I wouldn't recommend burning glycerin either.
We have successfully gasified Gycerin waste from a biodiesel plant added
to wood chip without any measured toxic emissions, indeed it produced a
higher calorific value gas compared to straight wood chip as it
displaced the need for some of the normal air as an oxygen source
(thereby reducing dilution with the normal nitrogen fraction as well as
releasing more H2 from the added gycerin itself) so would not anticipate
any issues with it as a binder in pellets where they were used in this
way (at least through our system). We will have the opportunity to test
this at least in the form of briquettes after August. The combustion
engineers present for the earlier test were all a bit red faced at the
time as I recall since they were predicting all sorts of dire things.
We are going through an EPA process at the moment to have our system
"exempted" from the need for pollution permits, starting with clean wood
waste as the benchmark but will be adding things like plastics and
glycerin (along with much more problematic organics) in due course.
The real barrier to overcome is the insistence by the ignorant or
mischievous in the environmental movement that gasification and
combustion are interchangeable terms with similar problems. The result
from a practical point of view is the cost of the stringent emission
tests required is in the order of $25,000 per material being included
where no dioxins are anticipated and only one targeted analysis for this
is included (amongst the 20 general sample tests required) to confirm,
up to $150,000 should they believe dioxins might be possible and this
has to be repeated with all 20 samples.
What is amazing to us is our perpetual researcher "competitors" in this
space in Australia generally have access to significant public grants,
yet can't give a lab certified gas analysis from their systems only a
"predicted" value based on a literature review, mostly of course citing
references where the same thing was done...
Peter Davies
On 18/07/2013 4:00 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On 7/16/2013 5:27 PM, J. Paul Villella wrote:
>other possible suitable binders are Long Strand Glycerines from the
>production of Biodiesel (they burn like plastic too but need a
>stabilizer/wick/co-burn agent )
Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Burning glycerine produces acrolein. For some indications of its
toxicity, see Feng, Z; Hu W, Hu Y, Tang M (October 2006). "Acrolein is
a major cigarette-related lung cancer agent: Preferential binding at
p53 mutational hotspots and inhibition of DNA repair"
<http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0607031103v1>. /Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceedings_of_the_National_Academy_of_Sciences>/
*103* (42): 15404--15409.
Better to compost the glycerine, make soap, or produce biogas.
d.
-- David William House "The Complete Biogas Handbook"
|www.completebiogas.com| /Vahid Biogas/, an alternative energy
consultancy |www.vahidbiogas.com
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
