[Bioconversion] Re: [Stoves] Destructive distillation of biomass

[list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:47:01 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:

>
>
>At 05:34 PM 11/13/2004 +0000, list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:
>>On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:12:44 -0800, Art Krenzel wrote:
>>
>>>Destructive distillation was the mainstay for the commercial production of 
>>>acetic acid and methanol for many years pre 1920.  Raw wood was heated in a 
>>>sealed retort and the gases given off were condensed.  They were 
>>>fractionated into different components by condensing them as they were
>given 
>>>off at different temperatures during the heating process.
>>
>>Yes we discussed this a bit before, as I said at the time beech was
>>the preferred wood for a process in germany that produced power in a
>>large single cylinder engine from the waste gasses produced further on
>>in the pyrolysis process.
>>
>
>OK -- one can derive portable fuel (methanol) a very important industrial
>chemical:

OK too! Peter you've given me another opening to stir up this
discussion on the bioconversion list:

http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/bioconversion

are you subscribed?

At this scale it is less relevant to [Stoves].

Think of the proportions these pyrolysis products are produced in.

With the amount of charcoal being produced in the world why do you
think it pays "charcoal burners" just to waste the offgas?


>
>Acetic acid is an important industrial chemical.

 <snip>

Yes but how much does it cost? Can the route to it from biomass match
the modern means of production in scale or cost? Biomass is a
distributed rawstock, expensive to collect and transport, it lends
itself to smaller scale operations.
>
>Next -- produces a gas that can fuel an internal combustion engine -- 

There's more to running an internal combustion engine than just the
fuel cost, the extra cost of maintenance and lower longevity can
easily militate against this working.
>
>And last -- plus high quality charcoal!! (The ideal "portable" fuel for any
>gasifier set-up)

Hey, I'll not argue with that.
>
>And this process ceased to exist once petroleum products became so widely
>available and so "cheap" -- right?? 

Yes, the systems were superseded by fossil fuels because the fossil
fuels had overwhelming economic advantages, not least of which was
their disposition to benefit from application of capital in their
development, i.e. it paid successful individuals to invest in them
better than other energy sources.
>
>Any "bells" ringing yet??
>
>Should we not be resurrecting this "ancient" technology at this time??
>Certainly -- it is a village level one!

Yes I see these intermediate technologies benefitting groups who will
otherwise remain disenfranchised because they cannot climb up out of
energy poverty.

One of the anachronisms that I cannot come to terms with is that the
only work in the biomass field I have been offered is to develop a
means to incinerate biomass from conservation areas, when what I want
to do is research and implement a means to economically harvest the
same biomass.

AJH