peak times if possible).

The same argument does apply to wind too. To some extent the benefits of wind energy are offset by a reduction in the design and ongoing operating efficiency of the conventional generating plant which still acounts for the majority of generation. Practical reality is that if you are adding conventional (coal, gas) plant to a system that incorporates a substantial amount of wind then you won't be building a state of the art plant designed for maximum efficiency. Instead you'll drop the efficiency by a third right at the design stage, simple due to the way in which it will need to operate.

In the Australian context Tasmania, due to being predominantly hydro, is the sole exception to that situation and the only state in which construction of wind (or other intermittent generation) represents an actual alternative to construction of additional conventional generation. However, a significant portion of that ability has already been utilised to support the system on mainland Australia (mostly Vic and SA) although there is certainly still potential to add what is effectively baseload wind (through integration with hydro) in Tas.

If Bluegen was capable of (1) reasonable load cycling on at least a daily basis (ie ramp up in the morning, ramp down in the evening) and (2) was capable of centralised dispatch in some way (so they can be forced down overnight and up again during the day) and (3) was cost competitive with gas turbines then I would be a lot more optimistic about it. But as it stands today, it is in the same category as solar - it will happen only if government props it up.

Meanwhile conventional gas turbines, and if allowable environmentally then also black coal, are far cheaper options to meet foreseeable electricity demand going forward. And if we did want to cut CO2, then wind is a cheaper (though still expensive) way of doing it than Bluegen.

It really comes down to price. The Bluegen unit has a viable use that is for sure. But not at the price being asked. It is simply far too expensive for what it actually is. And those attracted to it on environmental grounds would generally be the same people who have already installed solar for the same purposes.

Thanks for that info Smirf. You wrote mainly about the use of Bluegen units in Australia.
What about the potential in Europe and Japan where solar power is not quite as viable and why did CFU set up a plant in Germany?

 

[Knobby22]

I agree with Brty that the unit cost has to come down however I disagree with the basis of the calculation. The power cost to the consumer is far higher than the cost of manufacture by the power utility.

This has a big implication on the payback time of the unit.

Victoria for instance is changing their electricity metering to smart metering where electicity on peak days will be extremely expensive. This will only encourage the use of alternate power such as the fuel cell especially if you have one of those modern Macmansions with ducted cooling systems throughout.

 

[noco]

If Labor wins this election with the help of the independants, there is sure to be an ETS and/or a CPRS which will send the price of power sky rocketing.

How do you fellows see this playing out with CFL'S BLUE GEN UNITS. Do you believe this will make BLUE GEN more viable?

 

[roland]

Seems like the arguments against CFU are, maybe, a little too Australia centric. The enclosed graph sourced from the UK Electricity Association shows where we are placed in terms of domestic electricty prices.

Take Japan for example, the cost of electricity to the end user is nearly double of what we pay. The costs are in UK Pence.

Since I haven't found a decent data set for world domestic gas prices, maybe someone can offset this argument with relative costs of running the BlueGen in the markets of high electricity costs.

P.S. I just noticed that the graph is a little old!

 

[roland]

Here is another price comparison for electricity prices. The one was source from Wikipedia. The UK domestic cost is nearly 3 times the Aussie cost, Denmark doesn't do very well either.

 

[brty]

Roland,

The cost of producing the electricity from BlueGen is the problem.
The way the company currently has the price at $45,000 for a 2 year lease, with the cost of gas added, in Australia ~$3080 for 2 years, means total cost is ~$48,000 over 2 years while producing ~35,040 kwh of electricity in that time.

The cost of electricity production is ~$1.37 per kwh. That is far in excess of any electricity price anywhere that is on grid. A lot of that production is during off peak times, which makes the relative numbers even worse.

If you can find me a retailer that will only charge me US 7.11 cents/kwh for peak power I would be very, very happy. My current retail price is ~ 23 cents for peak and 10 cents for off peak less some small customer loyalty percentage discount.

brty

 

[roland]

Roland,

The cost of producing the electricity from BlueGen is the problem.
The way the company currently has the price at $45,000 for a 2 year lease, with the cost of gas added, in Australia ~$3080 for 2 years, means total cost is ~$48,000 over 2 years while producing ~35,040 kwh of electricity in that time.

The cost of electricity production is ~$1.37 per kwh. That is far in excess of any electricity price anywhere that is on grid. A lot of that production is during off peak times, which makes the relative numbers even worse.

