Electricity from Wood (WSJ 12-2-93)
Jim Hurst
I came across an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal
today, 12-2-93, which is summarized below. There's nothing
like the real thing, interested people are advised to rush out
and read the original, as always. My comments are in [].
Cheers,
JimH
Headlines:
"Electric Utilities Study an Old, New Source of Fuel: Firewood"
Fast-Growing 'Super Trees' Burn Clean, May Outstrip Solar
Panels, Windmills.
From Sprig to 15 Feet in a Year.
Begin Summary:
New York State Electric & Gas Corp. is burning old telephone poles and
railroad ties, grinding them to chips and mixing them with coal, which
has cut sulfur emissions in half. But demand is outstripping supply
for industrial and sawmill waste.
Looking for new supplies, utilities are planning to grow their wood on
a large scale, ie, millions of acres of fast growing hybrids of various
species.
John Ferrell, DOE wood researcher, predicts supertree projects will
take 15% of the $60 B electric power fuel market within 20 years.
It's cheaper than wind or solar PV, not so air-fouling as fossil fuels,
[recall that using wood in this matter is effectively carbon cycling,
so is CO2 neutral aside from the amount of carbon sequestered at once,
as far as I can tell. Am I missing subtleties here?]
and not so scary as nukes. Wood currently has ~1% market share. It's
stockpilable and renewable. NYS Electric is trying out a 100 acre plot
of willows at SUNY Syracuse that grew from 10 inch sprigs to 15 foot
trees in a year.
Utilities, independent power producers, & self-sufficient manufacturers
have invested $10 B since 1980, 40% more than the combined total for
solar and wind. Some 1,050 wood-burning plants are up and running,
most with only enough juice to power a factory or office building. But
DOE says their combined output is equivalent to 3 large nukes.
Burning wood has an image problem as a producer of black smoke. The new
plants use high temp techniques, boilers that concentrate heat by
controlling O2 and fuel, with catalytic converters to clean gases and
electrostatic filters that grab most particulates. There is still
smoke, but it is reportedly grayish white and mostly steam. The fast
growing trees are relatively clean-burning to begin with, without the
toxics that wood scrap may contain: paint, volatile organics, or
metals. The hardwoods also burn cleaner than conifers [the sap is
water, not turpentine style VOC goo].
These little wood-burners draw praise from operators: less acid in the
flue gas, so easier on boiler tubes, less maintenance, more fun.
Example: 46 megawatts (~50K homes) from Washington Water & Power, in
Kettle Falls, WA.
Wood looks attractive relative to wind and solar. Solar PV is stalled
by high purchase and maintenance costs, wood is 1/3 the price. Mobil
is trying to sell it's solar R & D data and equipment after 19 years and
$100M. Mobil spokesperson says Mobil doesn't see utilities making
large scale use of solar energy "for some years."
Wind is facing a backlash from bird kills and viewshed impact.
[Hey, I think they're kinda cute. A few thousand big windmills would
definitely spruce up the Midwest. Anyway...]
Wood is winning acceptance and investment from unlikely sources.
Westinghouse Electric, once the largest builder of nukes, is in
negotiations to build a more efficient wood burner that uses
gasification. Frank Bevc, Westinhouse spokes, says, "In the future,
we're as likely to be a high-tech wood company as a nuclear plant
builder."
[!!!]
Replacing nukes offers the best potential for woodburners. Economic
problems from high maintenance costs have closed 15 nukes with a
supposed 40-year life cycle after an average dozen years. DOE folks
say privately that 25% of the remaining ones may retire in the
next decade.
Worries of denuded forests eliminated wood as an industrial fuel in the
late 60s. Trees emit carbon but less than coal, say environmentalists.
DOE says O2 produced more than makes up for it.
[Duh, isn't it consumed right back at combustion time?]
DOE budget for wood planting and high tech burning triples to $50M
since 1990. Clinton promises more support for it in his energy plan.
Woodburners are played down by utility press releases, and referred
to as "biomass" even though 88% of biomass is wood. This is partly a
PR thing, says EPRI spokes, wood just doesn't sound scientific enough.
A MN farmer planted 80 acres of cloned one inch poplar seedlings two
years ago and now has 10 foot trees, and hopes there's a market. USDA
and utilities are planning 1000 acres with 25 farmers next spring.
Utilities in MN are hoping to develop a way to burn 6 foot lengths,
to skip the expensive grinding step. This would look attractive to
utilities that have to pulverize coal chunk at a time.
Audubon Society says with concern, that to replace 1/2 of US nukes
would require 40 million acres of trees, or 12% of current US cropland.
Audubon warns of upsetting natural diversity by taking over grasslands
and other ecosystems. Advocates contend that these are mere
landscaping challenges, and that native hybrids are being developed from
eucalyptus in FL [eucs, native? hmph, I doubt it], mesquites in TX,
sycamore in TN, maples in IL, poplars in WA, and willows in NY.
As important as height is ability to grow densely, crammed a foot apart.
Hybrids may be harvested yearly, and regen from roots. Current yield
is 9 tons/acre/annum, 10 years ago it was 5, natural yield is about 1,
says the SUNY researcher. NYS Electric is considering converting some
of their six coal soot-blowers to wood, so they can write a check to
local farmers instead of PA mines.
One researcher said he scoffed at the supertrees until a forester gave
him a twig to plant. "The thing grew to the rooftop in one year, and
here we are with big furnaces to fire. I thought, well, why not wood?"
Sol Lightman
]Headlines:
] Fast-Growing 'Super Trees' Burn Clean, May Outstrip Solar
] Panels, Windmills.
] From Sprig to 15 Feet in a Year.
]Begin Summary:
]New York State Electric & Gas Corp. is burning old telephone poles and
]railroad ties, grinding them to chips and mixing them with coal, which
]has cut sulfur emissions in half. But demand is outstripping supply
]for industrial and sawmill waste.
]Looking for new supplies, utilities are planning to grow their wood on
]a large scale, ie, millions of acres of fast growing hybrids of various
]species.
[...]
