Big Wind Biochar Dump Load Regulation

Comment

Comment by Eric Koch on June 23, 2009 at 10:23pm

very interesting...

i followed the fist link around to find a process chart...and was happy to see carbon being sequestered into an aggregate product...this could quickly make headway in the construction industry under cap and trade to offset CO^2 released during the curring of the very concrete it's used in.

and since the facility can both source and sink power it can automatically use power when it's abundant and supply power when it's scarce...taming otherwise quirky renewable sources into reliable over all net power gains.

Comment by James Tracy on June 23, 2009 at 6:20pm

I know it is an arc plasma, http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/
As the the exact way they are using the solids, it can be used as roadway material, or blown into insulation. Here is another company - http://www.plasmaarctech.com/technology.html.

Comment by Eric Koch on June 23, 2009 at 4:43pm

ok..i'm back.

question for James..is that plant in Ottawa plasma arc bio-char? if not, how would you classify the remnants of the process?

Comment by Robert Schultz on June 23, 2009 at 4:19pm

Larry, the biorefinery complex situated on a rail and highway hub for transport of materials from the immediate area could work well for many areas. We have been a central hub for Eastern Washington, Idaho, and Montana shipping goods by rail, or to the Columbia River and the Pacific Coast, since settlers came to this region. I have been reading about the smaller biochar sites for cleaning up the logging sites, and biofuel refineries near corn and sugar cane growers. Like you said, we want to build cooperative efforts, feeding to the next level in the process. I was thinking that rural communities would have more plant materials, and more uses for soil amendment processing, while urban areas may be converting trash materials to black glass usable for paving, and reclaiming recycled metals. Does that sound like a reasonable way for the processes to be targeted to their locality?

Comment by Larry M. Aden on June 23, 2009 at 3:11pm

Robert, the Holy Grail in this would be to design one biorefinery complex capable of processing urban residential trash and sewage, livestock manures, all types of industrial wastes, agricultural and forestry refuse, and biomass or other biofuel crops with any one of the various technologies appropriate to achieve maximum utilization of each resource.
Pyrolysis is essentially most suitable for processing low-level plant resins locked up in any dry lignocellulose matrix (which, BTW, are the major portions of what is fossilized in coal) that might be available within the immediate geographical area of the processing plant.
All of this lignocellulose is high mass and low value, so it does not pay to ship it very far.
Neither would it pay to build separate plants for each different feedstock source when there would be so much redundancy in all of those plants, moreover, this would only require hauling each feedstock from a larger radius area to achieve a profitable economy of scale in each plant.
This, our current unsustainable development model, also necessitates that more workers put on more miles to get back and forth to work at these large haphazardly-scattered plants.
The biorefinery concept was actually initially developed at Iowa State University.
They envision each biorefinery complex as being made up of many separate businesses, each feeding their products and by-products as feedstock to the next one up the line. Separate entities, however, would leave too many important decisions, especially on proper economy of scale, to the first processing company on the scene.
I would prefer to see them built as local open-membership cooperatives.
Each community having their own centrally-located biorefinery, sized to their local market, democratically-controlled by local members, and employing local labor is a more sustainable model.

Comment by James Tracy on June 23, 2009 at 1:49pm

Well Ottawa is building a trash plasmafication plant right now.
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1872/74/
And there is a big difference in burning and plasmafication.

Comment by Eric Koch on June 23, 2009 at 12:49pm

The bar is set pretty low here indeed....as Erich stated we must move into a post combustion era...bio char is part of that solution.

plasmafication technologies definitely can sink power as well as source components for power generation (as can Char)....that's the keynote here...power regulation of renewable sources can simultaneously provide varied resources and benefits....wile char excels at providing specific rudiments to our existence(carbon sequestration,soil amendments), plasmafication could provide flexible regulation processes to fill in any number of needs....James and I touched on this in another group on PP some time ago now.


the explosion of activity is nice...feel free to carry on...but i really have to pull out for awhile and get back to work.

Comment by Robert Schultz on June 23, 2009 at 11:48am

BTW, here is the cost data for Spokane, WA Waste to Energy Plant which began operations in 1991. Waste is burned to ash and dumped in a landfill in a nearby county.

Expenses and Revenues for 2006:
Cost of Operation $14.8 million ($53 per ton)
Cost of Ash Disposal $4.1 million ($46 per ton)
Cost of Debt $10.2 million
TOTAL COSTS $30.1 million
Electricity Revenue $12.1 million
Materials Recovery $0.1 million
NET COST OF OPERATIONS $17.9 million ($66 per ton)


http://spokanewastetoenergy.com/WastetoEnergy.htm

Wheelabrator claims the plan was to run at 200% profit for 20 years. That must be how much profit they are making from the City of Spokane.

The bar is set pretty low here. Plasma/Biomass conversion facility should have much better potential for useable products, energy generation, and reduction of emissions.

Comment by Robert Schultz on June 23, 2009 at 11:13am

Ok, thanks again. I'm thinking about how the different biomass projects fit together or compete for resources. There are several projects using forest scraps from clearing brush to reduce fire hazard, or logging. Agriculture has several crops that produce stalks or unused biomass that can be used to generate fuels and biochar. I suppose it will come down to costs and economics of the different processes, working with segregated materials may be easier for recycling after plasmafication. Your reduced power 1kW plasma process will definitely be more economical than 100kW to 100MW processes.

Comment by James Tracy on June 23, 2009 at 10:50am

Yes to both questions. The solids would be shaken and centrifuged, which would stratafy the elements by their weights, light (biocarbon) ontop, with the heaviest on bottom. Also the plasma makes Nitrous oxide, and ozone, which would add to proper combustion, and the heat from the plasmafication could be used mechanically or to make electricity.

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last