[Bioconversion] Re: Bioconversion Digest, Vol 14, Issue 9
James T. Caldwell Ph.D.
jcaldwell at e3regenesis.com
Sat Feb 11 17:25:01 EST 2006
Mr. Blevins, your approach to efficiently utilizing biomass on a
small scale is very intriguing.
It lacks, however, specification of the key variables that must be
accounted for in a gasification project:
Mass Balance, Energy Balance, data on emissions, and disposal options
for residues.
As a replacement for a wood furnace, this looks like a no-brainer.
As a replacement for an MSW incinerator, on the other hand, it seems
to be missing all the required specifications.
Even with all that data, the issues that have already been raised
remain: people don't like to change unless they have to, and
professionals are even more resistant to doing anything different
from what they have been taught and what their bosses will readily
accept.
This does not mean that they cannot change, given a proposition they
can understand and which significantly benefits the bottom line,
while also providing social benefits (healthier air, water, and
sustainable energy).
I would like to see that case made.
Jim Caldwell
-------------------------------
"Seek Harmony, Cherish Diversity, Enjoy the Process"
James T. Caldwell. Ph.D., President/CEO
E3 Regenesis Solutions
780 Sea Spray Lane #209
Foster City, CA 94404-2421
Phone/Fax: 1-650-571-5392, cell: 1-650-678-2493
jcaldwell at e3regenesis.com, www.e3regenesis.com
On Feb 11, 2006, at 04:52, bioconversion-request at listserv.repp.org
wrote:
> Send Bioconversion mailing list submissions to
> bioconversion at listserv.repp.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/bioconversion
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> bioconversion-request at listserv.repp.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> bioconversion-owner at listserv.repp.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Bioconversion digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Usefulness R&D (Gerald Comeau)
> 2. RE: Usefulness R&D (Roger Samson)
> 3. Re: Usefulness R&D (Les Blevins)
> 4. Re: Usefulness R&D (Gerald Comeau)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:21:02 -0800 (PST)
> From: Gerald Comeau <geraldcomeau at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Bioconversion] Usefulness R&D
> To: bioconversion at listserv.repp.org
> Cc: MMBTUPR at aol.com, "Tadeuse W. Patzek" <patzek at patzek.berkeley.edu>,
> "Richard F. Ablett" <rablett at nsac.ca>, David Pimentel
> <dp18 at cornell.edu>, Kirk MacDonald <kirk.macdonald at gnb.ca>
> Message-ID: <20060210172103.9502.qmail at web32213.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> to Bioconversion llist from Gerald Comeau
>
> Ref Lewis L. Smith's posting
>
> As someone who is actively promoting projects in collaboration
> with a well recognized US univerisity in the field of combution and
> energy studies, I found Lewis Smith's feasibility approach
> uselful . He has pointed out that he is leery of generalizations
> such as those found in the Roger Samson posting. I am entierely in
> his support in this sentiment.
>
> Roger Samson has pointed out in an earlier posting that biomass
> must be treated differently from the large scale found in the
> refining of fossil fuels. He should not assume that those
> engineers and scientists with backgrounds in the petrochemical
> industry who are now committed to bomass utilization, are blind to
> the dispersed nature of biomass. I believe the prevailing idea by
> those dedicated scientists involves the adaptation to viable scales
> of operations for particular situtaions of feedstock supply as they
> arise in the field.
>
> In my promotion of new projects involving biomass feedstocks for
> processes yielding high value second generation energy carriers
> such as dimethyl ether, I have frequently found natural scientists
> uncooperative. I have found an unwillingness on the part of many
> of them to look beyond furnaces for space heating and making steam
> for electric power.
>
> I can only guess at the reasons for a reactionary attitiude on
> the part of many scientists to emerging new technologies, however
> in some instances these attitudes may be be very detrimental to new
> oportunities in the development of a renewable energy economy from
> biomass.