]Wood looks attractive relative to wind and solar. Solar PV is stalled
]by high purchase and maintenance costs, wood is 1/3 the price. Mobil
]is trying to sell it's solar R & D data and equipment after 19 years and
]$100M. Mobil spokesperson says Mobil doesn't see utilities making
]large scale use of solar energy "for some years."
]Wood is winning acceptance and investment from unlikely sources.
]Westinghouse Electric, once the largest builder of nukes, is in
]negotiations to build a more efficient wood burner that uses
]gasification. Frank Bevc, Westinhouse spokes, says, "In the future,
]we're as likely to be a high-tech wood company as a nuclear plant
]builder."
][!!!]
]DOE budget for wood planting and high tech burning triples to $50M
]since 1990. Clinton promises more support for it in his energy plan.
]Woodburners are played down by utility press releases, and referred
]to as "biomass" even though 88% of biomass is wood. This is partly a
]PR thing, says EPRI spokes, wood just doesn't sound scientific enough.
]Audubon Society says with concern, that to replace 1/2 of US nukes
]would require 40 million acres of trees, or 12% of current US cropland.
]Audubon warns of upsetting natural diversity by taking over grasslands
]and other ecosystems. Advocates contend that these are mere
]landscaping challenges, and that native hybrids are being developed from
]eucalyptus in FL [eucs, native? hmph, I doubt it], mesquites in TX,
]sycamore in TN, maples in IL, poplars in WA, and willows in NY.
]As important as height is ability to grow densely, crammed a foot apart.
]Hybrids may be harvested yearly, and regen from roots. Current yield
]is 9 tons/acre/annum, 10 years ago it was 5, natural yield is about 1,
]says the SUNY researcher. NYS Electric is considering converting some
]of their six coal soot-blowers to wood, so they can write a check to
]local farmers instead of PA mines.
Wow... why hasn't Westinghous donated anything to the Business Alliance
for Commerce in Hemp? Considering hemp is much easier on the soil
than trees, produces superior quality biomass, and has a natural yeild
four times that of trees, you'd think they would be very interested
in seeing it released for industrial use... maybe I should write them
a letter.
Just think of what all those plant freaks could do cloning a good old
c. sativa for height....
Brian
--
The University of Massachusetts at Amherst | _________,^-.
Cannabis Reform Coalition ( | ) ,>
S.A.O. Box #2 \|/ {
415 Student Union Building `-^-' ? )
UMASS, Amherst MA 01003 ver...@twain.ucs.umass.edu |____________ `--~ ;
\_,-__/
* To find out about our on-line library, mail a message with the
* pattern "{{{readme}}}" contained IN THE SUBJECT LINE.
* You will be mailed instructions; your message will be otherwise ignored
Gary Weimer (25430)
|>
|> I came across an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal
|> today, 12-2-93, which is summarized below.
|> Headlines:
|>
|> "Electric Utilities Study an Old, New Source of Fuel: Firewood"
|> From Sprig to 15 Feet in a Year.
|>
|> Begin Summary:
|> As important as height is ability to grow densely, crammed a foot apart.
|> Hybrids may be harvested yearly, and regen from roots. Current yield
|> is 9 tons/acre/annum, 10 years ago it was 5, natural yield is about 1,
|> says the SUNY researcher.
[Thanks for the typing, it was an interesting article.]
Mmm, regen'ng from the old roots...Is the root base pretty much maxing
out after 10 years? (1st year, small roots; next year, larger roots,
tree grows faster...) No mention about replacing soil nutrients...How
long till yield starts droping because the trees are root-bound and the
soil is robbed of all its nutrients? What do we do with all the ashes?
This certainly sounds better than coal, but how practical will it be on
a large-scale long-term?
--
Gary Weimer (wei...@pixel.kodak.com)
System Administrator
: Mmm, regen'ng from the old roots...Is the root base pretty much maxing
: out after 10 years? (1st year, small roots; next year, larger roots,
: tree grows faster...) No mention about replacing soil nutrients...How
: long till yield starts droping because the trees are root-bound and the
: soil is robbed of all its nutrients? What do we do with all the ashes?
: This certainly sounds better than coal, but how practical will it be on
: a large-scale long-term?
Poplar stands here tend to die off after 30-60 years. They don't
naturally grow at that 1/sq foot density, but thin themselves out.
But if you cut one down, watch out! Those roots are saying "Give
us some green!" and will set up shoots all over.
The ashes are necessary fertilizer that must be returned to the land.
Essentially you want to run the cycle removing only carbohydrates
While I can't say what the problem will be, historically agriculture has
had problems with long term mono-culture on a given piece of land.
In terms of numbers, an article appeared a long time ago in Sci. Amer.
on this topic. The authors concluded that in Tenessee a power plant
could raise trees for it's energy using the same amount of land that it
would strip mine to provide coal for the 40 year life. I think they
were looking at some variety of Pine, with a 5 year growth cycle.
Given the choice between intensive silvaculture and strip mining, I'd
opt for silvaculture. At least until we have the nuclear political
issues under control.
--
=> Sherwood Botsford sher...@space.ualberta.ca <=
=> University of Alberta Lab Manager, Space Physics Group <=
=> tel:403 492-3713 fax: 403 492-4256 <=
Jim Hurst
"supertrees," genetic hybrids designed to grow fast and tall.
Where can I buy some of these supertrees? Species doesn't matter
that much, price does, I'd like to get quantities hundred or more.
I'm willing to root twigs if they'll grow several feet a year.
Thanks!
I, Jim Hurst, wrote:
>NYS Electric is trying out a 100 acre plot
>of willows at SUNY Syracuse that grew from 10 inch sprigs to 15 foot
>trees in a year.
...
>A MN farmer planted 80 acres of cloned one inch poplar seedlings two
>years ago and now has 10 foot trees ...
[... supertreee species used include]
>eucalyptus in FL [eucs, native? hmph, I doubt it], mesquites in TX,
>sycamore in TN, maples in IL, poplars in WA, and willows in NY.
>
>As important as height is ability to grow densely, crammed a foot apart.
>Hybrids may be harvested yearly, and regen from roots. Current yield
>is 9 tons/acre/annum, 10 years ago it was 5, natural yield is about 1,
>says the SUNY researcher.
