[Gasification] [Bioconversion] Conserve -- Run an Arc reformer now!!

[Daniel Chisholm]

(...taking a deep breath, and wading in now....)


On Thu, 2007-21-06 at 09:24 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:

> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/bioconversion_listserv.repp.org
> 
> Troll and opinions not welcomed -- but hard data based on valid refs
> welcomed -- no matter if it proves everything wrong and bad -- nut and
> bolts -- only!!

In my opinion, arc-powered gas generation would belong here and be a
directly on-topic item (it is a thermal gasification process), more so
than being a directly on-topic item for the bioconversion list (I take
"bioconversion" to suggest biological or enzymatic processes...?).

Peter, you talk of others being trolls and holding strong, politically
motivated opinions that are out of touch with reality and not backed by
hard science.

I will ever-so-gently suggest that you are a chief offender in this
category.  I have never seen you reply positively when someone offers a
comment or has a question on one of your ideas, if those
questions/comments seem at all "difficult" or "negative" to your idea -
you seem to take criticisms of your ideas as personal criticisms of you.
It does take a bit of a thick skin to practice science, as most on this
list realize (!), and to accept constructive criticism.  No matter how
interesting or slick one of our ideas might be, if we don't conform to
reality, we are hucksters and no more.  Which is why there is (rightly!)
a certain hostility here to perpetual motion machines, ignorance of
Carnot's law, etc.


For example, with respect to derating engines and operating them at low
RPM and low loads, Kevin has pointed out numerous times that standard
engineering experience suggests that this a region of very poor SFC
(specific fuel consumption).  You have never responded to this in a
constructive manner, or accepted it as the friendly advice it surely
must have been intended as, even when he has pointed out what he is
saying, why he is saying that, and a whole number of ways by which you
could establish that you are right and he is mistaken (e.g.: graphs in
the engine's manual; online sources of test reports; or actual running
tests that you could do yourself, measuring fuel burn and energy
output).


Another example, I pointed out that while arc reforming works (it *does*
produce CO+H2), it was my judgement that it would result in a net loss
of high grade energy.  I pointed out that the chief parameter needed to
prove me wrong would be the figure you have frequently cited without
attribution of 1 unit of arc energy producing 4 to 10 units of gas
energy.  In spite of me asking you (Mon-18-June) to either show me how
this would be possible, or to show me an example of someone making such
a claim, you have not done so.  I offered you an honestly given opinion
of why electric arc energy is a poor choice for a thermochemical
conversion process (to restate: using high-order expensive energy for a
thermal use).  You might not have liked or appreciated my comment, but
you never directly answered or confronted my objection.  My objection
was *not* a personal one ("it's one of Peter's ideas, and I don't like
his politics, therefore I'm going to oppose his ideas"), it was a
technical one (1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and all that).


Perhaps you can understand why to me it seems that it is *YOU* who are
being a bit of a troll and opinion-monger, and it is *YOU* who are not
supplying "hard data based on valid refs".


> Doug -- if you want to know more about the Chinese gasifiers -- get Kevin
> to get his in operation!!

I thought Kevin has already reported on this list that he has run his
Chinese gasifier several times?


> And Doug -- what do you think of those small O2 PSA units??
> 
> Would that -- or would that not -- turn a micro sized Chinese stove
> gasifier into a syngas producer of good quality -- sufficient for the
> syngas/ethanol fermentation route??

No, I don't expect they would.  Run your Chinese gasifier, and you will
discover a few things about its design (I haven't done this myself, but
I have spoken to someone who has operated one, done some modifications,
and put a fair bit of thought into what is going on in it, what can be
expected of it, and how it might perhaps be modified into something more
useful):

- the thermal conductivity of the refractory in the throat
- the kinds of fuels it can gasify, and within what constraints (tar
production, ash formation and handling, etc)
- it's controllability and regulation properties (hint: a stratified
gasifier does not self-stabilizing the flame front like an Imbert (which
has nozzles) does)
- how this affects operation (CO/H2/tar ratios), and acceptable fuel
parameters (volatility, m.c., etc).


Before even considering practical issues to solve in order to make this
work, one ought to ask higher-level questions:
- how much might this cost?
- what is the value of the products I am proposing to make?
- even if I can do this, is it worthwhile?


> And by the way -- electric arc reforming is very specific to:

> Can anyone cross check my Gonjo math!!
> 
> Is this a potential area of interest or is it dead in bed?
> 
> AJH makes an opinioned statement -- ergo -- it is to energy intensive --
> don;t even think on it.
> 
> I present some Gonjo math saying much different --

I have no idea what "Gonjo" math is.  FWIW I have not seen you use any
math here on the list.