If you can find me a retailer that will only charge me US 7.11 cents/kwh for peak power I would be very, very happy. My current retail price is ~ 23 cents for peak and 10 cents for off peak less some small customer loyalty percentage discount.

brty

Hi brty,

I have no doubt that the investment for the BlueGen in Australia is not economically attractive at this point in time, is it attractive in other markets?

Evaluating the viability in other target markets was the point of the post.

 

[Knobby22]

Hi brty,

I have no doubt that the investment for the BlueGen in Australia is not economically attractive at this point in time, is it attractive in other markets?

Evaluating the viability in other target markets was the point of the post.

Good point. Also would like to add the following:

The price they sold the units to VicUrban is not the price they will be selling, in the thousands, to the utilities. I expect a standard price that is much lower.

Also, some countries are offering incentives so they do not have to spend money on infrastructure.

Finally, in cold countries they get to use the heat also which helps the sums.

This technology will succeed, the question is will it get the required volumes to really make the large profits hoped for.

 

[noco]

Here is another price comparison for electricity prices. The one was source from Wikipedia. The UK domestic cost is nearly 3 times the Aussie cost, Denmark doesn't do very well either.

Thanks for that info roland. It would then appear the BlueGEN units could be viable in Japan and some European countries, particularly if CFL receive volume orders.

 

[brty]

Roland, Noco,

The pricing of electricity in other countries is fairly easy these days, go to a site like...

http://www.ukpower.co.uk/home_energy/compare/electricity/A5292S8S/12963-Age UK Higher User/details

..where they want British people to sign up for the latest deals.

The prices I found out for a largish user of electricity as myself are 23p for the first 900kwh/yr then 9.09p for the rest. It is a totally different way of calculating compared to what I now have. I have a difference from peak to off peak power. Using current exchange rates the first 900kwh works out to ~40 cents in $Aus per kwh, the rest however works out at ~16 cents/kwh, cheap compared to our peak rates (well mine at least). Overall for a years electricity consumption there is not a lot of difference, certainly not 3 times the price as indicated by the Wiki article.

As for Japan, here is a snippet I found....

With gas fuel for Japan's fuel cells more costly per kW than electricity in Japan, some analysts see Japan's nascent fuel-cell industry reaping benefits abroad.

from here...

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/online/news/articles/2010-03/BBC-Claims-Japan-Looking-to-Impo

One needs to be careful with the information spread by some. Own research is what counts with investment.

A quick question for all. With the Bluegen units available for sale for ~16 months now, including at retailers like HVN, which director of the company has purchased one themselves for their own home??

brty

 

[Smurf1976]

I agree with Brty that the unit cost has to come down however I disagree with the basis of the calculation. The power cost to the consumer is far higher than the cost of manufacture by the power utility.

This has a big implication on the payback time of the unit.

Victoria for instance is changing their electricity metering to smart metering where electicity on peak days will be extremely expensive. This will only encourage the use of alternate power such as the fuel cell especially if you have one of those modern Macmansions with ducted cooling systems throughout.

The gap between wholesale electricity and retail prices for households largely relates to non-volume related costs. If volumes decline, due to households generating their own electricity, then those costs will still need to be charged to consumers in some way.

How to implement those charges is a big question. Tasmania tried separating them out in the mid-1990's so as to eliminate cross-subsidies between consumers given the huge variation in per-household consumption in the state depending on the means of heating (ie a house with electric heating will use double the power of one with wood heating). But the resultant public uproar is such that it will almost certainly never be tried again. Certainly wasn't popular that is for sure - to the point of becoming the focus of a state election campaign.

A lot of politics and compromise solutions ensued and the end result is separate metering for heating at a rate that reflects the cost of supply, with fixed non-volume related costs being recovered only from non-heating loads and remaining (reduced) fixed supply charges. That gives us a heating rate about 40% below the general rate. And there's still an annual charge of $321.80, an amount below actual costs but deemed politically acceptable, which goes toward the fixed costs.

That example is for one Australian state only, but the situation is much the same globally. The cost of supply is partly related to volume, but much of it is fixed. If volume declines or goes to a net zero, then somehow those huge fixed costs still have to be recovered. The experience in Tas at least was that consumers weren't happy getting a bill for these fixed costs, especially if their consumption was very low.

As a rough guide, the true value of the baseload electricity generated by the Bluegen is somewhere around 10 - 12 cents per kWh being comprised of the actual energy produced and avoided distribution / transmission costs.

