r.e. [Gasification] Synergism - Methanol

[Mark & Elena Gallmeier]

Dear Kermit,

>>Does anyone have any ideas as to how liquid fuel could be made in a 
>>basement?<<

Yes.  Methanol fuel alcohol from biomass can be made from small scaled 
processes, although the 'backyard' is safer than the 'basement'.

There is a continuum on the methanol line describing various levels of 
'efficiency' (so-called) of biomass - methanol synthesis.  The left end 
point is "Destructive Distillation" (anaerobic heating) of wood  in a retort 
followed by capture and condensation of the vapors.  Then comes secondary 
distillation to separate the methanol from water, acetic acid and other 
distillates. This is how methanol was made in the 19th Century. 
'Inefficient' and required lots of wood fuel.   For instance, my recycled 
water heater based charcoal retort could do this if I rerouted the piping, 
cooled the gasses to condense and capture the vapors and of course used more 
firewood to drive the process.

The right end point of the Efficiency line is anchored by connecting a large 
biomass gasifier to one of Methanex Corporation's existing large scale 
plants, substituting 'biomass' for the presently used natural gas feedstock 
and producing synthesis gas that way.  The remainder of the plant can 
operate as it does now.  This is 'Efficient' in the sense of maximum 
conversion of the biomass molecules into methanol.   It's also 'Efficient' 
in generating very large consulting and design fees and also dividends for 
people whose 'capital investment' consisted solely of printed pieces of 
green paper saying "Federal Reserve System".   It is however not deemed 
'Efficient' by these Powers in the context of their long term goals of 
perpetuating their profits and power.  I say this because there is -0- money 
in the federal budget for such large scale methanol plants.  And the current 
plant size will probably not be 'efficient' from the standpoint of biomass 
transportation and concentration.  There are also existing designs for 
smaller but still commerical scale biomass - methanol plants.  (And if 
anyone just won the Powerball lottery for several millions $ I can put you 
in contact with one group.)  (See post-script)

The Methanex Mega Solution appears quite 'inefficient' from the viewpoint of 
people with a) with megatons of biomass still rotting away all around them; 
b) who are (conceptually for the moment) handicapped by a shortage of Bureau 
of Printing and Engraving printed Federal Reserve green paper and c) also 
afflicted by $3/gallon gasoline and whatever the imminent  higher prices 
are.

So let's consider some mid points on the Methanol Efficiency line.  I 
instantly concede this will be of no interest to anyone seeking either high 
consulting fees or a high ROI to pay off interest and principal on monetary 
debt.   Maybe.  Still likely to be of huge interest to hundreds of thousands 
of other people.  So the high price consultants might consider designing, 
building and then documenting the step by step fabrication of a simplified 
prototype system.  These hundreds of thousands could be a large book market 
which will yield a large consulting fee in installments, rather than single 
check.   And President Bush has made it crystal clear litte if any grant 
money or tax subsidies will be forthcoming otherwise.   The official federal 
government target for biomass - methanol fuel production efficiency is 0%.

Methanol On A Small Scale:

The actual physical requirements are:

1.  Biomass gasifier.
2.  Gas cooling and filtration system.
3.  Catalyst synthesis unit.
4.  (Probable) Secondary distillation.

One can do this with 'producer gas' from a straight downdraft gasifier and 
using simplified copper catalysts.  One Homepower Magazine writer in the 
early 1990s used Chore Girl copper scrub pads packed into a copper tube 
coil.  This method is more 'efficient' than destructive distillation of 
wood, but less 'efficient' than converting a huge Methanex plant.  It's also 
vastly 'cheaper' since one can use low cost locally available components, 
and even free components.

>From this point we can start adding as many refinements as possible to raise 
'efficiency' and the methanol yield.    Fr a small 'local' size plant 
'possible' is circumscribed by 'cost' in terms of paper money. 
Cost-effectiveness is what we want.  Ruthlessly controlling these costs 
means staying inside the confines of readily available materials and 
components.  These are what are mass-produced and readily available without 
driving costs to unreachable heights by 'outsource', 'custom' etc.

