[Gasification] Pyrolysing compost to make fuel

Thu Aug 3 14:53:30 CDT 2006

Dear Kevin,

I agree that compost should be used as fuel only as a last resort.  
You are absolutely correct in that. And that is precisely how it  
should be used when there is no other sustainable need for it within  
reasonable trucking distances.

Inside-the-box thinking still makes a landfill the standard "last  
resort" use.
I have surveyed several composting facilities and urban "green waste"  
operations to discover that most "diverted" compost ends up in the  
landfill as "cover" for other valuable biomass resources being stored  
there.
Until local entrepreneurs figure out that transfer stations, MRF's  
(Materials Recycling Facilities) and landfills offer far greater  
potential than simply as places to collect dumping fees for the  
organics they cannot recycle, landfills will keep contributing to  
global warming and unhealthy air. You can discover that Europeans are  
way ahead of the USA on this issue. They realize that the only way to  
truly divert resources from landfills is to convert them to energy  
and raw materials. As a rule they are also better than the USA on  
growing and manufacturing to avoid waste.

Post MRF organics in big cities are high in energy value yet are  
still mostly going to landfills because there are too few buyers for  
them as fertilizer!  It seems that most entrepreneurs are afraid to  
step forward without government subsidies.  "Inside-the-box" thinkers  
do not realize that a biorefinery can simultaneously convert organic  
waste into fuels and also capture the non-fuel residues as minerals  
and carbon to make raw materials (such as fertilizer that can be  
flexibly "balanced" for soil and crop requirements in different  
localities).

At first glance, it would seem that no subsidies should be needed for  
entrepreneurs to make money from these resources. (We must recognize  
that hauling and tipping fees are not subsidies but payments for  
materials handling.)  In reality, confused bureaucrats and  
legislators have created such a quagmire for entrepreneurs to  
navigate that they now need subsidies just to get approved.   (Even  
some environmental groups whose interests would be best served by  
full-cycle business processes have gotten lost in this quagmire.)  
This can be solved with education at all levels on science and  
sustainable business practices. Science, agriculture, manufacturing,  
commerce and medicine can beneficially complement each other when  
most players understand each opportunity in its full context. One  
proper result of good education will be a regulatory environment that  
creates a level playing field for all who compete to create  more  
sustainable community development.

Remarks like "taking compost and then "setting fire" to it, to make a  
fuel, rather than using it as a soil amendment and fertilizer  
substitute" add to the confusion by oversimplifying conversion  
processes.  We should not confuse simply "setting fire to it" with  
gasification and conversion to fuels that are cleaner than fossil  
fuels (while recapturing minerals for beneficial use).

First, we must be cleaner than landfills. Second, we must not settle  
for that. Third, we cannot settle for landfills while we wait for a  
PERFECT solution; Nature doe not wait for perfection. Of course, we  
must be careful to ensure that "dirty" conversion processes cannot  
claim to be clean ones and that clean ones will be as clean as  
possible.  I would argue that the concept of Best Available Control  
Technologies (BACT) is not good enough; we must shoot for Maximum  
Available Control Technologies (MACT) to ensure that conversion  
processes do not have smokestacks or drains, and that they remain as  
leak-free as possible. But shooting for MACT is not the same as  
waiting for the perfect solution. We need to follow the examples of  
companies that have adopted the sustainable model have proven that  
the bottom line benefits significantly by doing so.  A good place to  
start learning more about these successes is the Rocky Mountain  
Institute (www.rmi.org), which promotes sustainability as "Natural  
Capitalism.".

Another excellent reference from the International Energy Agency is  
Energy Technology Perspectives to 2050, which makes the following point:

"While technology does hold great promise for the future, we must act  
now if we are to unlock the potential of current and emerging  
technologies and reduce the impact of fossil fuel dependence on  
energy security and the environment. Energy Technology Perspectives  
provides detailed technology and policy insights to help policy  
makers craft sustainable solutions."
http://www.iea.org/w/bookshop/add.aspx?id=255

Jim Caldwell
-------------------------------
"Seek Harmony, Cherish Diversity, Enjoy  Discovery"
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 Aug 3, 2006, at 10:00, gasification-request at listserv.repp.org wrote:

>
> 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