>
E. Michael Smith
>[recall that using wood in this matter is effectively carbon cycling,
>so is CO2 neutral aside from the amount of carbon sequestered at once,
>as far as I can tell. Am I missing subtleties here?]
Soil.
If done "wrong", you get CO2 emissions from decomposition of 'stuff'
that was in the soil. If done "right" you get more 'stuff' building
up in the soil, ergo less CO2 in the air.
For example, if you add a standing stock of tree roots to the soil
that were not there before, you get sequestered additional CO2. But
if you STOP adding layers of natural 'mulch' to the soil and instead
accelerate the decomposion of historical forest litter, you can be
adding net CO2 to the air.
It IS also worth noting that if there is a 10 year harvest interval
for a given plot, you end up with a sequestration of carbon in 9
years of growth at any one time... (Think of 10 acres, one harvested
each year in rotation. At any one time there are 9 standing acres
of growth... in various stages. This is one heck of a chunck of carbon.)
For an annual harvest scheme this is less 'valuable' (not that I believe
in the CO2 scare...).
>Wind is facing a backlash from bird kills and viewshed impact.
"viewshed"? Viewshed? Give me a break ... What ever happened to
plain language? How about just 'and impact on views'? Or even
just 'and looks'? Or for those who just have to be trendy: 'and
esthetics'? There is no need to invent a bogus word like viewshed.
>[Hey, I think they're kinda cute. A few thousand big windmills would
>definitely spruce up the Midwest. Anyway...]
And is isn't exactly like Altamont Pass is a vision of beauty
in it's 'not a tree in sight, cut down 100 years ago, full of
Cows and imported grasses, with dirt roads cut in the hills' look.
The windmills are a BIG visual improvement to the 'viewshed', er, view.
>we're as likely to be a high-tech wood company as a nuclear plant
>builder."
>
>[!!!]
I'll say... what a statement!
>Worries of denuded forests eliminated wood as an industrial fuel in the
>late 60s. Trees emit carbon but less than coal, say environmentalists.
>DOE says O2 produced more than makes up for it.
>
> [Duh, isn't it consumed right back at combustion time?]
I donno... I think the O2 comes from breaking a water molecule,
not from the CO2, so the question is: Is the balance the same
despite the source? (I think it is, since if I'm remembering
my biology class from 20 years ago right, they had to resort to
radioisotopic tagging to find out which the O2 came from; which
implies that a simple physical mass measure was not enough...)
I think the O2 from the CO2 ends up in the sugars, starches,
cellulose, lignin, etc. of the tree. In which case, the question
is only how much of those end up as a permanent sequestration in
the soil rather than burned...
>Woodburners are played down by utility press releases, and referred
>to as "biomass" even though 88% of biomass is wood. This is partly a
>PR thing, says EPRI spokes, wood just doesn't sound scientific enough.
Also, when you say 'wood' folks think of pines, oaks, and LARGE trees.
Where the reality is more like an overgrown stand of saplings that
look like a thicket of grasses on steroids rather than a forrest...
As in this statement:
>As important as height is ability to grow densely, crammed a foot apart.
>Hybrids may be harvested yearly, and regen from roots. Current yield
>is 9 tons/acre/annum, 10 years ago it was 5, natural yield is about 1,
YIKES! Almost 10 tons/acre? Gosh, you could easily heat a home
on that... I think I see a future in the wood pellets business...
>One researcher said he scoffed at the supertrees until a forester gave
>him a twig to plant. "The thing grew to the rooftop in one year, and
>here we are with big furnaces to fire. I thought, well, why not wood?"
I had a similar experience... I planted a Poplar (Italica Theves)
in the yard. Sucker grew to about 8 inch diameter in 5 years or so
and was WAY over the house. Cut it down, it grew right back, faster.
I just wish I lived somewhere that let me use wood heat...
--
E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
genius, power and magic in it.' - Goethe
I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
E. Michael Smith
>In article <2dm7j8$3...@hpcan240.mentorg.com>, jhu...@renfield.mentorg.com (Jim Hurst) writes:
>|> I came across an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal
>|> today, 12-2-93, which is summarized below.
...
>Mmm, regen'ng from the old roots...Is the root base pretty much maxing
>out after 10 years? (1st year, small roots; next year, larger roots,
The process was used in ancient times to make poles. I think it
was called 'coppicing'. You cut off the tree and the stump sprouts
a bunch of fast growing stems that grow straight and fast. Makes
good poles. With the right kind of tree, the roots don't 'max out'.
>tree grows faster...) No mention about replacing soil nutrients...How
>long till yield starts droping because the trees are root-bound and the
>soil is robbed of all its nutrients? What do we do with all the ashes?
Per root bound: Depends on the species, I'd expect. Some Aspens
are really all just one tree under the ground. (I think there was
an article in Sci. Am.? on this just a while ago?) so you can get
hundreds of acres of what is really just 'one tree'. Doesn't get
root bound. For species where it is an issue, just plant them at
the right distance apart so that it isn't an issue... like any other
crop.
Nutrients: Most of the 'good stuff' is recycled by leaf drop and
sap withdrawl to the roots in winter. If harvested in summer, you
might need to use a bit more fertilizer. What to use? Well, you
will need a source of potash ... wood ashes work well for that.
What to do with the ashes? Find someone who needs potash ...
>This certainly sounds better than coal, but how practical will it be on
>a large-scale long-term?
Donno... But most anything is cleaner and nicer than strip mined coal.
I'll take {Eucalyptus, poplar, aspen, willow} groves all over the
land in preference to the {more or less sterile looking} grazing
lands in the bleakest parts of California... that used to be oak
groves long long ago ... We spent a couple of centuries cutting down
all the forrests in Europe and N. America, putting them back again
can't be all THAT bad ... even if they arn't quite a natural forrest...
Michael Moroney
>>Mmm, regen'ng from the old roots...Is the root base pretty much maxing
>>out after 10 years? (1st year, small roots; next year, larger roots,
>The process was used in ancient times to make poles. I think it
>was called 'coppicing'. You cut off the tree and the stump sprouts
>a bunch of fast growing stems that grow straight and fast. Makes
>good poles. With the right kind of tree, the roots don't 'max out'.