To the extent that consumers gain more than this, it is a subsidy that is paid by other consumers and which wouldn't be sustainable if these devices became widespread (just as the various solar subsidies are time and volume limited to those who get in early).

Time of use pricing is a partial way around the situation, an option that wasn't available when Tas went down this track a decade and a half ago. But the Bluegen is a baseload generation device that can not readily follow price or load, thus nullifying any apparent benefit of TOU pricing. Yes it will be generating when prices are high, just as it will also be generating when prices are very low. Meanwhile conventional gas turbines can easily follow load and price with output ramped up and down as needed. Likewise hydro can change output even more easily than gas. Even black coal is more flexible in operation than the Bluegen.

For a 1kW system, a realistic actual value on the production is around $950 a year for electricity, plus another $500 at most for the hot water. Consumers will save a bit more than that, effectively a subsidy, but that is the real value of the output in the Australian context (Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas, SA interconnected system).

 

[frankblack]

The gap between wholesale electricity and retail prices for households largely relates to non-volume related costs. If volumes decline, due to households generating their own electricity, then those costs will still need to be charged to consumers in some way.

How to implement those charges is a big question. Tasmania tried separating them out in the mid-1990's so as to eliminate cross-subsidies between consumers given the huge variation in per-household consumption in the state depending on the means of heating (ie a house with electric heating will use double the power of one with wood heating). But the resultant public uproar is such that it will almost certainly never be tried again. Certainly wasn't popular that is for sure - to the point of becoming the focus of a state election campaign.

A lot of politics and compromise solutions ensued and the end result is separate metering for heating at a rate that reflects the cost of supply, with fixed non-volume related costs being recovered only from non-heating loads and remaining (reduced) fixed supply charges. That gives us a heating rate about 40% below the general rate. And there's still an annual charge of $321.80, an amount below actual costs but deemed politically acceptable, which goes toward the fixed costs.

That example is for one Australian state only, but the situation is much the same globally. The cost of supply is partly related to volume, but much of it is fixed. If volume declines or goes to a net zero, then somehow those huge fixed costs still have to be recovered. The experience in Tas at least was that consumers weren't happy getting a bill for these fixed costs, especially if their consumption was very low.

As a rough guide, the true value of the baseload electricity generated by the Bluegen is somewhere around 10 - 12 cents per kWh being comprised of the actual energy produced and avoided distribution / transmission costs.

To the extent that consumers gain more than this, it is a subsidy that is paid by other consumers and which wouldn't be sustainable if these devices became widespread (just as the various solar subsidies are time and volume limited to those who get in early).

Time of use pricing is a partial way around the situation, an option that wasn't available when Tas went down this track a decade and a half ago. But the Bluegen is a baseload generation device that can not readily follow price or load, thus nullifying any apparent benefit of TOU pricing. Yes it will be generating when prices are high, just as it will also be generating when prices are very low. Meanwhile conventional gas turbines can easily follow load and price with output ramped up and down as needed. Likewise hydro can change output even more easily than gas. Even black coal is more flexible in operation than the Bluegen.

For a 1kW system, a realistic actual value on the production is around $950 a year for electricity, plus another $500 at most for the hot water. Consumers will save a bit more than that, effectively a subsidy, but that is the real value of the output in the Australian context (Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas, SA interconnected system).

Making the Bluegen look impossible rather than the reality it really is, are the arguments you put forward.
The same thoughts the power generators and utilities currently have and always had, because it is in their interests to do so.
Its plain backward thinking, there is absolutely no way integrating enough Bluegens into a flexible smartgrid, would harm or cost any more.
Just some restructuring and closing down some brown coal generation, maybe some of those gas generators that start up quickly, when the solar and wind lets us down.
It can all be done, greed is bad, for CFU.

 

[Smurf1976]

Making the Bluegen look impossible rather than the reality it really is, are the arguments you put forward.
The same thoughts the power generators and utilities currently have and always had, because it is in their interests to do so.
Its plain backward thinking, there is absolutely no way integrating enough Bluegens into a flexible smartgrid, would harm or cost any more.
Just some restructuring and closing down some brown coal generation, maybe some of those gas generators that start up quickly, when the solar and wind lets us down.
It can all be done, greed is bad, for CFU.

None of which changes the fact that the money saved by installing Bluegen's is essentially the cost of baseload generation plus part only of the distribution cost. That is somewhere around 10 - 12 cents per kWh typically.

The industry simply can't afford to pass on any greater saving, because a greater saving doesn't exist.

