[Bioconversion] combined cycles

[Mike Morin]

>now direct fired coal gas turbines in combined cycle
>are said to achieve over 50% conversion.

First of all, I'm skeptical about your claim for the conversion rate. 
Secondly,  what are the costs associated with the gasification of coal, if 
it can be done at all?

>We're now seeing micro chip being deployed embedded in gas condensing
> boilers in beta tests and it strikes me biomass to energy stands to
> gain better from such integrated schemes.

Please explain, BRIEFLY, how micro chips can be used for this purpose.

I think electronic controls could be very useful in micro demand side 
management applications and could be a growth industry. However, if it is a 
technology that only serves the wealthy and is applied without macro demand 
side policies and strategies, I would not want to encourage it.

We have more fundamental equity and sustainability issues related to the 
costs of doing business in our society. That is, the ridiculously high costs 
of real estate and capital assets. We must undertake a comprehensive program 
to write off these costs.

It would be useful to me to know about efficiency comparisons between and 
among the direct burning of biomass, bioethanol, and biodiesel.


Workin' for peace and cooperation,

Mike Morin




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "AJH" <list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk>
To: "Discussion of biological conversion to fuels and chemicals" 
<bioconversion at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 1:27 PM
Subject: [Bioconversion] combined cycles


> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:50:07 +0930, Paul Harris wrote:
>
>>Any conversion of energy is inefficient, so wastes our precious
>>bioenergy - <snip>
>
> I agree but need this always be so?
>
> I think the first coal fired engines were about 1/4% conversion
> efficiency but now direct fired coal gas turbines in combined cycle
> are said to achieve over 50% conversion.
>
>
> We're now seeing micro chp being deployed embedded in gas condensing
> boilers in beta tests and it strikes me biomass to energy stands to
> gain better from such integrated schemes.
>>
>>Gaseous fuels are best suited to stationary applications and any liquid
>>fuel will be needed for "emergency" uses.
>
> Maybe but it's economics that will dictate.
>
> A few days ago I asked a question about the amount of remaining carbon
> is digestate slurry after  an "economic" residence time in a biogas
> digester. The reason I asked is because UK government has moved the
> goalposts again and there seems to be more emphasis on digestion of
> specially grown rawstock. Like you everyone involved seems to think
> the "spent" slurry should be returned to land. I just wonder if there
> is scope for working a pyrolysis gasification process in series with
> it?
>
> AJH
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioconversion mailing list
> Bioconversion at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/bioconversion_listserv.repp.org
>