Willows and other trees are notorious for growing back from stumps.
Also my father has several American Chestnut trees,er,bushes. These
once were large trees but were killed off by the chestnut blight long
ago. The roots (which are unaffected) send up shoots which in a couple
years become 10-15' trees, they get diseased, my father cuts them down
and the cycle repeats, over and over. They'd probably be good for
biomass if not for the chestnut blight (or maybe even with it)
-Mike
Paul Dietz
> I donno... I think the O2 comes from breaking a water molecule,
> not from the CO2, so the question is: Is the balance the same
> despite the source?
Of course. Why should it matter which oxygen atom does what?
The flow of carbon is the important one.
>>Hybrids may be harvested yearly, and regen from roots. Current yield
>>is 9 tons/acre/annum, 10 years ago it was 5, natural yield is about 1,
>
>YIKES! Almost 10 tons/acre? Gosh, you could easily heat a home
>on that... I think I see a future in the wood pellets business...
I question whether they have actually achieved this. According
to M. Brower's book "Cool Energy" (1992):
At present achievable yields of about 5 to 15 dry tons per
hectare per year (t/ha/yr), the Department of Energy estimates
the cost of energy from [short rotation woody crops] (including
planting, harvesting, and transportation) to be about $3.25/GJ.
Ultimately researchers hope to double or triple this yield in
commercial plantations, to perhaps 25 t/ha/yr, bringing the cost
down to $2/GJ, roughly the current price of coal.
Since 25 t/ha/yr is 10 t/acre/yr, unless there has been great progress
in the last year or so it sounds like the article quoted an aspiration
rather than an achieved, commercial figure.
Brower does mention that herbaceous crops (sorghum, switchgrass, Napier
grass, and others) have "yields ... somewhat higher than SRWC yields,
commonly reaching 12 to 40 dry tons per hectare per year."
EPRI is looking into growing halophytes, salt-tolerant plants that
can be grown on degraded soils. Some of these can even be irrigated
with seawater. EPRI's interest in these is for sequestering carbon,
as halophytes can accumulate salt in their tissues, which could
interfere with their use as fuels.
Anyone interested in biomass for power generation should look at the
work being done on integrated biomass gasification for use with
combustion turbines.
Paul
Mark Robert Thorson
> for Commerce in Hemp? Considering hemp is much easier on the soil
> than trees, produces superior quality biomass, and has a natural yeild
> four times that of trees, you'd think they would be very interested
> in seeing it released for industrial use... maybe I should write them
> a letter.
If you do, be sure to enclose some seeds ....
But don't you think there would be a problem with volatile organic
compounds :-) That was cited as an advantage of hardwoods over conifers.
rjw9y
articles and reviewing them for a fellowship over the last 2 years. My
concerns are that GCM output is often used inappropriately. It is a
real problem when one uses GCM output to estimate the "potential impact
of global warming" on any system especially when a)precipitation
simulations are used b) results are interpolated to a finer spatial
grid scale. Most probably know why those are problems however if not
feel free to respond.
This observation is not what prompted me to write. Instead, I recently
had the oportunity to listen to S. Schneider talk about GCMs. He said
that because GCMs were parameterized after vast amounts of CO2 were
emitted so they cant be expected to correctly simulate climate to the
degree which would satisfy critics like myself. An article sent to
Nature and Science recently demonstrating the inaccuracy of GCMs to
capture the variation in global temperature (it involved Eigenvector
analysis) because one or more reviewers commented that it was unfair to
evaluate GCMs in that manner.
I dont get it. There are a myriad of articles (especially in Dr.
Schneider's jounal-Climatic change and even in Nature) were authors use
temp and pcp output for 2xCO2 runs and interpolate to a smaller scale
in order to relate, for example, how fish communities in lakes of the
Canadian Maritime Provinces will be affected in "the future".
If modellers dont want the output compared to observational data how
come they dont govern the use of their model output? Moreover, how in
the world do articles like these get past review?
I'm disillusioned by the obvious inconsistancies displayed here. Where
has scientific objectivity gone? beleive it or not it seems that Steve
Schneider's mentality of not bothering to seperate beliefs and bias
from scientific work (not an exact quote, i admit but not far) has
become widespread.
I feel the scientific literature has revealed that while GCMs have
their usefulness and are "state of the art", they are woefully
inadequate to predict either qualitative or quantitative climate change
estimates yet.
This is especially true in light of the extreme climate variations
exhibited in proxy climate data which has been published over the last
5 years or so.
Bob Wood
e-mail rj...@virginia.edu----------- i am a rational person interested
in rational responces not a political discussion, please.
Len Evens
the spelling or grammar of postings. It was suggested that we concentrate
on the substance of a posting rather than its form. However, on some
occasions, grammatical and other inadequacies make it very difficult,
if not impossible, for some of us to understand the substance. The
posting below is an example.
Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
Douglas A. Harrell
>
>has scientific objectivity gone? beleive it or not it seems that Steve
>Schneider's mentality of not bothering to seperate beliefs and bias
>from scientific work (not an exact quote, i admit but not far) has
>become widespread.
>
>
Scientific objectivity has fallen victim to several things. The laziness
and desire for instant gratification of the current MTV, Nintendo, and
McDonald's generation rank high, but in a field that is so much at the
political forefront, I believe that there are two more major factors.
The first is "political" or "environmental correctness". This is
what they are *supposed* to find in the data, so they find it. If the
modelling is poor, it doesn't matter, we all know it's the _truth_, so
just claim it is so. In the current climate (no pun intended), no reviewer
would dare say "wait a minute", lest he bring down the wrath of the green
groups who are funding him. Of course this is an exaggeration, but none-
theless, it's a case of biting the hand that feeds you.
The second major reason is the tabloid that the so-called news
media has become, especially with regard to anything "environmental".
I mean, hey, if "Journal of whatever, respectable" won't take your paper,
no problem! Just call CBS, 60 minutes will be glad to run your stuff as
"a disturbing new discovery of what's going to happen". You'll be famous,
rich, and will have a half dozen enviro-nazi groups falling all over
themselves to fund further "proof" of same.
