[Gasification] which one is better

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Dick

I live in Nova Scotia... cool in Winter, comfortable in summer., with a mean 
annual temperature of about 7 C. There is limited agriculture in the 
immediate area, and manure is in great demand for fields. As far as I know, 
there never was an anaerobic manure system within 100 miles of here.

There is a pond in front of my place. I can retrieve trees from it that 
would be more than 100 years old... the outer 2" are rotted, but the 
interior is still solid wood. Clearly, the wood would have to be chipped, 
but still, it took 100 years + to rot 2" of wood. On the other hand, if I 
had access to sufficient manure, to give a C/N ratio of about 30, such chips 
would probably go off like a Roman Candle, ie, all the ingredients would be 
in place and the reaction would complete in weeks rather than centuries.

I would like to access a practical and reasonably economic system running 
primarily on wood chips, yielding about 3-10 kW of electric power output for 
about 10 hours per day. I don't have a source of plant or animal based 
nitrogen for biodigestion, other than harvesting pond weed. I could probably 
harvest about 50 tons per year from the pond, to yield a dry weight of about 
3 to 5 tons containing perhaps 1/2 ton of nitrogen. To give you a 
perspective on tankage costs, a concrete basement for a typical home costs 
about $C10,000.

It would seem to me that some solution other than biomethane would be a 
better way to go. More specifically, a gasifier-engine-generator system 
would seem best to me at the present.

I would very much appreciate any further comments on possible ways to make 
biomethane from wood chips economically.

Best wishes,

Kevin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dick Glick" <dglickd at pipeline.com>
To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>; <MMBTUPR at aol.com>; 
<redlerm at yahoo.com>; <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] which one is better


> Hello Kevin and Friends --
>
> Know those problems -- cover the ponds that those manure anaerobic systems 
> are associated with and add those things -- if termites attack, as they do 
> with rice straw and even eucalyptus, although slow conversion under these 
> conditions, but, with stirring will do the trick.  The pond system would 
> have to be treated as a batch system -- need more than one pond.
>
> Although seemingly far removed, palm oil ponds -- haven't got those 
> covered yet -- produce a magnificent anaerobic compost -- the compost adds 
> significant value where organic fertilization is useful.
>
> There is still the old problem -- I live in the semi-tropics and most of 
> the list reference their experience from -- the 'use-to-be' -- frigid 
> north.  A covered pond may be slow in the north, but the such systems can 
> be treated as landfills -- with recirculation of biofluid.
>
> Best, Dick Glick
> www.CorpFutRes.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> To: "Dick Glick" <dglickd at pipeline.com>; <MMBTUPR at aol.com>; 
> <redlerm at yahoo.com>; <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 2:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] which one is better
>
>
>> Dear Dick
>>
>> Could you pleaser outline a process for attaining methane from spruce, 
>> fir and White Birch wood chips, in an area where there is relatively 
>> little agricultural or nitrogenous waste?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Dick Glick" <dglickd at pipeline.com>
>> To: <MMBTUPR at aol.com>; <redlerm at yahoo.com>; 
>> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:45 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] which one is better
>>
>>
>>> Hello All --
>>>
>>> Gasification is, possibly, a 'small scale' use of biomass -- biomass 
>>> should
>>> not be burned -- when separated, biomass waste should be made into 
>>> compost
>>> and fertilizer (see, for example, 
>>> http://www.rain.org/~sals/ingham.html)--
>>> when biomass is obtained from a single agricultural source --  
>>> methanogenic
>>> anaerobic fermentation -- is the only answer.  At least that's the 
>>> opinion
>>> from this corner -- whatever the scale -- small or country-wide.
>>>
>>> Best, Dick Glick
>>> www.CorpFutRes.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: <MMBTUPR at aol.com>
>>> To: <redlerm at yahoo.com>; <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:17 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] which one is better
>>>
>>>
>>>>               to    Gasification               from    Lewis L Smith
>>>>
>>>> We should consider a broader range of options for the use of biomass,
>>>> including at least the following ---
>>>>
>>>> •     Undensified feedstock > boiler > steam turbine > kWe or CHP
>>>>
>>>> •     Densified feedstock > boiler > steam turbine.
>>>>
>>>> •     Densified feedstock > cofiring with coal [or something else].
>>>>
>>>> •     Gasification > blending with pipeline natural gas.
>>>>
>>>> •     Gasification > boiler > steam turbine
>>>>
>>>> •     Gasification > gas turbine > kWe [with or without waste heat
>>>> boiler].
>>>>
>>>> •     Gasification > IC engine > kWe or CHP
>>>>
>>>> Cordially. End of message.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gasification mailing list
>>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
>>>> http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gasification mailing list
>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
>>> http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification
>>
>