>
> Those scientists serving the forestry and agricultural sectors,
> frequently have large networks of contacts at their disposal, and
> they spend a great deal of their time promoting their agenda at
> ongoing organized publicly sponsored acitivities such as workshops,
> focus group meetings, etc, etc, etc. They have contacts in
> institutions including: universities scientists; federal, state
> (provincial), and municipal government officials; executives from
> natural resources industries; and many others. They frequently use
> their wideflung networks to act as spokespersons for establishing
> government policy for economic development. This may work out well
> for maintaining their own research budgets. Unfolrtunalely these
> same attitiudes may have negative consequences as well. They may
> exert negative influences in areas of viable technologies, and
> unfortunately promising projects involving sophisticated
> technologies for the development of second generation energy
> carriers from bioma
> ss
> feedstocks. The result is that potentially viable projects are
> killed before they can see the light of day.
>
> I urge natural scientists operating in the fields of agriculture
> and forestry to refrain from taking a broad brush approach to R&D
> when it involves sophisticated technologies for biomass
> utilization for conversion to energy, unless those same natural
> scientists are qualified to participate in the evaluation of the
> individual projects on which they are asked for an assessment.
>
> There are competent and capable specialized engineers and
> scientists who have a background in fossil fuel exploration or
> petroleum refining, actively pursuing new careers in the field of
> renewable energy from biomass. I know several. These engineers
> and scientists can bring important knowledge in the field of
> biomass utilization as feedstocks for energy conversion processes
> and should be given a fair chance.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Gerald Comeau
>
> somewhere near the woodlands of New Brunswick, Canada, who can be
> contacted at geraldcomeau at yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
> MMBTUPR at aol.com wrote:
> to Bioconversion List from Lewis L Smith
>
> Ref Roger Samson's latest posting.
>
> Roger may be right, but as an energy economist who has done a lot
> of project
> evaluations ["feasibility studies"] I am leery of such
> generalizations. The
> attractiveness of many options in the biomass-energy field is often
> highly site
> sensitive.
>
> For example, pelletizing for co-firing with coal may justify both the
> pelletizing and a fairly long haul to the boiler. Pelletizing for
> decentralized
> ["distributed"] gasification is probably too expensive, in terms of
> the
> incremental improvement in the combustion properties of the
> feedstock. Again this will
> depend on what is in the soil and how much of the noxious materials
> are picked
> up by the plant in growing and in harvesting respectively. In this
> engineers
> should remember that the field and transport aspects of biomass
> energy never
> have been, are not now and never will be "in the six sigma" world.
>
> Ethanol is often a coproduct of processes where important costs are
> both
> joint and variable. In such cases, the economic feasibility of the
> process depends
> on all coproduct prices and volumes, not just on those for ethanol.
> Under
> such conditions, ethanol cannot be considered in isolation, no
> matter how
> sophisticated the cost-allocation techniques which the accountants
> come up with.
> Such techniques may be fine for preparing tax returns, valuing
> inventories and
> valuing "in house" consumption of output, but they are no good for
> doing the
> economics of such a project. [If anyone wants a paper on the
> subject, post me
> a "snail mail" address.]
>
> And so on.
>
> Perhaps some graduate student somewhere could be persuaded to
> compile a list
> of operating projects, whether commercial scale or not, along with
> estimates
> of their life-cycle costs. There is a lot of evidence out there but
> at the
> level of the Internet, most of it is anecdotal and/or widely
> scattered.
>
> One generalization that may prove useful is to give priority to
> feedstocks
> which do not get us into horrendous food-vs-fuel arguments, such as
> those which
> helped to kill "energy cane" in Puerto Rico and which are now
> entangling the
> use of soy beans for energy in the US Midwest.
>
> Cordially. End of message.
> _______________________________________________
> Bioconversion mailing list
> Bioconversion at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/bioconversion
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:32:35 -0500
> From: "Roger Samson" <rsamson at reap-canada.com>
> Subject: RE: [Bioconversion] Usefulness R&D
> To: "'Gerald Comeau'" <geraldcomeau at yahoo.com>,
> <bioconversion at listserv.repp.org>
> Cc: MMBTUPR at aol.com, "'Tadeuse W. Patzek'"
> <patzek at patzek.CE.berkeley.edu>, 'Kirk MacDonald'
> <kirk.macdonald at gnb.ca>, 'David Pimentel' <dp18 at cornell.edu>,
> "'Richard F. Ablett'" <rablett at nsac.ca>
> Message-ID: <200602102121.k1ALLX0j027906 at mailscan2.cc.mcgill.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Gerald/Lewis
>
>
>
> Of course all of us working in the bioenergy field would be pleased
> to see
> the development of a green economy based on biomass energy
> products. I find
> it disconcerting the lack of progress that has been made. In
> particular, it
> is regrettable to see the US economy headed for collapse with a
> record trade
> deficit of 720 billion dollars. Energy imports and the high cost
> of energy
> in the US are major factors influencing the decline. A successful
> biomass
> energy program in the US could make a significant difference in
> improving
> both the economic and environmental performance of the US economy.