If you don't believe me, just do some serious checking into
that huge story from a couple years back: The Agar Apple Scare.
Or just look at all the global warming stories that have been done in
the past several years, based on the very studies referred to in the
quoted article above. The sad truth is that the more sensational a
study is (and thus, probably poorly done), the more likely it is to
receive media attention.
To the author of the above article, I admire your courage and
your candor about this, but, depending on who is funding your fellowship,
you might want to start looking for new work. And don't count on CBS
to air your big story debunking global warming studies.
Sigh,
Doug
--
Douglas Alan Harrell
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
Internet: gt0...@prism.gatech.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Meade
I've seen myriad adds for biomass trees in popular ag magazines like Successful FArming, Wallaces Farmer, etc, but when I looked at the one handy, didn't find the ad. Sorry I'm not more help but that may be a start for you.
Jim
Chris Schaefer
These areas will be much more susceptible to various insects/diseases than
a traditional forest. Perhaps a more diverse system of fast-growing trees
can be found that would slow down the pests. I like the harvesting in
winter approach. Trees are basically in hibernation during winter, and
wouldn't get hurt nearly as much then as say in the late spring....
---=---==---===--===-===-====-=====-====-===-===--===---==---=---
This opinion is my own and may not reflect that of my employer!!!
"Campaigns to bearproof all garbage containers in wild areas have been
diffcult because as one biologist put it, 'There is a considerable overlap
between the intelligence levels of the smartest bears and the dumbest
tourists.'" - from someone else's signature -
Paul Dietz
>>Anyone interested in biomass for power generation should look at the
>>work being done on integrated biomass gasification for use with
>>combustion turbines.
>
>OK, where do I look? (Just wander on down to the card catalog and
>look under Biomass or under Gasification or ?
Well, go look at the last few years of the ASME Journal of Engineering
for Gas Turbines. Look also in the most recent Annual Review of
Energy and the Environment, which has an article on biomass energy. A
few years ago the same source had an article on aeroderivative gas
turbines with some discussion of their use with gasified biomass.
You might also want to go look at the Ullman or Kirk-Othmer
encyclopedias (of chemical engineering) under gasification or
synthesis gas; they have a discussion of the various different kinds
of gasifiers (mostly for coal).
Paul
E. Michael Smith
>In article <1993Dec4.0...@michael.apple.com> e...@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>
> > I donno... I think the O2 comes from breaking a water molecule,
> > not from the CO2, so the question is: Is the balance the same
> > despite the source?
>
>Of course. Why should it matter which oxygen atom does what?
>The flow of carbon is the important one.
Well, it might matter if you had to break down, say, 4 moles of water
to live, but only sequestered 1 mole of CO2 ... i.e. 'is the balance
the same'... I *THINK* there was a hard linkage between number of moles
of water and number of moles of CO2 consumed, but it has been too many
years for me to blindly make that assertion ;-)
I *THINK* that for one carbon sequestered, one mole of O is
released from water; so that when that one mole of C is burned, the
same mole of O is consumed. Reality might have it, though, that
the plant releases, in living, more moles of O2 than I remember as it
sequesters that C (and if the O2 comes from water, it is more reasonable
that it might do this...).
> >>Hybrids may be harvested yearly, and regen from roots. Current yield
> >>is 9 tons/acre/annum, 10 years ago it was 5, natural yield is about 1,
> >
> >YIKES! Almost 10 tons/acre? Gosh, you could easily heat a home
> >on that... I think I see a future in the wood pellets business...
>
>I question whether they have actually achieved this. According
>to M. Brower's book "Cool Energy" (1992):
>
> At present achievable yields of about 5 to 15 dry tons per
^^^^^^^^
> hectare per year (t/ha/yr), the Department of Energy estimates
> the cost of energy from [short rotation woody crops]
> Ultimately [...] hope [...] perhaps 25 t/ha/yr,
>
>Since 25 t/ha/yr is 10 t/acre/yr, unless there has been great progress
>in the last year or so it sounds like the article quoted an aspiration
>rather than an achieved, commercial figure.
Hmmm... Or maybe they were not quoting 'dry' tons... At any rate,
they were saying 9 tons. 15/ha is about 6/ac, so we are talking
about 6 vs 9. A 50% increase is alot, but possible (especially if wet...).
(I know, it would be 'cheating' to quote wet... but it's a possible...)
>Brower does mention that herbaceous crops (sorghum, switchgrass, Napier
>grass, and others) have "yields ... somewhat higher than SRWC yields,
>commonly reaching 12 to 40 dry tons per hectare per year."
40? YIKES indead! 16 tons/ac/year? Wonder how well it does in
pellets in pellet stoves...
>Anyone interested in biomass for power generation should look at the
>work being done on integrated biomass gasification for use with
>combustion turbines.
OK, where do I look? (Just wander on down to the card catalog and
look under Biomass or under Gasification or ?
--
Jim Hurst
>Gary Weimer (25430) (wei...@rangers.NoSubdomain.NoDomain) wrote:
>: Mmm, regen'ng from the old roots...Is the root base pretty much maxing
>: out after 10 years? (1st year, small roots; next year, larger roots,
>: tree grows faster...)
No details are given, but it presents some interesting questions.
With an established root base, is yield pushed up? The type and
fertility of the soil sounds critical, as in all sustainable
agriculture.
>The ashes are necessary fertilizer that must be returned to the land.
>Essentially you want to run the cycle removing only carbohydrates
Sounds correct. The effluent will be scrubbed, so hopefully most of the
non-carbonohydrates will be available for recycling.
>While I can't say what the problem will be, historically agriculture has
>had problems with long term mono-culture on a given piece of land.
I got some interesting email from a plant pathologist that said that
this sounded like full-employment security for plant pathologists.
The density of the planting presents problems with root rot, alleopathy,
leaf and canker diseases for starters. What about bugs and fertilizers?
He suggested it takes 3 - 10 years for pests to build up in an area,
then 30 years of research to figure out how to manage it.
These are not necessarily show stoppers: a given patch could include
different species, and/or a mix of genetic clones of a single species.
