[Bioconversion] Re: Bioconversion Digest, Vol 14, Issue 9
Les Blevins
lbj4 at mindspring.com
Sat Feb 11 17:32:41 EST 2006
James;
You wrote; "I would like to see that case made."
So would I,, and I'm doing what I can to do so.
Les Blevins
----- Original Message -----
From: "James T. Caldwell Ph.D." <jcaldwell at e3regenesis.com>
To: <bioconversion at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 4:25 PM
Subject: [Bioconversion] Re: Bioconversion Digest, Vol 14, Issue 9
> 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
>> ********************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioconversion mailing list
> Bioconversion at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/bioconversion
>
More information about the Bioconversion
mailing list