>
>
>
> Lets face it folks the current directions of the US bioenergy
> programs and
> policies are not working. Farmers will be left in penury trying to
> sell
> biomass to the power industry for co-firing with coal at 30%
> conversion
> efficiency. The corn ethanol industry is set for collapse once the US
> government runs out of money to subsidize the corn farmers and the
> ethanol.
> The US taxes the entry of low cost ethanol from the tropics to
> protect the
> sugar lobby but allows oil to flow in without tax. The Republicans
> closed
> down the switchgrass energy R and D program which was one of the best
> programs in the world on biomass energy development.
>
>
>
> The US doesn't have the land resources to grow enough biomass for
> electricity, liquid fuels, and heat plus refining liquid fuels into
> further
> co-products. The shot-gun approach using big energy conversion
> facilities as
> a model for the US is a failure. The energetics of these plants in
> the US
> are so bad that they cannot adequately compensate farmers for their
> biomass.
> To make bigger plants work you need to go into areas of the world
> that have
> low opportunity costs for land and have high production potential from
> sustainable feedstocks that can be locally accessed. The best
> direction for
> energy independence in the US and to adequately compensate farmers
> for their
> biomass is through heat and combined heat and power applications.
> It has the
> best fuel cycles and economics and can best pay the farmers a
> living wage
> for the biomass they produce. The US should no longer let the sugar
> lobby
> run over the countries energy policy and allow imports of
> cellulosic and
> cane based ethanol from the tropics where perennial biomass crops
> (cane and
> grasses) and sugars produced from that biomass can be produced at
> the lowest
> cost.
>
>
>
> So in sum, the most useful direction for the US would be to focus
> on a heat
> and CHP applications from biomass to replace high grade energy
> sources in
> heat related energy applications. This is the focus in Europe and
> Canada.
> Biogas for transport and other applications could also be
> emphasized. It can
> reduce the trade war with other countries for farm products by
> opening its
> markets to imported liquid fuels. This will create genuine demand
> enhancement for the entire agricultural sector. These ideas, along
> with
> redesign and energy efficiency strategies, are the best way the US can
> reduce its dependency on increasing oil and LNG gas imports and the
> instability it brings.
>
>
>
> Roger Samson
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:36:45 -0600
> From: "Les Blevins" <lbj4 at mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: [Bioconversion] Usefulness R&D
> To: "Gerald Comeau" <geraldcomeau at yahoo.com>,
> <bioconversion at listserv.repp.org>
> Cc: Kirk MacDonald <kirk.macdonald at gnb.ca>, "Tadeuse W. Patzek"
> <patzek at patzek.berkeley.edu>, "Richard F. Ablett" <rablett at nsac.ca>,
> MMBTUPR at aol.com, David Pimentel <dp18 at cornell.edu>
> Message-ID: <00a701c62ebc$64269fa0$648df404 at aaecl990bx5bg9>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Mr. Comeau,
>
> Your posting to the Bioconversion list indicates you to be highly
> perspective. If you have anything more written on bioconversion
> (such as on
> the dispersed nature of biomass or the unwillingness, or on the
> part of many
> scientists to look beyond furnaces for space heating and making
> steam for
> electric power) I would like to peruse that as well.