Since these are essentially short term crops (1-5 years?) a grower
could cut (literally) his losses when pest problems manifest, and start
over with different stock (although the question of how to cheaply dig
out 40,000 superstumps per acre is interesting. My intuition suggests
that once these trees get started, you're stuck with them unless you're
willing to dig them out, since cutting them down only encourages them).
-Jim
richard g. adair
>Someone complained recently that there were too many flames about
>the spelling or grammar of postings. It was suggested that we concentrate
>on the substance of a posting rather than its form. However, on some
>occasions, grammatical and other inadequacies make it very difficult,
>if not impossible, for some of us to understand the substance. The
>posting below is an example.
>
>In article <CHJ7J...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rj...@envsci.evsc.virginia.edu. (rjw9y) writes:
>>i have been reviewing the scientific jounals for cliamte change
>>articles and reviewing them for a fellowship over the last 2 years. My
I was the one who originally posted on this.
Sure, in cases where there is confusion, no problem. Ask for
specific clarifications, politely. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
The guidelines on this were written to discourage bashing and ridicule.
Further, NetNews is global in its membership, and so a certain amount
of language mangling is to be expected. However, to condemn somebody
for obvious slips of the fingers is neither productive nor fair. I was
prompted to post by this sort of flaming. Specifically, as the parting
shot of a thoroughly uncivil response, a poster was bashed for the
omission of an irrelevant apostrophe.
I urge you to read the NetNews guidelines, which I'm pretty sure
every NetNews facility maintains, on spelling and grammar flames.
rick adair
Don T. Borowski
in Washington Water Power's service area, so I guess I heat
with a wood-powered heat pump.
The article also stated that at the present rate of growth, that
within a decade wood would surpass wind and solar combined as
a source of electric generation.
The stuff about the process taking CO2 out the the atmosphere must
mean that some of the carbon is sequestered in the root system
of the trees (which isn't used).
The article also stated that in some cases, like with willows, the
trees need not be replanted after harvest, as they just regrow from
the roots.
Donald Borowski WA6OMI Hewlett-Packard, Spokane Division
"Angels are able to fly because they take themselves so lightly."
-G.K. Chesterton
Paul Dietz
> The article also stated that at the present rate of growth, that
> within a decade wood would surpass wind and solar combined as
> a source of electric generation.
No, I believe it said that biomass already surpasses wind and solar
combined. There is a great deal of capacity already installed (at
pulp mills, for example). This capacity could be expanded by
installation of more efficient gasifiers/turbines. Pulp industry
wastes alone could supply about 4% of the current US demand for
electricity.
Paul
Michael Tobis
|> e-mail rj...@virginia.edu----------- i am a rational person interested
^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^
sigh.
|> i am a rational person interested
|> in rational responces not a political discussion, please.
Then don't make slanted statements, please. For instance:
|> If modellers dont want the output compared to observational data how
|> come they dont govern the use of their model output? Moreover, how in
|> the world do articles like these get past review?
While I'm not one to claim that no drivel gets past peer review, the
statement that modellers don't "want" their output compared to observational
data misrepresents the situation badly.
The question is one of signal to noise ratio primarily. The current forcing
is relatively small compared to that which is to be expected in the near
future. The largest observed anomalies do in fact have a spatial pattern
consistent with that of the regions where most severe warming is expected.
Everything else is still well within the noise of natural variability, both
in observations and in interpolated model-derived sensitivities.
Whether the local climate studies, and studies of agricultural and ecological
impact in specific localities, are or are not premature is a good question
on the other hand. Nevertheless, people and critters live in particular
places, not in a global average climate, so the interest in this question is
understandable. The information gleaned is highly tentative and preliminary,
but surely making some effort to see which places are most vulnerable has
some value.
mt
John De Armond
>No, I believe it said that biomass already surpasses wind and solar
>combined. There is a great deal of capacity already installed (at
>pulp mills, for example). This capacity could be expanded by
>installation of more efficient gasifiers/turbines. Pulp industry
>wastes alone could supply about 4% of the current US demand for
>electricity.
I just 1 week ago last Sunday finished a project automating the power house
of a large pulp mill. Whomever is making the 4% claim is wildly
exaggerating. This mill, one of the largest kraft mills in the US,
burns every bit of wood scrap they can get their hands on. There are
two different rail spurs, each feeding a car upender. There are 6
semi truck tippers (devices that pick up the semi truck and dump its
contents). And there is a barge facility. There are 6 multi-fueled
power boilers and 2 recovery boilers that burn the waste stream from the
mill. Given all these sources, the plant still only generates about half its
electrical needs. And then they have to run at least 2 of the power boilers
on purchased fuel (gas, oil or coal) all the time. The plant consumes an
average of 90 MW and the turbine plant generates up to about 45 MW.
About 20% of the steam generated is used to make power, the remainder
being used for process steam. The turbines are non-condensing and serve
as pressure reducing stations, feeding their discharges into 65 and 35
psi steam headers. The boilers are equipped with "condensing stacks",
that is, the flue gas is cooled all the way down to ambient temperature
in order to recover valuable chemicals in the flue condensate. This
configuration is more or less the same as I have seen in other similarly
sized mills.
One of the major features of the control system we designed is real
time, on-line fuel costing that determines which boiler burns what fuel
in order to minimize cost. I submit that no amount of gassification/
gas turbine fiddling could significantly change the energy balance
at this plant. Essentially all the heat generated in the boilerhouse
is used either to generate electricity or as process heat. I really
have to wonder if whomever it is that makes these wild 4% claims has
even ever visited a modern paper mill. I suspect not.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC | For a free sample magazine, send
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | a digest-size 52 cent SASE
Marietta, Ga "Love America" | (Domestic) to PO Box 669728
j...@dixie.com "Hate its government" | Marietta, GA 30066
Email to me may be published at my sole discretion.
Paul Dietz
> I really
> have to wonder if whomever it is that makes these wild 4% claims has
> even ever visited a modern paper mill. I suspect not.
Well, here's the paper, so you can judge for yourself:
E. D. Larson "Biomass-Gasifier/Gas Turbine Cogeneration in the
Pulp and Paper Industry", Trans. of the ASME, J. of Eng. for Gas
Turbines and Power, October 1992, pages 665-675.
