Posted by Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds on October 26, 2009, 7:04 pm
In article
<ounae5901sjpkd57u4iph3ouq3j5a52r95@4ax.
com>,
wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:31:36 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
> Mal,
>
> >I would suspect that even with solar,
> >you are going to have to spend time and
> >energy on "processing" your fuel.
> You lost me here, could you please explain your thought on what I'm
> missing.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Curbie
You just can't throw chunks of wood or
branches into your pyrolizer, you'd have
to spend some energy cutting them into
size/shapes to maximize the surface area
Posted by Curbie on October 26, 2009, 9:19 pm
Mal,
>You just can't throw chunks of wood or
>branches into your pyrolizer, you'd have
>to spend some energy cutting them into
>size/shapes to maximize the surface area
Ok, I'm following you now.
>I would suspect that even with solar,
>you are going to have to spend time and
>energy on "processing" your fuel.
Yes, the function I see for solar is to reduce the bio-fuel
requirements by around 60%, using coke as an baseline, 60% of the fuel
is used to heat the reaction chamber. Source: "The chemistry and
manufacture of hydrogen by Philip Litherland Teed"
So I'm thinking if the bio-fuel is first baked to carbon in a solar
furnace, then the solar furnace is used to generate steam and the
proper reaction temperature there would be a ~60% fuel reduction.
>I'm beginning to think it might be far
>more economical to just make bio-gas via
>anaerobic processing and either use the
>methane or just process it to seperate
>the hydrogen...hell just using clean
>methane to run a small generator to
>hydrolyze water sounds better, plus you
>get nice sludge to improve your soil.
I think methane is the way to go IF you're already raising livestock,
I can't make the numbers work electrolyzing water, maybe you can see
something there I didn't. Like everyone else I got started with algae
for oil, which was appealing not only for the oil but the remaining
bio-mass for garden compost.
Curbie
Posted by Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds on October 26, 2009, 10:05 pm
In article
<dh4ce5tlqurr8r6hk92pbvosau3ns08p3t@4ax.
com>,
wrote:
> Mal,
>
> >You just can't throw chunks of wood or
> >branches into your pyrolizer, you'd have
> >to spend some energy cutting them into
> >size/shapes to maximize the surface area
> Ok, I'm following you now.
>
> >I would suspect that even with solar,
> >you are going to have to spend time and
> >energy on "processing" your fuel.
> Yes, the function I see for solar is to reduce the bio-fuel
> requirements by around 60%, using coke as an baseline, 60% of the fuel
> is used to heat the reaction chamber. Source: "The chemistry and
> manufacture of hydrogen by Philip Litherland Teed"
After you factor in the cost of building
and maintaining your solar, is it going
to be economically viable?
>
> So I'm thinking if the bio-fuel is first baked to carbon in a solar
> furnace, then the solar furnace is used to generate steam and the
> proper reaction temperature there would be a ~60% fuel reduction.
>
> >I'm beginning to think it might be far
> >more economical to just make bio-gas via
> >anaerobic processing and either use the
> >methane or just process it to seperate
> >the hydrogen...hell just using clean
> >methane to run a small generator to
> >hydrolyze water sounds better, plus you
> >get nice sludge to improve your soil.
> I think methane is the way to go IF you're already raising livestock,
> I can't make the numbers work electrolyzing water, maybe you can see
> something there I didn't. Like everyone else I got started with algae
> for oil, which was appealing not only for the oil but the remaining
> bio-mass for garden compost.
I've lost the original posts, but
couldn't you "grow" goats? Let them
harvest whatever they can, then use
their scat for fuel?
Otherwise I'd subscribe to the KISS
principle and go steam
>
> Curbie
Posted by Ulysses on October 26, 2009, 3:38 pm
> In article
> <j4b9e5tn0qm2h5agdfradk4q1i1mg03bps@4ax.
> com>,
> wrote:
> > >Any process used during WW1 or WW2 will
> > >not necessarily be the most efficient,
> > >just the most expeditious
> > You're totally right, my thought is mixing the OLD and inefficient
> > with the NEW for improved efficiency, instead of using fuel to produce
> > heat for carbon and steam, I'm thinking about solar concentration.
> > Carbonize the fuel in a solar oven, then gasify the carbon with steam
> > again produced with a concentrator.
> >
> > Using solar to provide the heat should lead to a vast reduction in
> > bio-fuel requirements (just bio-mass for carbonization) and a pretty
> > large increase in efficiency. Any way, that what I'm thinking.
> >
> > Curbie
> I would suspect that even with solar,
> you are going to have to spend time and
> energy on "processing" your fuel.
> I'm beginning to think it might be far
> more economical to just make bio-gas via
> anaerobic processing and either use the
> methane or just process it to seperate
> the hydrogen...hell just using clean
> methane to run a small generator to
> hydrolyze water sounds better, plus you
> get nice sludge to improve your soil.
Whenever I get the woodgas bug up my butt (this happens somewhere close to
annually) and start gathering up parts to build it and figuring out what
else I need and what the benefits and drawbacks are I always end up looking
more into steam power or methane production. Methane seems to be rather
complicated too and steam seems to be a little simpler except when it comes
to the engine to drive a generator. Making steam using either wood or a
solar furnace seems to be easy enough. Making a solar tracker doesn't seem
to be too complicated. It's just a matter of what do you feed the steam
into to make electricity.
Posted by Curbie on October 26, 2009, 4:44 pm
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:38:49 -0800, "Ulysses"
Ulysses,
>Whenever I get the woodgas bug up my butt (this happens somewhere close to
>annually) and start gathering up parts to build it and figuring out what
>else I need and what the benefits and drawbacks are I always end up looking
>more into steam power or methane production. Methane seems to be rather
>complicated too and steam seems to be a little simpler except when it comes
>to the engine to drive a generator. Making steam using either wood or a
>solar furnace seems to be easy enough. Making a solar tracker doesn't seem
>to be too complicated. It's just a matter of what do you feed the steam
>into to make electricity.
I'm not quite sure; a solar steam process uses solar energy to produce
enough steam to drive every stroke of a steam engine, while the
bio-fuel process first uses solar energy to grow the fuel feed-stock,
and then uses only enough solar heat to drive the chemical process
that produces the fuel to drive every stroke of an engine. To my eye
there seems to be two different processes at work here.
I've run the numbers on steam, and have NOT run the numbers on
bio-fuel gasification that's what I'm up to now, in order the see
what's there.
Curbie
> Mal,
>
> >I would suspect that even with solar,
> >you are going to have to spend time and
> >energy on "processing" your fuel.
> You lost me here, could you please explain your thought on what I'm
> missing.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Curbie