>
> And if you haven't yet I would hope you would open my webpages at
> http://aaecorp.com/ceo.html and look at the bioconversion device
> shown there
> and allow me to tell you more about it.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Les Blevins
> Advanced Alternative Energy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gerald Comeau" <geraldcomeau at yahoo.com>
> To: <bioconversion at listserv.repp.org>
> Cc: <MMBTUPR at aol.com>; "Tadeuse W. Patzek"
> <patzek at patzek.berkeley.edu>;
> "Richard F. Ablett" <rablett at nsac.ca>; "David Pimentel"
> <dp18 at cornell.edu>;
> "Kirk MacDonald" <kirk.macdonald at gnb.ca>
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bioconversion] Usefulness R&D
>
>
>> to Bioconversion llist from Gerald Comeau
>>
>> Ref Lewis L. Smith's posting
>>
>> As someone who is actively promoting projects in collaboration
>> with a
>> well recognized US univerisity in the field of combution and energy
>> studies, I found Lewis Smith's feasibility approach uselful . He has
>> pointed out that he is leery of generalizations such as those
>> found in the
>> Roger Samson posting. I am entierely in his support in this
>> sentiment.
>>
>> Roger Samson has pointed out in an earlier posting that biomass
>> must be
>> treated differently from the large scale found in the refining of
>> fossil
>> fuels. He should not assume that those engineers and scientists with
>> backgrounds in the petrochemical industry who are now committed to
>> bomass
>> utilization, are blind to the dispersed nature of biomass. I
>> believe the
>> prevailing idea by those dedicated scientists involves the
>> adaptation to
>> viable scales of operations for particular situtaions of feedstock
>> supply
>> as they arise in the field.
>>
>> In my promotion of new projects involving biomass feedstocks for
>> processes yielding high value second generation energy carriers
>> such as
>> dimethyl ether, I have frequently found natural scientists
>> uncooperative.
>> I have found an unwillingness on the part of many of them to look
>> beyond
>> furnaces for space heating and making steam for electric power.
>>
>> I can only guess at the reasons for a reactionary attitiude on
>> the part
>> of many scientists to emerging new technologies, however in some
>> instances
>> these attitudes may be be very detrimental to new oportunities in the
>> development of a renewable energy economy from biomass.
>>
>> Those scientists serving the forestry and agricultural sectors,
>> frequently have large networks of contacts at their disposal, and
>> they
>> spend a great deal of their time promoting their agenda at ongoing
>> organized publicly sponsored acitivities such as workshops, focus
>> group
>> meetings, etc, etc, etc. They have contacts in institutions
>> including:
>> universities scientists; federal, state (provincial), and municipal
>> government officials; executives from natural resources
>> industries; and
>> many others. They frequently use their wideflung networks to act as
>> spokespersons for establishing government policy for economic
>> development.
>> This may work out well for maintaining their own research budgets.
>> Unfolrtunalely these same attitiudes may have negative
>> consequences as
>> well. They may exert negative influences in areas of viable
>> technologies,
>> and unfortunately promising projects involving sophisticated
>> technologies
>> for the development of second generation energy carriers from bioma
>> ss
>> feedstocks. The result is that potentially viable projects are
>> killed
>> before they can see the light of day.
>>
>> I urge natural scientists operating in the fields of agriculture and
>> forestry to refrain from taking a broad brush approach to R&D when it
>> involves sophisticated technologies for biomass utilization for
>> conversion to energy, unless those same natural scientists are
>> qualified
>> to participate in the evaluation of the individual projects on
>> which they
>> are asked for an assessment.
>>
>> There are competent and capable specialized engineers and
>> scientists who
>> have a background in fossil fuel exploration or petroleum refining,
>> actively pursuing new careers in the field of renewable energy from
>> biomass. I know several. These engineers and scientists can bring
>> important knowledge in the field of biomass utilization as
>> feedstocks for
>> energy conversion processes and should be given a fair chance.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Gerald Comeau
>>
>> somewhere near the woodlands of New Brunswick, Canada, who can be
>> contacted at geraldcomeau at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> MMBTUPR at aol.com wrote:
>> to Bioconversion List from Lewis L Smith
>>
>> Ref Roger Samson's latest posting.
>>
>> Roger may be right, but as an energy economist who has done a lot of
>> project
>> evaluations ["feasibility studies"] I am leery of such
>> generalizations.
>> The
>> attractiveness of many options in the biomass-energy field is
>> often highly
>> site
>> sensitive.
>>
>> For example, pelletizing for co-firing with coal may justify both the
>> pelletizing and a fairly long haul to the boiler. Pelletizing for
>> decentralized
>> ["distributed"] gasification is probably too expensive, in terms
>> of the
>> incremental improvement in the combustion properties of the
>> feedstock.