From the abstract:
"At an energy-efficient kraft pulp mill, a BIG/GT cogeneration
system could produce over three times as much electricity and
as is typically produced today. The mill's on-sit energy
needs could be met and a large surplus of electricity would be
available for export. Using in addition currently unutilized
forest residues for fuel, electricity production would be nearly
five times today's level."
Now, I could well believe that the "conventional" system against which
they are comparing is a straw man. Perhaps you could give us some
more information about the place you visited, for comparison (electricity
(kWh) and steam (GJ) needed to make a to make a tonne of air-dried
pulp and the efficiency of the boilers and steam turbines would be
interesting.)
Paul F. Dietz
di...@cs.rochester.edu
yoda...@chelm.uucp
Douglas A. Harrell <gt0...@prism.gatech.EDU> wrote:
> If you don't believe me, just do some serious checking into
>that huge story from a couple years back: The Agar Apple Scare.
Alar, not gum. And you prove quite the reverse point. EPA standards
on Alar were developed without due attention to the possibly far
larger dose/weight ratios of children and the economic necessity
of putting this toxic substance on food was illusory. The incident,
as with the even more egregious dioxin coverage, shows how
chemical industry apologists have been able to spread their Rush
Limbaugh version of science through the media.
> To the author of the above article, I admire your courage and
>your candor about this, but, depending on who is funding your fellowship,
>you might want to start looking for new work. And don't count on CBS
Which environmental organizations exactly are controlling
academic funding?
David R. Smith
I find it ironic to see the cycle go round again. All of this
interest in biomass for renewable energy was examined heavily
and sometimes brilliantly all through the 1970's.
There is an abundance of DOE and other gov docs on a great
variety of ideas, many of them promising, and all abandoned
readily as soon as the oil companies decided that oil prices
were too high...
As for tree farms or other biomass production increasing at
the above discussed rates. I certainly hope so.
In fact, normally planting rates for reforestation for the
forest industries of both US and Canada are =way= behind.
Hundreds of thousands of acres behind in tree planting which
is supposed to, normally, keep up with the logging for lumber
and pulp, etc.
In fact, coppicing has been used for centuries in many parts
of the world (to be excitedly rediscovered by the US, again)
hybrid poplar is one very popular variety, millions planted
yearly in Third World countries and parts of Europe.
David Smith
David R. Smith
Incidentally, as far as wood energy conversion, it is very
simple chemically and industrially to convert wood chips into
ethanol. In fact any pulp mill could be modified only slightly
to allow this production.
David Smith
E. Michael Smith
>>While I can't say what the problem will be, historically agriculture has
>>had problems with long term mono-culture on a given piece of land.
On the other hand, groves of Aspen live long lives on one piece of
land. Some of them are thousands of years old. All a single clone.
>Since these are essentially short term crops (1-5 years?) a grower
>could cut (literally) his losses when pest problems manifest, and start
>over with different stock (although the question of how to cheaply dig
>out 40,000 superstumps per acre is interesting. My intuition suggests
>that once these trees get started, you're stuck with them unless you're
>willing to dig them out, since cutting them down only encourages them).
Roundup.
IF a problem ever manifests (and given the old, dense, groves of
Aspen and Eucalyptus I've seen, I doubt one will...) you could just
spray the place with Roundup, wait 2 weeks, cut down the trees.
Wait 2 months. Spray any sprouts. Wait 2 weeks. Plant new species
stock between the stumps. The old stumps will rot away over the
years and fertilize the new. Any residual old stock will be out
competed by the new, or just harvested anyway...
rjw9y
rescue. I responded to Len's grammar flame by e-mail to him. My
feeling is that some jargon like '2xCO2' and 'eigenevctor analysis' may
have been the problem.
To mt;
you responded with'
"While I'm not one to claim that no drivel gets past peer review, the
statement that modellers don't "want" their output compared to
observational
data misrepresents the situation badly."
A peer review from the journal Science recently responded,
"These simulations [transient GCM 2xCO2 runs] are not intended to be
'transient forecasts'". .... Natural variability is certainly present,
and the model could not replicate this because of the way it has been
initialized. ... Those who work with GCMs know the problems
associated with their models. This paper is not an objective critique
of those problems."
Peer reviews from the journal Nature were not dissimilar. One author
tells us we have confused GCM output, designed as a sensitivity
analysis, with climate forecasts. If we have confused them then so
have the myriad of published papers which use transient 2xCO2 GCM
output to predict the future responce of a number of physical and
ecological systems.
It is argued that GCMs cannot be compared to observations for their
output runs were not meant as forecasts. Ecologists, economists, and
others are readily supplied with GCM output to be used in this way-and
they get published!!! By not allowing statistical analyses of GCM
accuracy to demonstrate that GCM output should not be used as a
forecast, there is obvious bias in the climate change literature.
Since Science and Nature both publish such work and GCMers distribute
their output freely to these authors, both parties (or all three if
you count both journals) are supporting this bias.
And i dont understand how you have come to believe, as you wrote, " The
largest observed anomalies do in fact have a spatial pattern
consistent with that of the regions where most severe warming is
expected."
I would like to know what measurements or papers you have read which
have lead you to this conclusion. The paper submitted to Science and
Nature about which i speak clealy demonstrates that the GFDL transient
(1%/yr) GCM run introduces error to the tune of 240% greater than the
climate change it correctly captures when compared to 20th century
ground-based temperatures.
I agree with the modellers in that GCMs are great tools which can be
used to study the atmosphere and evaluate our ability to simulate it.
However these same GCMs have no buisness being used to predict climate
change in any sort of quantitative manner. When you use GCM output as
data you are assuming that they correctly simulate future climate in a
quantitative manner. A number of studies have shown that GCMs do a
poor job of simulating today's climate especially on scales smaller
than regional. The misuse of GCM output is the prime reason they have
gotten such a bad rap.
"People and critters" as you put it live in a world with pronounced
natural cliamte variability exhibited in a myriad of proxy climate
records (tree rings, Devils Hole calcite, ice cores, etc). Since we
dont even understand yet how clouds, the ocean, or terrestrial
vegetation will respond to CO2 emissions how can we expect the models
we build to accurately forcast climates of the future????