>>The high temperatures and high pressures needed to make liquid fuel would 
>>be achievable if a simplified small lock hopper could be designed.<<

In considering methanol synthesis, local materials translates first to 
Schedule 40 & 80 steel pipe.    These can contain up to 10 atmospheres at 
elevated temperatures.   "Pressure piping" rated for steam boilers is also 
fairly widely available at a higher price, and is rated for higher pressures 
and temperatures than Schedule 40 & 80.  The lock hopper can be dispensed 
with if we operate the gasifier, cooler and filters at 1 atmosphere.   After 
cooling the gas to a reasonable temperature and then cleaning it we can use 
a modified shop compressor to raise the pressure to 125 psi - 150 psi, 
followed by heating to desired temperature.   Such a system will be more 
'efficient' yet, although still below the Biomass Methanex Gold Standard. 
>From here we can consider further enhancements yet, such as switching to 
pure oxygen for the gasifier thus yielding synthesis gas instead of producer 
gas.    Producing the oxygen is a related question since outsourcing will 
cost too much.  Small oxygen generators are available but still leave a 
large electric bill.  Electrolysis powered by a small biomass producer gas 
fueled genset is another real possiblity.

Regards,

Mark

ps  I immediately concede the optimum Efficient biomass methanol solution is 
3,000 to 5,000 'upscaled' county size biomass - methanol plants.  And 
designs for these and groups ready to build them already exist.  The problem 
is attracting sufficient monetary capital.  In other words, 'education'. 
Unfortunately the federal government has made it crystal clear it will not 
support any education in this field.  Were methanol to be demonstrated on a 
very small scale via 10,000 micro-plants of admittedly lower inefficiency, 
then the 'educational problem' for investors and state/local officials for 
the 'Efficient' county sized plants would be solved.   The federal 
government currently propagates the false concept that making alcohol fuel 
from
inedible plant matter ("cellulosics") remains a technical problem.

I think an analogy with the personal computer is appropriate.  The mainframe 
computer long predated the PC.   IBM as a total organization couldn't take 
the PC seriously from the mid 70s until the mid 90s, when it almost entered 
corporate bankruptcy because of that attitude.  The PC division was always a 
step-child.  This was a common view among computer science specialists.  And 
the 'efficiency' gap between mainframes and PCs in the earliest years was 
especially pronounced.


Message: 2
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 09:41:59 -0500
From: "Kermit Schlansker" <kssustain at provide.net>
Subject: [Gasification] Synergism
To: "Gasification" <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <004201c67052$78a3aea0$2a4656d8 at CPQ28298264587>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

     Someone asked the question as to which process was better; biodigestion 
or gasification. My argument would be that both processes are essential. The 
overwhelming advantage of biodigestion over all other processes is that it 
is a cold process and preserves nitrogen in the effluent and solids. It also 
has the advantage that cellulose is the energy source.  I would think that 
sewage mixed with alfalfa or other hay in serial septic tanks would produce 
energy, fertilizer, and cleaner effluent Since it takes a lot of energy to 
produce nitrogen fertilizer this would be a great plus. .
       The advantage of gasification is that for dry cellulose the 
throughput for a gasifier is much greater than for a biodigester. In other 
words a stove is much smaller than a large digestion tank.
        My own thoughts about energy sustainability center around an 
apartment house that I call an Ecomindium. The Ecomindium would use many 
energy projects to support a lifestyle that could cause a reduction in 
energy consumption by as much as 90%. In the argument about bigger or 
smaller gasification installations the need for cogeneration and 
comanufacturing is so great that smaller ones must be put into production as 
heating systems. The improvement in overall efficiency is so great that it 
overpowers the thought that bigger is more efficient.
         One of the things needed is a process that can make liquid fuel in 
a small operation. Of course ethanol is such a process but it needs 
efficiency improvement. The high temperatures and high pressures needed to 
make liquid fuel would be achievable if a simplified small lock hopper could 
be designed. Does anyone have any ideas as to how liquid fuel could be made 
in a basement?
      My own efforts now center around my book, "Blueprint For 
Sustainability", the construction of a local Ecomindium, and the free piston 
engine that I am working on. None of these things are going well but all are 
extremely important. There seems to be no local support for an umbrella 
sustainability project. I only wish that the focus of the Ecomindium could 
bring the few people who have mechanical talent and care about the children 
together.

                              Kermit Schlansker