[biofuel] Low temperature carbonization
I don't see why it could not compete with the LS coal, because is has even less sulfur that the coal does. As air restrictions get tighter and tighter even LS coal is going to become less cost effective. If restrictions get that tight, pretreating the coal will probably still be cheaper than buying char, with all the processing that has to have. Just impregnating coal with a carbonate, for instance, will do a pretty good job of converting sulfur to easily scrubbable compounds. As for using high-sulfur coals, I have my doubts. Whether the sulfur is driven off during coking, thus needing to be scrubbed out of the gases and/or liquids, or remains in the char, it still must be cleaned up, which imposes a further cost no matter how it is done. It may not need to be cleaned up. For instance, if the oil ( with the sulfur ) might be used in the plastics or rubber industry, because in those areas sulfur is used to stablize many different types of plastic and rubber. Now THAT's a thought - but only if the sulfur ends up in the liquids. If it ends up in the gas, you're still stuck with scrubbing. The gas and liquid hydrocarbons produced are completely irrelevant to the argument, as, without a market for the char, the entire cost of operating the process, including cracking or separating the tars, scrubbing the sulfur and giving away or otherwise disposing of the char, must be charged to what CAN be sold, making the retort gas and combustible oils far too expensive. Not true, The char could be used to power the proceses in the first place making it less costly, think about it use a by product of of your own production, to lower your cost of production. Excess heat from production could also then be used to generate electricity to lower your cost from that vantage point additionaly. Sorry, but you're still going to end up with a lot of unsalable char. I believe this is why low-temperature coking was abandoned as a commercial fuel production process in the first place, and absent a very large increase in the cost of petroleum (leading stationary power producers to switch to solid fuel), I can't see it coming back. There are several possible reasons, that it may not come back. 2) If it is so good then why are we not using it now? attitude ( not to belittle you or cause hurt feelings, your own post contains this negativity ). I'm not offended - only amused. I've made a career out of digging up shelved technology and evaluating it for possible revival. That's why I recognized this process in the first place! And it is not negative to recognize the limitations of a process - at least not in my book. Well then years later came WW2 and the German V2 rocket, after the war the allied scientist ( American ) in particular, interviewing the German rocket scientist asked how they ( the Germans ) got started, the Germans basically said that the American scientist were idiots, because they didn't listen to one of their own (Goddard). A really poor analogy, as the use of LTC persisted in Germany long after its abandonment in the States...but it has been abandoned there, too, despite Germany's near total absence of petroleum resources. People are often willing to take a chance on making money! If the process has real merit, somebody's going to want to profit from it. 5) Big oil has a lot of money to 'grease' government in to thinking that it is some how bad. Sigh. What if it really IS no good? Or more correctly, uneconomical under current conditions. 6) Companies that own / mine low sulfur coal feel threatened, and they use money just like big oil. Any evidence that this is happening? I rather doubt it, as any adverse publicity about LTC would be ...publicity, and would make people aware of a rather obscure technology. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Low temperature carbonization
- Original Message - From: Marc de Piolenc [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 08:05 Subject: [biofuel] Low temperature carbonization If restrictions get that tight, pretreating the coal will probably still be cheaper than buying char, with all the processing that has to have. Just impregnating coal with a carbonate, for instance, will do a pretty good job of converting sulfur to easily scrubbable compounds. How do you figure that pretreating is going to be more cost effective? Not true, The char could be used to power the proceses in the first place making it less costly, think about it use a by product of of your own production, to lower your cost of production. Excess heat from . production could also then be used to generate electricity to lower your cost from that vantage point additionaly. Sorry, but you're still going to end up with a lot of unsalable char. Why do you say it is not saleable? It is a fuel, that is has little to no volatiles. This makes it useful in many applacations. I'm not offended - only amused. I've made a career out of digging up shelved technology and evaluating it for possible revival. That's why I recognized this process in the first place! And it is not negative to recognize the limitations of a process - at least not in my book. What are the limitations? A really poor analogy, as the use of LTC persisted in Germany long after its abandonment in the States...but it has been abandoned there, too, despite Germany's near total absence of petroleum resources. Probably because for time it is/was easier to buy from the oil producing nations, that does not mean, it should be abandoned all together. People are often willing to take a chance on making money! If the process has real merit, somebody's going to want to profit from it. If they know about it. Sigh. What if it really IS no good? Or more correctly, uneconomical under current conditions. It it? The problem is I don't know of any up to date information from a neutral party. Do you ? Any evidence that this is happening? I rather doubt it, as any adverse publicity about LTC would be ...publicity, and would make people aware of a rather obscure technology. According to the article there was that problem at that time. Perhaps I should have said 'might' if it were to happen today, at the same time many things today have been kept hush-hush. It is lot easier to keep things that are obscure quiet, than it is to keep things that are not obscure quiet. This can be done by ensuring that they remain obscure. Greg H. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Low-temperature carbonization