It is like saying that you have a car that's costing $100 a week all up to own. And 90% of your driving is to and from work.

But if you stop driving to work then you won't now be able to run the car for $10 a week. Some costs will reduce, but you'll still have the same insurance, rego and so on to pay. Some servicing and parts will still be required at the same intervals and so on. Your 90% drop in usage will likely only save 50% on the cost of having the car.

Same with electricity. If consumers start generating 90% of their own electricity, then costs to the utilities won't drop by anywhere near that amount since much of the cost is not volume related.

It will vary a bit with location, but if you generate power at home equal to what you consume, then the cost to the electricity utility of your power supply has really only been reduced by 40 - 50%. You're still connected to the grid, and you are still drawing peak power from the grid. They're going to have to recover that cost somehow...

If everyone in, say, Victoria installed one of these and generated all their own electricity then their electricity bills would drop by 40 - 50%, not 100%. Then you would have to add in the cost of gas and cost of the Bluegen itself. That is certainly how the utilities and government will see it, because that's what the costs actually are. Even if I only drive 1 km a year, the car still costs a lot to keep running...

As for closing down brown coal generation, the ongoing operating cost of most existing plants is well under 1 cent per kWh. Not a lot of money to be saved there...

 

[frankblack]

None of which changes the fact that the money saved by installing Bluegen's is essentially the cost of baseload generation plus part only of the distribution cost. That is somewhere around 10 - 12 cents per kWh typically.

The industry simply can't afford to pass on any greater saving, because a greater saving doesn't exist.

It is like saying that you have a car that's costing $100 a week all up to own. And 90% of your driving is to and from work.

But if you stop driving to work then you won't now be able to run the car for $10 a week. Some costs will reduce, but you'll still have the same insurance, rego and so on to pay. Some servicing and parts will still be required at the same intervals and so on. Your 90% drop in usage will likely only save 50% on the cost of having the car.

Same with electricity. If consumers start generating 90% of their own electricity, then costs to the utilities won't drop by anywhere near that amount since much of the cost is not volume related.

It will vary a bit with location, but if you generate power at home equal to what you consume, then the cost to the electricity utility of your power supply has really only been reduced by 40 - 50%. You're still connected to the grid, and you are still drawing peak power from the grid. They're going to have to recover that cost somehow...

If everyone in, say, Victoria installed one of these and generated all their own electricity then their electricity bills would drop by 40 - 50%, not 100%. Then you would have to add in the cost of gas and cost of the Bluegen itself. That is certainly how the utilities and government will see it, because that's what the costs actually are. Even if I only drive 1 km a year, the car still costs a lot to keep running...

As for closing down brown coal generation, the ongoing operating cost of most existing plants is well under 1 cent per kWh. Not a lot of money to be saved there...

Thanks for your reply Smurf, I appreciate all you have to say and its very informative and helpful.
I hope you can continue this discussion. Somehow you see Bluegen differently to me, over time my opinion/view is changing as well.
I no longer think its so good in the hands of the public, in private hands, for many of the reasons you have stated.
On the other hand I see no reason why the industry needs to subsidize the Bluegen.
In the hands of a clever utility the bluegen wouldnt be any burden, and saves infrastructure cost.
The Bluegen is more flexible than you realize,
The BlueGen™ unit can operate as a stand-alone
generator or be remotely controlled. The output power
level can be adjusted to suit a number of different
electricity production requirements; from ‘constant
base-load power’ generation to pre-set ‘peak shaving’
generation profles. The BlueGen™ unit has a number
of different operating modes:
Heat-up
• Fully automatic using mains power
(grid independent start-up not possible)
Self sustain
• Unit is producing electricity, but with zero power
export (e.g. in event of extended grid fault)
Power production
• Unit is exporting electricity; power output can be
modulated from 0% to 100%

What this means, with enough units you dont need to draw on any peak power from the grid.
And you dont need to export excess to the grid.
A utility could sell all the power produced to the retail customers at the retail prices.
This is from CFU as well,
Æ’ Upside from other deployment models
– Stronger financial returns if the units are owned and deployed in volume by a utility, Energy Services
Company or ‘home services’ company
- Units ‘leased’ to homeowners under a services contract, no up-front cost for homeowner
- Remotely control all units to modulate output as a ‘virtual power plant’
- Aggregate and monetise network benefits and carbon credits
- Maximise ‘spark spread’ – buy gas at wholesale, sell electricity at retail.