>> Again this will
>> depend on what is in the soil and how much of the noxious
>> materials are
>> picked
>> up by the plant in growing and in harvesting respectively. In this
>> engineers
>> should remember that the field and transport aspects of biomass
>> energy
>> never
>> have been, are not now and never will be "in the six sigma" world.
>>
>> Ethanol is often a coproduct of processes where important costs
>> are both
>> joint and variable. In such cases, the economic feasibility of the
>> process
>> depends
>> on all coproduct prices and volumes, not just on those for
>> ethanol. Under
>> such conditions, ethanol cannot be considered in isolation, no
>> matter how
>> sophisticated the cost-allocation techniques which the accountants
>> come up
>> with.
>> Such techniques may be fine for preparing tax returns, valuing
>> inventories
>> and
>> valuing "in house" consumption of output, but they are no good for
>> doing
>> the
>> economics of such a project. [If anyone wants a paper on the
>> subject, post
>> me
>> a "snail mail" address.]
>>
>> And so on.
>>
>> Perhaps some graduate student somewhere could be persuaded to
>> compile a
>> list
>> of operating projects, whether commercial scale or not, along with
>> estimates
>> of their life-cycle costs. There is a lot of evidence out there
>> but at the
>> level of the Internet, most of it is anecdotal and/or widely
>> scattered.
>>
>> One generalization that may prove useful is to give priority to
>> feedstocks
>> which do not get us into horrendous food-vs-fuel arguments, such
>> as those
>> which
>> helped to kill "energy cane" in Puerto Rico and which are now
>> entangling
>> the
>> use of soy beans for energy in the US Midwest.
>>
>> Cordially. End of message.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bioconversion mailing list
>> Bioconversion at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/bioconversion
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bioconversion mailing list
>> Bioconversion at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/bioconversion
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 04:58:06 -0800 (PST)
> From: Gerald Comeau <geraldcomeau at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Bioconversion] Usefulness R&D
> To: Les Blevins <lbj4 at mindspring.com>, bioconversion at listserv.repp.org
> Cc: Kirk MacDonald <kirk.macdonald at gnb.ca>, "Tadeuse W. Patzek"
> <patzek at patzek.berkeley.edu>, "Richard F. Ablett" <rablett at nsac.ca>,
> MMBTUPR at aol.com, David Pimentel <dp18 at cornell.edu>
> Message-ID: <20060211125806.71336.qmail at web32204.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Mr. Blevin,
>
> Your web site for Advanced Alternative Energy Corp at http://
> aaecorp.com/ceo.html shows your commitment to improving technology
> for use of biomass for energy. I looked at your web page as you
> suggested, and it wasn't for the first time. I've been reading
> your letters on bioconversion listserv and had already looked at
> your page. I can appreciate how hard you're working.
>
> Thank-you for asking me to say a little bit about the dispersed
> nature of biomass and on the attitude of scientist in North
> America, particularly in Canada, towards highly efficient emerging
> conversion technologies. I am discovering through my work in the
> trenches that those are big issues in the process of developing a
> new economy from renewable energy from biomass.
>
> There is a lot more to say about the dispersed nature of biomass
> than I am going to say here. Today I am just going look at the big
> picture by taking the Canadian flaxseed crop to illustrate the
> problems. In Canada we grow up to two million acres of flaxseed
> annually. There are agricultural districts on the Prairies where
> flaxseed acreage is concentrated, but you could say the biomass is
> dispersed as yield of flax straw on a bone dry basis is only one
> half tonne per acre.
>
> Nothing has changed in Canada after years of head scratching over
> the practice of burning most of one million tonnes of flax straw
> left on the field after the seed has been harvested. Farmers are
> not eager to burn flax straw on the field, but have no choice
> because except for one pulping operation by hammermilling, and one
> small flax decorticating plant, the farmers have no market for the
> straw. Note that flax stems contain a bast fibre which is
> recoveralbe for textile fibre, and the energy content of the shives
> fraction is high because of their elevated levels of lignin.