I've been following the current hooraw about low-temperature carbonization with some confusion. I can't quite tell what the commotion is about. This is not new technology - it was used in primitive form to make retort gas for industrial and domestic use from the late 19th century through (in some places like Germany) the middle of the 20th century. There can't be any doubt of its feasibility, for the obvious reason that it was practiced for years. Its usefulness, however, is questionable. The bye-product coal oils and gases are produced in fixed proportion to the char (or coke), so their availability and ultimate production cost are governed by the market for solid fuel. While that market is still large, it is well served at present (in the USA at least) by low-sulfur western coal that requires no prior processing and thus develops its entire heat of combustion under the boiler; there's no reason to suppose that coke from the same feedstock could compete. As for using high-sulfur coals, I have my doubts. Whether the sulfur is driven off during coking, thus needing to be scrubbed out of the gases and/or liquids, or remains in the char, it still must be cleaned up, which imposes a further cost no matter how it is done. The gas and liquid hydrocarbons produced are completely irrelevant to the argument, as, without a market for the char, the entire cost of operating the process, including cracking or separating the tars, scrubbing the sulfur and giving away or otherwise disposing of the char, must be charged to what CAN be sold, making the retort gas and combustible oils far too expensive. I believe this is why low-temperature coking was abandoned as a commercial fuel production process in the first place, and absent a very large increase in the cost of petroleum (leading stationary power producers to switch to solid fuel), I can't see it coming back. Marc de Piolenc Iligan, Philippines Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Low-temperature carbonization
- Original Message - From: Marc de Piolenc [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 00:56 Subject: [biofuel] Low-temperature carbonization There can't be any doubt of its feasibility, for the obvious reason that it was practiced for years. Its usefulness, however, is questionable. The bye-product coal oils and gases are produced in fixed proportion to the char (or coke), so their availability and ultimate production cost are governed by the market for solid fuel. While that market is still large, it is well served at present (in the USA at least) by low-sulfur western coal that requires no prior processing and thus develops its entire heat of combustion under the boiler; there's no reason to suppose that coke from the same feedstock could compete. I don't see why it could not compete with the LS coal, because is has even less sulfur that the coal does. As air restrictions get tighter and tighter even LS coal is going to become less cost effective. As for using high-sulfur coals, I have my doubts. Whether the sulfur is driven off during coking, It is. thus needing to be scrubbed out of the gases and/or liquids, or remains in the char, it still must be cleaned up, which imposes a further cost no matter how it is done. It may not need to be cleaned up. For instance, if the oil ( with the sulfur ) might be used in the plastics or rubber industry, because in those areas sulfur is used to stablize many different types of plastic and rubber. The gas and liquid hydrocarbons produced are completely irrelevant to the argument, as, without a market for the char, the entire cost of operating the process, including cracking or separating the tars, scrubbing the sulfur and giving away or otherwise disposing of the char, must be charged to what CAN be sold, making the retort gas and combustible oils far too expensive. Not true, The char could be used to power the proceses in the first place making it less costly, think about it use a by product of of your own production, to lower your cost of production. Excess heat from production could also then be used to generate electricity to lower your cost from that vantage point additionaly. I believe this is why low-temperature coking was abandoned as a commercial fuel production process in the first place, and absent a very large increase in the cost of petroleum (leading stationary power producers to switch to solid fuel), I can't see it coming back. There are several possible reasons, that it may not come back. 1) It is considered old fashion. If it was used way back then, it must not be useful now ( you can see of this attitude in many of the big agriculture farms ). 2) If it is so good then why are we not using it now? attitude ( not to belittle you or cause hurt feelings, your own post contains this negativity ). The answer may be as simple as the conditions that once made it not usable, have now changed to the point that it would be foolish not to ( or not ). An example would be modern rocketry. People once laughed at Goddard (sp?) in the early 1900's ( in the 1920's I think ) who was laughed at because he experimented with liquid fueled rocket engines, allot of people laughed at him, and said that he as foolish and nothing would ever come of his experiments, because everyone knew that liquid fueled rockets were not efficient, and never would be. Well then years later came WW2 and the German V2 rocket, after the war the allied scientist ( American ) in particular, interviewing the German rocket scientist asked how they ( the Germans ) got started, the Germans basically said that the American scientist were idiots, because they didn't listen to one of their own (Goddard). 3) It is unconventional now ( this is related to #2, but, different ), this makes people who are not used to thinking outside the box uncomfortable. 4) Has a hard time getting past people who don't want to take a chance ( related to #3 ), this includes government people that may be risking their jobs, by endorsing something that is not normal for his/her dept. 5) Big oil has a lot of money to 'grease' government in to thinking that it is some how bad. 6) Companies that own / mine low sulfur coal feel threatened, and they use money just like big oil. 7) Governments and the various depts. in them always try to keep from looking like they have made a mistake, even it means that money and lives are wasted ( related to #4 ) . 8) N. I. H. Syndrome. This disease is vary common around institutions ( anyone actually ) that have a high opinion of themselves. This illness at times runs rampant, and when it does, everyone can ( and does at times ) suffer, just because it was Not Invented Here. Because of N. I. H., things are ignored even if they would be of better use. The list can go on. But the #1 reason it can come back is that people ( like the those on this list ), start experimenting on their own