If you please consider this kind of model and tell me if it could work.
I dont even know the wholesale gas price, but it seems to me, and this is very conservative, cost of 1kwh less than 12 cents, retail price 24 cents, before future price increases.
About 100% difference, is this not enough to make it work?
Please dont go on about the price of the units, since the utility might be buying 10 000 units.
THANKS.

 

[brty]

Frank,

Remotely control all units to modulate output as a ‘virtual power plant’

How does a household have reliable hot water, if an external entity controls the unit? Would this mean the household will have to have back up hot water via gas or electricity for when their unit has been powered down.

Unit is exporting electricity; power output can be
modulated from 0% to 100%

If you assume the unit only operates for 'peak shaving' and the rest of the household's use, then the output over a year will be much less than the 17,520 kwh. Even at maximum output if the unit only cost $3000/yr (cost of unit only + maintenance) the electricity costs ~17c/kwh before we add the cost of gas. If you run it at say 12,000 kwh a year the cost goes up to ~25c/kwh before we add the cost of gas. As these would be costs to the utility, it is ridiculously high compared to their existing costs.

Now the $3,000 'cost' is definitely a number that I plucked out of the air, it is a far cheaper number than the current lease price of $45,000 for 2 years and then $8,000 per year after, that is advertised by the companies agents.

The real question becomes 'can the company produce the units and constant maintenance costs to under or near the current cost of modern gas turbine generators?' If the answer is "not close", then why would a utility be interested??

brty

brty

 

[Smurf1976]

If they are able to be centrally dispatched (switched on and off etc) by the utility, then a few points:

1. Centralised dispatch would be in groups of numerous units, such that the utility "sees" a single generating unit of substantial capacity rather than trying to deal with 500,000 individual units. This is no big deal as long as communications infrastructure is in place and is a similar principle to the remote switching of groups of off-peak water heaters in Qld, NSW and New Zealand (other Australian states use simple timers to do the job).

2. There will be a capital saving on distribution network, transmission and generation capacity provided that the Bluegen's constitute a reliable power source able to be switched on whenever the utility wants to. Depending on the circumstances, that saving is potentially several thousand dollars per unit installed.

3. Assuming 60% efficiency of converting gas into electricity, the wholesale gas cost is in the order of 1.5 to 3.5 cents per kWh in Australia with huge variation internationally. Unlike many other commodities, gas prices tend to be regional rather than global. For example, all Australian states except NT and WA are effectively isolated from the global trade in gas, hence pricing is a function of local contracts rather than an actively traded global market.

4. In a technical sense, I could certainly see a use for the Bluegen as an intermediate (also known as shoulder) form of generation, generally operaing in step mode. In layman's terms, that means that the units would handle the extent of variation in overall demand from lowest (middle of the night) to that which occurs throughout the day in a predictable manner.

For example, you might have a system with 1000 MW minimum load overnight, 1500 MW load consistent during the day when the weather is mild with a daily peak of 1800 MW, rising to 4000 MW under severe (hot) weather conditions. This is for a hot climate during summer, fairly cool during Winter with about 1.5 million people.

That gives a market requirement for 1000 MW baseload, 800 MW intermediate, 2200 MW peaking. Those figures are for actual output, installed capacity being necessarily higher to allow for maintenance etc.

What actually gets built tends also to be a function of available resources - eg if all you have is hydro, then that is what you will build for baseload even though hydro is most commonly used only for peaking. Likewise if you have lots of gas and nothing else, then gas is what you will use. Same with coal - eg NSW and Qld use what could be baseload plants to also meet their intermediate load because it was the locally cheapest thing to do.

So using that example above, it would be practical to install up to 800 MW of Bluegen's, with 500MW being the most practical level since that will enable reasonably consistent operation from morning to late evening. That translates to 5 out of 6 homes having a 1kW unit, or half the number of 2kW units etc. In other words, yes there is a market for the power produced in that manner.

Whether or not the utility would actually run them as baseload or intermediate would be a function of economics. They're not going to use gas-fired generation if they've got cheap coal, nuclear or hydro power otherwise unused simply due to cost. But if they're running gas for baseload anyway, then the Bluegen's in that situation might as well run 24/7.

So overall, yes it could work provided that they can be counted as a legitimate (reliable) source of generation. That way there are benefits from not having to invest in transmission, generation etc capacity.

Whether or not that is a financially viable model depends on what the selling price of the Bluegen's is, and that is really the biggest question.

 

[frankblack]

Frank,



How does a household have reliable hot water, if an external entity controls the unit? Would this mean the household will have to have back up hot water via gas or electricity for when their unit has been powered down.



