G4 Insights Inc. - Renewable natural gas from biomass

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Edson Ng on October 14, 2009 at 5:08pm

I would like to thank everyone who downloaded the G4 presentation. I trust the information was useful and please feel free to post comments or contact me if you require more information. Apparently the link did not work reliably so just drop me an email and I will send it directly to you. Thanks.

Edson
edson@g4insights.com

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Johnny on November 11, 2009 at 10:31am

Have you actually demonstated the process? The presentation you provided seems to be more conceptual in nature than a report on actual demonstration-scale performance.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Edson Ng on November 12, 2009 at 12:54pm

Hi Johnny,

The G4 process is a variation on fast pyrolysis which is a well established approach for conversion of biomass to fuels and chemicals for over 25 years. Do a web search on "fast pyrolysis" to see activity in the area. Most fast pyrolysis efforts have been focused on production of hydrogen, syngas (mix of H2 and CO), or liquid fuels and chemicals. G4's primary focus is the production of methane gas.

We have confirmed our process in the lab and currently working on a demonstration unit. Under the current plan, we are about 3-5 years away from the first commercial scale plant.

Sorry for the lack of details in the presentation. The presentation was prepared for G4's first public disclosure of its bio-natural gas technology at the International Energy Agency conference. Details were limited due to time constraints and the non-confidential content intended for a general audience. We will keep the board updated as we make further progress and I will do my best to answer any questions posted here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Johnny on November 27, 2009 at 6:45am

WOuld you be prepared to share some performance data with us? If the process is such an advance as you are saying you are probably quite keen to tell people about what it can do. If you've had it validated in the lab I suppose you have data available that shows something about carbon efficiencies and also, very importantly, catalyst lifetime. I've been doing a bit of research (I'm a bit of a hobbyist) about similar processes since we last spoke on here and it appears that catalyst life could be a problem. That will most likely impact process economics adversely, depending on the cost of catalyst used (I presume the catalyst is nickel based, which, as you stated in your reply to Neil, is not exotic, but it's also not free...).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Edson Ng on November 27, 2009 at 12:18pm

Hi Johnny,

We have shared details with strategic partners and potential investors but unfortunately are not prepared to disclose details in this forum. We expect to release technical papers and presentations through industry publications and conferences over the next few years. I will keep the board informed on new information as they become available. Catalyst life is one of many considerations in the G4 process and has been taken into account. Nitrogen and oxygen are not expected to be an issue as the pyrolysis process is done in the absence of air. Please define carbon efficiency for me. The G4 process is carbon neutral and has an energy efficiency of greater than 70% as defined by heating value of the product gas divided by heating value of the biomass feed. Additional energy requirements for pumps, compressors, motors etc. are minimal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by neil cox on November 13, 2009 at 6:04am

Syngas does solve the problem of what to do with the oxygen in the cellulose and moisture content of the biomass = It becomes carbon monoxide = CO. CO is a feed stock for certain other biofuel methods = alcohol?, So it does have local value = we would not want to ship large quantities of CO because it can be fatal at one part in 10,000 in breathing air.
Does G4 convert other components of wood (besides cellulose) to methane or something useful? Can G4 be adapted to tree leaves? Any chance you can make a tiny system available for private homes to make fuel from yard leaves and twigs. I could likely get 100 pounds per week with some input from nearby neighbors, year around as half the trees in Florida shed leaves and twigs every month of the year. Is it practal to inject small quantities of methane or hydrogen into a propane or butane tank? I presume the burner would get only a litle propane until most of the methane was burned..
I hope platinum is a minor G4 catalyst as the world supply of platinum is already stressed. Neil

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Edson Ng on November 13, 2009 at 12:02pm

Hi Neil,

The G4 focus is large scale, economic production of renewable natural gas. We do not seek or require secondary products to make the process commercially viable. The G4 process is designed for cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin feedstock. It can also use all parts of the tree including needles, leaves, bark, and roots. However, there are limits on what should be collected due to sustainable forestry management practices. The smallest commercial plant we are planning at this stage is 400 GJ/day which is suitable for remote communities or campus/institution applications. For residential biomass, it may be more economic and practical to collect the tree trimmings and process centrally along with city tree trimmings and clean construction wood waste. The G4 process is not dependent on exotic catalysts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by neil cox on November 13, 2009 at 7:24pm