>
> The Canadian Government through Agriculture Canada, has created
> an organization called FLAXCANADA2015 to develop strategies to
> further develop the potential of the flaxseed crop. I am a member
> of one of the FLAXCANADA2015 committees to work on setting goals
> for FLAXCANADA2015. It is obvious to me that FLAXCANADA2015 is
> taking a market driven approach. It has its main focus on the
> potentail for flaxseed as a nutraceutical, and is entertaining some
> discussion of the fuel potential for biodiesel. Eliminating the
> practice of burning flax straw o the field is way down the list of
> priorities, and is really seen as an irritant than as a potential
> for the fax crop and for renewable energy.
>
> FLAXCANADA2015 would not, or could not even make any seed money
> available to me to take a small delegation to a recognized US
> univeristy where I have contacts in the field of gasification and
> catalytic conversion of derived synthesis gas to produce high value
> energy carriers. Although it was pointless to do so, I asked for
> support on a prefeasiiity study. Of course I was denied. It is
> not a priority. What does that tell you about agaricultural
> scientists and the established order? As someone pointed out to
> me: once practices are estalished over a long period of time, they
> become entrentched and are extremely difficult to change.
>
> I have also explored the possibiity of securing supplies of wood
> biomass for a feedstock. I have discovered that this resource has
> its own set of problems. In the end, I have concluded that the way
> to go is to devlop energy crops. Agroforestry for the production
> of willow are being researched at the State of New York University
> in the North East, and research on industrial crops in agriculture
> such as Miscanthus has begun at the Universities of Illinois and
> Indianna for the Midwest where you are.
>
> I could go on in much more detail, but I think the bioconversion
> readers might like to read what someone else has to say.
>
> Les, thanks for writing and I would be happy to continue to help
> if I can.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gerald
>
> somewhere near the woodlands of New Brunswick Canada
>
>
>
> Les Blevins <lbj4 at mindspring.com> wrote:
> Mr. Comeau,
>
> Your posting to the Bioconversion list indicates you to be highly
> perspective. If you have anything more written on bioconversion
> (such as on
> the dispersed nature of biomass or the unwillingness, or on the
> part of many
> scientists to look beyond furnaces for space heating and making
> steam for
> electric power) I would like to peruse that as well.
>
> And if you haven't yet I would hope you would open my webpages at
> http://aaecorp.com/ceo.html and look at the bioconversion device
> shown there
> and allow me to tell you more about it.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Les Blevins
> Advanced Alternative Energy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gerald Comeau"
> To:
> Cc: ; "Tadeuse W. Patzek"
> ;
> "Richard F. Ablett" ; "David Pimentel" ;
> "Kirk MacDonald"
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bioconversion] Usefulness R&D
>
>
>> to Bioconversion llist from Gerald Comeau
>>
>> Ref Lewis L. Smith's posting
>>
>> As someone who is actively promoting projects in collaboration with a
>> well recognized US univerisity in the field of combution and energy
>> studies, I found Lewis Smith's feasibility approach uselful . He has
>> pointed out that he is leery of generalizations such as those
>> found in the
>> Roger Samson posting. I am entierely in his support in this
>> sentiment.
>>
>> Roger Samson has pointed out in an earlier posting that biomass
>> must be
>> treated differently from the large scale found in the refining of
>> fossil
>> fuels. He should not assume that those engineers and scientists with
>> backgrounds in the petrochemical industry who are now committed to
>> bomass
>> utilization, are blind to the dispersed nature of biomass. I
>> believe the
>> prevailing idea by those dedicated scientists involves the
>> adaptation to
>> viable scales of operations for particular situtaions of feedstock
>> supply
>> as they arise in the field.
>>
>> In my promotion of new projects involving biomass feedstocks for
>> processes yielding high value second generation energy carriers
>> such as
>> dimethyl ether, I have frequently found natural scientists
>> uncooperative.
>> I have found an unwillingness on the part of many of them to look
>> beyond
>> furnaces for space heating and making steam for electric power.
>>
>> I can only guess at the reasons for a reactionary attitiude on the
>> part
>> of many scientists to emerging new technologies, however in some
>> instances
>> these attitudes may be be very detrimental to new oportunities in the
>> development of a renewable energy economy from biomass.
