[Gasification] Pyrolysing compost to make fuel

[Mark & Elena Gallmeier]

Dear Kevin,

>>Subsidies can be a fundamentally good thing, if they enable fundamentally
good things to happen.<<

Subsidies have to be applied on a 'level playing field'  basis to be of any
value.

>>There seem to be a lot of people chasing
Subsidies, rather than looking for the right thing to do.<<

The goal of all subsidy seekers is to move public tax dollars into
private pockets.  Theirs.  Accomplishing anything is secondary to this.

A partial list of 'level' subsidies for renewable energy systems (none of
these subsidies are likely in reality) might include:

--- DoE purchase of all  BEF Press book copyrights and their PDF-ization
for free public download from DoE websites.  And all other worthwhile
renewable energy literature from the past.

--- Establishment of 'Prizes' like the Ansari X-Prize, to be paid for
first-past-the-post attainment of objectively stated goals for fuel and
energy systems.  With subsequent release of the full designs and data into
the public domain in the case of publicly funded prizes.  Goals could be for
the design of full scale working systems, and also for fulfillment of
objectively stated research tasks.

--- Level playing field laws and policy.  An example would be a state
mandate that all non-diesel state and county vehicles be fueled with M-85 by
a certain date, purchased at competitive bid from in-state methanol
manufacturers.  Another example would require energy conversion of specified
and rising percentages of all MSW by certain dates.

What we will see instead is what we already see today.  This is the award of
subsidies and grants based on political clout and personal connections, and
without excessive accountability for subsequent performance, let alone any
requirement for specific results.

Regards,

Mark


Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 11:32:27 -0300
From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Pyrolysing compost to make fuel
To: <CAVM at aol.com>, <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Message-ID: <004a01c6b70a$5a47f8e0$899a0a40 at kevin28mxtjznn>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original

Dear Neal

It seems to me that conversion to energy forms is fundamentally "the use of
last resort" for biomass resources. If there is any alternative use for the
biomass, then almost invariably, it has a higher worth.

Energy projects seem highly distorted because of subsidies. Ity surprises me
that the Researcher is taking compost and then "setting fire" to it, to make
a fuel, rather than using it as a soil amendment and fertilizer substitute.
I don't have the benefit of a Mass and Energy balance for the process, but
it would intuitively seem that applying the compost to the soil would save
more fuel than could be produced from the pyrolysis oils.

At any rate, if the process was technically successful, I would guess that
it would require more government Subsidies and concessions before it would
be implemented industrially.

Subsidies can be a fundamentally good thing, if they enable fundamentally
good things to happen. It is far from clear that setting fire to compost is
a good thing. On the other hand, subsidies can enable a few people to make a
lot of money while the subsidies last. The internet abounds with spam,
promoting Conferences and Seminars whose basic thrust is "How to apply for
subsidies on biomass projects." There seem to be a lot of people chasing
Subsidies, rather than looking for the right thing to do.

Best wishes,

Kevin