----- 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, and in doing so get other people involved. When more people start thinking out side the box, the box has to become bigger, and things that were once uncommon, weird, or unusual, become everyday objects. 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/