>>
>> Those scientists serving the forestry and agricultural sectors,
>> frequently have large networks of contacts at their disposal, and
>> they
>> spend a great deal of their time promoting their agenda at ongoing
>> organized publicly sponsored acitivities such as workshops, focus
>> group
>> meetings, etc, etc, etc. They have contacts in institutions
>> including:
>> universities scientists; federal, state (provincial), and municipal
>> government officials; executives from natural resources
>> industries; and
>> many others. They frequently use their wideflung networks to act as
>> spokespersons for establishing government policy for economic
>> development.
>> This may work out well for maintaining their own research budgets.
>> Unfolrtunalely these same attitiudes may have negative
>> consequences as
>> well. They may exert negative influences in areas of viable
>> technologies,
>> and unfortunately promising projects involving sophisticated
>> technologies
>> for the development of second generation energy carriers from bioma
>> ss
>> feedstocks. The result is that potentially viable projects are killed
>> before they can see the light of day.
>>
>> I urge natural scientists operating in the fields of agriculture and
>> forestry to refrain from taking a broad brush approach to R&D when it
>> involves sophisticated technologies for biomass utilization for
>> conversion to energy, unless those same natural scientists are
>> qualified
>> to participate in the evaluation of the individual projects on
>> which they
>> are asked for an assessment.
>>
>> There are competent and capable specialized engineers and
>> scientists who
>> have a background in fossil fuel exploration or petroleum refining,
>> actively pursuing new careers in the field of renewable energy from
>> biomass. I know several. These engineers and scientists can bring
>> important knowledge in the field of biomass utilization as
>> feedstocks for
>> energy conversion processes and should be given a fair chance.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Gerald Comeau
>>
>> somewhere near the woodlands of New Brunswick, Canada, who can be
>> contacted at geraldcomeau at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> MMBTUPR at aol.com wrote:
>> to Bioconversion List from Lewis L Smith
>>
>> Ref Roger Samson's latest posting.
>>
>> Roger may be right, but as an energy economist who has done a lot of
>> project
>> evaluations ["feasibility studies"] I am leery of such
>> generalizations.
>> The
>> attractiveness of many options in the biomass-energy field is
>> often highly
>> site
>> sensitive.
>>
>> For example, pelletizing for co-firing with coal may justify both the
>> pelletizing and a fairly long haul to the boiler. Pelletizing for
>> decentralized
>> ["distributed"] gasification is probably too expensive, in terms
>> of the
>> incremental improvement in the combustion properties of the
>> feedstock.
>> Again this will
>> depend on what is in the soil and how much of the noxious
>> materials are
>> picked
>> up by the plant in growing and in harvesting respectively. In this
>> engineers
>> should remember that the field and transport aspects of biomass
>> energy
>> never
>> have been, are not now and never will be "in the six sigma" world.
>>
>> Ethanol is often a coproduct of processes where important costs
>> are both
>> joint and variable. In such cases, the economic feasibility of the
>> process
>> depends
>> on all coproduct prices and volumes, not just on those for
>> ethanol. Under
>> such conditions, ethanol cannot be considered in isolation, no
>> matter how
>> sophisticated the cost-allocation techniques which the accountants
>> come up
>> with.
>> Such techniques may be fine for preparing tax returns, valuing
>> inventories
>> and
>> valuing "in house" consumption of output, but they are no good for
>> doing
>> the
>> economics of such a project. [If anyone wants a paper on the
>> subject, post
>> me
>> a "snail mail" address.]
>>
>> And so on.
>>
>> Perhaps some graduate student somewhere could be persuaded to
>> compile a
>> list
>> of operating projects, whether commercial scale or not, along with
>> estimates
>> of their life-cycle costs. There is a lot of evidence out there
>> but at the
>> level of the Internet, most of it is anecdotal and/or widely
>> scattered.
>>
>> One generalization that may prove useful is to give priority to
>> feedstocks
>> which do not get us into horrendous food-vs-fuel arguments, such
>> as those
>> which
>> helped to kill "energy cane" in Puerto Rico and which are now
>> entangling
>> the
>> use of soy beans for energy in the US Midwest.
>>
>> Cordially. End of message.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bioconversion mailing list
>> Bioconversion at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/bioconversion
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bioconversion mailing list
>> Bioconversion at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/bioconversion
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioconversion mailing list
> Bioconversion at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/bioconversion
>
>
> End of Bioconversion Digest, Vol 14, Issue 9
> ********************************************
More information about the Bioconversion
mailing list