If you assume the unit only operates for 'peak shaving' and the rest of the household's use, then the output over a year will be much less than the 17,520 kwh. Even at maximum output if the unit only cost $3000/yr (cost of unit only + maintenance) the electricity costs ~17c/kwh before we add the cost of gas. If you run it at say 12,000 kwh a year the cost goes up to ~25c/kwh before we add the cost of gas. As these would be costs to the utility, it is ridiculously high compared to their existing costs.

Now the $3,000 'cost' is definitely a number that I plucked out of the air, it is a far cheaper number than the current lease price of $45,000 for 2 years and then $8,000 per year after, that is advertised by the companies agents.

The real question becomes 'can the company produce the units and constant maintenance costs to under or near the current cost of modern gas turbine generators?' If the answer is "not close", then why would a utility be interested??

brty

brty

I hear what you are saying,
the hot water problem can be solved in one of 2 ways,
1. the chosen household site, gets 2 Bluegens not 1, saving on installation costs.
2. you could have 100s in one central location for peak supply times.
The real issue here is how much will the Gen cost???
If the retail household customer is to cover the cost, I estimate $500 per year, as 1 Gen does 2 houses, thats $15000 over 15 years.
However IF I am correct a utility is getting a profit margin of at least 100%, generating cost including gas 12 cents, retail electricity cost 24 cents.?
Maybe some of that fat profit could pay for Bluegens?
Once again a utility buying 10 000 units is not going to have to pay as much as the current price advertised.
How does this compare to central gas generator,? I dont know.
This is a Quote from Smurf
" 2. There will be a capital saving on distribution network, transmission and generation capacity provided that the Bluegen's constitute a reliable power source able to be switched on whenever the utility wants to. Depending on the circumstances, that saving is potentially several thousand dollars per unit installed. "
I put this out there for consideration, looks good to me, dont know if it will ever happen, just speculation.

 

[Miner]

Did any one see the presentation of CFU at Channel 7 this mornnig's sunrise program.

I think Channel 7 was paid for the show. Just like they pay others to tell their sordid story.

The MD was very defensive saying the price is too high. If I am selling my product I will sell telling advantages of the product and why you should buy the product for its value proposition. The same value proposition you (who can afford) pay for Ferrari over Corolla. There is always a buyer for your stuff if it is good.

Why he was so nervous - Tell tale story ?

I am holding it still but feeling nervous

 

[jbocker]

Did any one see the presentation of CFU at Channel 7 this mornnig's sunrise program.

I think Channel 7 was paid for the show. Just like they pay others to tell their sordid story.

The MD was very defensive saying the price is too high. If I am selling my product I will sell telling advantages of the product and why you should buy the product for its value proposition. The same value proposition you (who can afford) pay for Ferrari over Corolla. There is always a buyer for your stuff if it is good.

Why he was so nervous - Tell tale story ?

I am holding it still but feeling nervous

Thanks Miner for the news about the article. I have placed a link for others...
http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/factsheets/article/-/article/7888466/fuel-cells-for-your-home/

Not sure what you meant by sordid story?? I thought the article was good, very factual and honest w.r.t. costs and not yet being able to sell excess to the grid. Australia is not really the target market, but would be great to be able to supply as an efficient 'greener' option locally, but it is going to take some time.
I hold too, not nervous, just patient.
Waiting .. waiting...

 

[Smurf1976]

However IF I am correct a utility is getting a profit margin of at least 100%, generating cost including gas 12 cents, retail electricity cost 24 cents.?
Maybe some of that fat profit could pay for Bluegens

It is not profit as such. Whilst the retail price exceeds the marginal cost of supply (ie the cost avoided if consumption is reduced or households generate some of their own power), the extra cost is largely needed to cover the fixed (non-volume related) cost of maintaining the network.

That is, half the cost of supply (roughly) would still exist regardless of consumption levels and that is my point. This cost must be recovered somehow, and if net consumption is going to seriously fall then that precludes recovering the fixed costs in the conventional manner on a cents / kWh basis.

It's like how the car costs a lot of money just to have sitting there even if not used. Those costs have to be paid, by whatever means, whether the car travels 100,000 km or just 1 km per year. Trouble with electricity is that if you recover the costs on a cents / unit of consumption basis as is normally done, it all falls apart economically if consumption falls in a big way. Either that or charges have to be massively hiked which hurts the poor, renters etc unable to lower consumption levels.