Posted by Winston on December 24, 2010, 12:01 am
Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> Jim Wilkins wrote:
(...)
>> I don't understand.
> Bacterial methane production wastes about half the raw material as
> CO2. That is too inefficient if the feedstock is as valuable as
> processed vegetable oil, not so bad if it's agricultural waste or
> manure. Energy production is mostly driven by the economics of the
> materials rather than technology.
OIC.
So, I appear to be throwing away $0 worth of methane
a month for every 55 gallon drum I don't have digesting
ensilaged grass clippings. Not too bad for less than
5 gallons of stuff normally given to the city for
disposal. Two drums would make a dent in the
old heating bill!
>>>> Lastly I think a plasma 'garbage to energy' tool
>>>> would be great!
>>
>>> Mr Fusion?
> http://www.ixplora.com/wp-content/2010/09/mr-fusion.jpg
> http://www.yourprops.com/norm-446f7310f332b-Back+To+The+Future+2+ (1989).jpeg
Yeah yeah. I got it the first time. :)
You got my point that Mr. Plasma is the new 'Mr. Fusion', too. :)
--Winston
Posted by Curbie on December 23, 2010, 10:12 pm
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:16:00 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
>Serious chemical or biological engineering is extremely difficult to
>impossible at the home inventor level because of EPA requirements and
>the cost of the equipment. I have a degree in chemistry but don't
>touch it at home.
Jim,
Well, I'm sure this does not qualify as serious chemical or biological
engineering, but I keep coming back to and testing algae, both
oil-rich and starch-rich varieties for bio-D, ethanol, methane and
possible combinations. I have no clue if this testing will yield
anything practical for DIY home-scale energy production, and so far I
can't get the numbers to work, but as new ideas emerge, I keep going
back for another look.
All I'm doing is testing to get the most accurate hard data I can,
then looking at a hypothetical system as a computer model for
home-scale viability, the testing is pretty cheap although it takes a
lot of time and planning, so far, just garage-sale fish tanks to mimic
open raceway type systems, 2 liter soda bottles $ to mimic
photo-bioreactors, and recently zip-lock bags $ to mimic another type
of photo-bioreactor, purchased oil-rich algae strains are under $00
and indigenous algae strains are free.
Testing of this type isn't at expensive, but I'm trading time for cost
and it is a mathematical mouse maze.
Curbie
Posted by Jim Wilkins on December 23, 2010, 11:08 pm
> ...>
> Well, I'm sure this does not qualify as serious chemical or biological
> engineering, but I keep coming back to and testing algae, both
> oil-rich and starch-rich varieties for bio-D, ethanol, methane and
> possible combinations....
> All I'm doing is testing to get the most accurate hard data I can,
> ...>
> Curbie
How do you measure results?
jsw
Posted by Curbie on December 23, 2010, 11:59 pm
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:08:11 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
>How do you measure results?
Jim,
Well, that question depends of which passage of the mouse maze I'm
testing:
Algal growth rates are g/surface ft2 (of PBR or pond).
Oil production is % by weight.
Starch production is by the volume of ethanol produced for a given
weight of algae (this is a mouse maze on is own) what process frees
the most starch and what enzymes convert available starch for the most
fermentable sugars.
Last go round I was mostly interested in best oil-rich algae, this
time I'm looking at indigenous starch-rich strains and vertical bag
type PBRs.
Curbie
Posted by Jim Wilkins on December 24, 2010, 1:05 am
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:08:11 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
> >How do you measure results?
> Oil production is % by weight.
> Starch production is by the volume of ethanol produced for a given
> weight of algae ...
> Curbie
I meant specifically the equipment and procedures to prepare and dry a
sample, weigh it, extract the oil and weigh that (or the remaining
insoluble residue). We had to learn some tricks and practice for a
while to obtain good repeatable results.
I initially learned that in the lab of a leather factory where I
worked after school, doing the routine testing to free the chemist for
his projects.
jsw
(...)
>> I don't understand.
> Bacterial methane production wastes about half the raw material as
> CO2. That is too inefficient if the feedstock is as valuable as
> processed vegetable oil, not so bad if it's agricultural waste or
> manure. Energy production is mostly driven by the economics of the
> materials rather than technology.
OIC.