More than one person has offered sound engineering judgement on this
subject.  Perhaps because it is contrary to your desire to see arc
reformation be feasible, or perhaps because of the identity of the
people offering the advice, you have not placed credence on this advice.
That is a political, emotional, and unscientific response.



> I have noted of late that everything now is based on opinion -- no one
> researches anything --
> 
> http://www.power-rec.com/ 
> 
> This is what started all of this -- the Noah project -- everyone knee
> jerking -- it is a fraud -- it can't be!!
>
> I did some fast research -- hey -- maybe this is worth a "valid" look-see??

That web site has, at a bare minimum, technological incompetence and
sloppy copy writing written all over it.

But having successfully seen through a number of techno-scams before, I
will share with all here two rules of thumb I have found to be quite
useful:

- if any company is looking for investors/money, and its press releases
include figures that violate the 1st law of Thermodynamics (i.e. get
more energy out than you put in), the probability of it being a scam is
95%.  I give them a 5% margin for honesty because it is always possible
for simple honest mistakes to be the explanation.

- but if a company's press release ever includes figures that violate
the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the probability of it being a scam
immediately increases to 99.44%.



> As for finding the power to invest into the Arc --
> 
> Well -- if you set one of these systems up to produce syngas for the
> syngas/ethanol fermentation route -- waste heat alone might be sufficient
> to make enough "steam" to produce a fair part of the arc power required??

Why not run some numbers for us and convince us - perhaps we can see the
"Gonjo Math"?

Process questions like this are best addressed by running (or even just
qualitatively imagining) mass/energy balances fairly early on.
Engineering experience and intuition can very quickly screen/triage
ideas at this stage.  Later on, more detailed and precise calcs can be
done if necessary - but there's no need for precision if the process has
an internal imbalance that is unfavourable by a factor of 5X, for
example.


> The balance being made up by burning ethanol in a smaller genset --
> 
> And remember -- this can be done using battery packs augmented by multiple
> charging sources - -ergo -- steam -- ethanol IC -- windmills -- solar
> panels -- partial combustion producer gasifier --
> 
> Or -- waste heat to steam augmented by combustion of a small part of the
> same biomasses heating that boiler??
> 
> Why all this "bother"??
> 
> Because from the research I have done to now -- I have never seen a more
> efficient way of producing syngas from any biomass -- or hydrocarbon (waste
> tires as example) -- period -- and so simple to implement!!

It is *NOT* efficient, given the data that you have presented us, and
standard engineering knowledge.

If you were to show us that the output gas has 4X-10X the energy that
goes into the arc, then it would be worthwhile to discuss further.
Until then, you are asking us to disbelieve standard engineering
judgement and intuition, and accept without any authority a fundamental
assumption that this process produces gas with 4X-10X the energy of the
arc.


> Certainly -- this solves what to do with used car tires in the 3rd world!!
> 
> Question -- which I shall prove today with my DC welder -- does a car tire
> conduct sufficient electricity to maintain an arc??
> 
> OK -- we validate or not the arc reformer -- then move on??

It is a waste of time to talk about whether you'll generate an arc using
a carbon or tungsten or tire-derived electrode, or whether the power
will come from a DC PM generator or battery bank, or whether you will
burn the syngas in an I.C.E. or use it as a chemical feedstock, or where
and how waste heat could be recycled within the process, *UNLESS AND
UNTIL* you answer the fundamental question, which is:

- does production of syngas from an electrical arc result in a process
that is energetically (and entropically) feasible?

If the answer to that is "no", then equipment details are irrelevant,
because the process will inherently be a loser.  If the answer is "yes",
then it is certainly worthwhile to figure out an optimal implementation
of the process.


> Look -- it just could be that simple -- 
> 
> noah says it can do this with Chicken Poop -- everyone opines that is
> impossible -- I look at it with eyes open -- and -- it is not impossible!!

Noah says:

http://www.power-rec.com/
> This particular Noah™ unit accepts 80 pounds of chicken litter or
> other biomass per hour and thermo-chemically converts it to
> approximately 1,000,000 British Thermal Units (BTUs) per hour of cool,
> clean-burning fuel gas and approximately 10 pounds per hour of dry
> mineral ash, producing essentially no other solid, liquid, or gaseous
> waste.

You tell me: 80 pounds of biomass --> 1000000BTU.  Possible, or
impossible?  Show me the Gonjo math.

(Hint: this is strictly a 1st law question, i.e. conservation of
energy).


-- 
- Daniel
Fredericton, NB  Canada