Why did you specify clean construction wood waste? It does not appear that 1% paint, varnish, plastics nor steel would interfere much, but several percent drywall, plaster, shingles, paper, dirt, cement rubble or carpet might.
Collecting yard waste to central processing may double the cost of the methane produced and is considerable effort for the home owner. In theory the home owner can make methane or other fuel for little extra effort, and some home owners would regard their labor as free, even if the yield was only one gallon per week, gasoline equivelent. There may also be significant waste heat that could preheat the home hot water supply. Neil

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Edson Ng on November 13, 2009 at 11:17pm

Hi Neil,

I can only speak for the G4 process. We are concentrating on forestry residue at this point as the market opportunity is already very large at $40 billion/year in potential renewable natural gas sales. Additional feedstocks including contaminated construction waste and agriculture residues could be considered later. I specified clean construction wood waste because it is identical to forestry residue as far as the G4 process is concerned. Methane containing gas could be made economically on a small scale for home use but the gas would not be pipeline grade natural gas which is the G4 objective.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by neil cox on November 14, 2009 at 6:59am

I can guess some impurities that need to be removed: nitrogen and oxygen from the air that went into the reactor with the feedstock = it would be moderately costly to pump the reactor to high vacuum to remove the air, besides you likely want to do continuous feed instead of batch production. Methanol = methyl alcohol = wood alcohol which is produced by the destructive distillation of wood. Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide and water vapor plus trace amounts of hundreds of chemicals including dioxin which is dangerous even at one part per billion. Some application is likely injured by even trace amounts of any chemical not found in similar ratios to natural gas from the ground. I do realize that natural gas varies in composition and needs some purifying to meet pipe line standards. Neil

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DubleDeuce on November 28, 2009 at 9:13pm

I GOTTA ask this question? WHY would we (the US Govmt) fund research into a product that we already have in abundance? And MORE on the way.

Also, I would like to ask the author of this article to give pertinent data on the AMOUNT of heat energy needed to produce this bio-natural gas. It serves no purpose to go through compound chemical gyrations to get to a product that is more expensive than it ought to be. Each transformation is heat intensive and the downstream product always carries less available btu's.

Cellulosic bio fuel (from switch grass)in a liquid form is far more desirable a product if only from its NET NET btu thru put.

Although I am pro CNG, natural gas from ANY source is inherently difficult to transport, store, and use. What is the point of this hydro pyrolysis exercise?

The Deuceman

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Edson Ng on November 30, 2009 at 1:43pm

Hi DubleDeuce,

You have raised some very valid points and frankly, we asked ourselves similar questions from the outset. Fossil natural gas is indeed cheap and plentiful but it is not renewable. The argument for renewable natural gas is similar to that for renewable electric power. There is plenty of cheap electric power from coal but society still wants renewable electricity even if it costs more. G4 is addressing both the demand for renewable natural gas and the demand for renewable electric power.

The G4 process has net energy efficiency of over 70% including all energy inputs required for the process. We believe this is substantially better than other technologies including biomass to liquid fuels such as ethanol. The following July 2009 report from NREL suggests net energy efficiency of bio-ethanol to be at about 39% (see overall plant efficiency on page 119) http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/45913.pdf

Switch grass is a potential feed stock for the G4 process but we are concentrating on forestry biomass initially because there is a supply of 350 million tonnes per year available now.

Regarding “natural gas from ANY source is inherently difficult to transport, store, and use”, the energy market is extremely competitive but natural gas along with all its production, transportation, storage, and usage challenges has proven itself to be competitive enough to capture 23% of the world energy market and its market share is growing. Regarding CNG specifically, it is very competitive with other transportation fuels although the infrastructure is less developed in North America. G4 supports natural gas as a transportation fuel but it doesn’t have any direct influence on the market other than the supply of renewable natural gas. Thomas Blakeslee has a nice summary of the advantages of natural gas as an energy carrier: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/10/biomet...

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page