Dear William
>When I first heard about the project I questioned the wisdom of using the lignite found in our area of Mississippi (about 15 miles from the plant location). Ive never heard of anyone trying to burn this lignite. Even in a forest fire the outcroppings of lignite dont burn. What interested me was the claim that the emissions were low. These days that statement has no value unless you see exactly what they are talking about because there is so much rampant green-washing of any and everything. The low emissions are the usual scrubbing one would expect of lofted particles and Sulphur which is a profitable thing to take out in any case. No one in his right mind emits SO2 these days. S is worth too much. I see now they are calculating the CO2/kW as their reduced emissions. That claim is only valid while there is a price on the head of CO2. I see from the link you provided they have a buyer so I say, take the money and run, if they are willing to pay for it. The main issue, at its root, is the infernal idea that black and organic carbon particles of incomplete combustion are inherent in the fuel. This gripped the minds of industry and academia years ago when un-removable things like Sulphur plagued the area around coal-fired power and industrial plants. It was sold on the basis of SO2 causing acid rain something shown to be completely untrue in the following years. Even the main guy promoting the danger has published on the subject, saying there never was such a thing as an acidified lake resulting from coal combustion. However the idea stuck that there are inherent emissions in the coal just waiting to come out. Then the logical leap was taken to include all emissions as if they are inherent (i.e. inside the coal already). This led to lignite being targeted as a dirty smoky fuel when in fact what they had were power station burners build for low volatiles coal burning inappropriate fuel (lignite) generating lots of smoke and all of a sudden we had proof that lignite cannot be burned cleanly. I have been talking to Jim Jetter about the poor measurement efficiency of the Dustrak DRX we are using for determining PM 1.0 emissions by coal stoves in Ulaanbaatar. The use of light as a detection method gets less efficient as you get closer to the lower limit which is 0.1 microns. What I find most important is that whatever the measurement efficiency, the fact that the air going into the stove is much dirtier than the emissions coming out! So if the measurement efficiency is 10%, and the air shows 300 µg/m3 perhaps the real value is 10 times that (unlikely) or the machine self-corrects a reading of 30 and prints out 300. We are not sure at the moment. The point is that lignite can be burned extremely cleanly if the combustor is designed to suit it. Incidentally you mention of the exposed lignite nor burning can be attributed to the weathering of the surface. Even underground it changes significantly for about 2 metres of edge which they call burned I think. It loses its volatiles and is more like carbon mixed with clay. If heated in a fire it will probably burn but not on its own under an overhead fire. Regards Crispin
_______________________________________________ Stoves 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/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org/