I welcome your e-mail responce or postings. I really think this is a
problem which is hidden in the closet. On the otherhand please dont
take my writing as antagonlistic i enjoy this subject and would like to
encourage these discussions.
bob w
e-mail= rj...@virginia.edu
Michael Tobis
|> In article <CHJ7J...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, rj...@envsci.evsc.virginia.edu. (rjw9y) writes:
|>
|> |> e-mail rj...@virginia.edu-----------
|> ^^^^^^^^
|> sigh.
I was called to task in email for this emoticon.
In response, I'd like to make it clear that I have nothing against Virginia
(a stunningly beautiful place, actually) nor its university.
It is clear enough though that a substantial proportion of allegations
that global warming concerns are purely political without basis in science
originate from there and can be traced back to a small group of climatologists.
That they disagree with the conventional wisdom is fine. Gadflies keep us
honest. That they imply that the conventional wisdom is political rather
than scientific is, to say the least, irritating. That they claim themselves
to represent the climatological consensus in the face of politically motivated
misrepresentation is unsupportable. It seems clear that rj...@virginia.edu
has at least had some contact with this group.
My email correspondent insisted that not everyone at Virginia takes such
a position. This doesn't surprise me and I meant to imply no such thing.
The previous burst of activity on this subject which just recently subsided
was also prompted by a scoffer from Virginia. That makes two in a row. I
hardly think this is purely coincidental. But I do not mean to cast aspersions
in any way on the University of Virginia as a whole.
mt
Len Evens
>I am the author of GCMs-misuse. Thanks to Rick Adair for coming to my
>rescue. I responded to Len's grammar flame by e-mail to him. My
>feeling is that some jargon like '2xCO2' and 'eigenevctor analysis' may
>have been the problem.
>
like `2XCO2' and `eigenvector analysis'.
As best I can tell from the rest of the current posting, he is complaining
that a paper or papers were rejected by Science and by Nature on the
basis of criteria that were applied inconsistently vis a vis GCMs.
This was not clear to me in the original posting, which I think was
very badly written. (I am still not sure if the poster is one of
the authors of these papers.) As to the complaint, I have the
following comment. The refereeing process is hardly perfect.
It is certainly possible that the `peer group' doing the reviewing
is biased against the approach taken by the authors. It is also
possible that the authors don't understand the basic principles
of the subject. I don't see how we can possibly determine the
truth of these matters in a forum like this. I suggest that the
authors keep trying journals until they find one that is more
sympathetic to their approach.
John De Armond
>In article <+kq2#!m...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>> I really
>> have to wonder if whomever it is that makes these wild 4% claims has
>> even ever visited a modern paper mill. I suspect not.
>Well, here's the paper, so you can judge for yourself:
> E. D. Larson "Biomass-Gasifier/Gas Turbine Cogeneration in the
> Pulp and Paper Industry", Trans. of the ASME, J. of Eng. for Gas
> Turbines and Power, October 1992, pages 665-675.
>From the abstract:
> "At an energy-efficient kraft pulp mill, a BIG/GT cogeneration
> system could produce over three times as much electricity and
> as is typically produced today. The mill's on-sit energy
> needs could be met and a large surplus of electricity would be
> available for export. Using in addition currently unutilized
> forest residues for fuel, electricity production would be nearly
> five times today's level."
Does the abstract say what E.D. Larson does? Frankly this reads like
the academic masturbation one finds in grant applications and
"NASA Tech Briefs".
>Now, I could well believe that the "conventional" system against which
>they are comparing is a straw man. Perhaps you could give us some
>more information about the place you visited, for comparison (electricity
>(kWh) and steam (GJ) needed to make a to make a tonne of air-dried
>pulp and the efficiency of the boilers and steam turbines would be
>interesting.)
I don't know what the cost per ton is and if I did I'd be reluctant
to quote numbers without the company's position. I'd imagine that
to be a business-confidential number. It doesn't really matter
for the purposes of evaluating this claim since we're dealing with
orders of magnitude.
Turbine efficiency doesn't matter much, since they serve as reducing
stations with almost no steam ending up in the condenser.
I don't know the actual numbers on the boilers because they do not
compute heatrate. I am impressed with the heat recovery systems
present. The wet flue discharges flue gas in the range of 140 to 160
degrees F depending on the weather. Residual heat is recovered from
the srubber and is used for process hot water.
Consider the numbers. This mill uses somewhere in the range of 90 MW.
Under ideal conditions, the turbines can make half that by diverting
20-30% of the total steam mass to the turbines. That means by far
the bulk of the plant's energy is supplied as steam made by burning
stuff. Suppose the plant could wave a magic wand and cut the process
steam requirement by a third. That would mean the power house could
burn exclusively wood waste and could discontinue routine burning
of bought fuel (gas, coal, oil). The plant would still burn all
the wood waste it could get. Or consider if the plant were to
double its power production. That would make the plant just about
self-sufficient.
I just don't see any room for increased power production to the point
where power could be exported. It is still more efficient to supply
process heat directly with steam rather than first turning it into
electricity. That pretty much limits what gassification/gas turbines
can do.
The practical aspect is it is very unlikely any new mills will be built,
super-efficient or otherwise, as long as the environmental war against
the pulp industry continues. At least that is the consensus of the
staffs at this mill and at Bowaters. The modern paradigm is debark
and chip the trees near the harvest point using portable plants and
transport the chips to foreign mills. Plus the unscientific
conventional wisdom beer talk amongst the plant staff is the mill
barely breaks even and the company makes its money on the byproducts
derived from the waste stream. I tend to believe something close
to this just by looking at the relative investments in the mill
vs the byproducts plant.
Paul Dietz
> Does the abstract say what E.D. Larson does? Frankly this reads like
> the academic masturbation one finds in grant applications and
> "NASA Tech Briefs".
Larson is at Princeton. I would prefer you criticize his specific
claims -- preferably, identifying the error(s) in his paper -- rather
than just dismissing him because he is an academic.
> I just don't see any room for increased power production to the point
> where power could be exported. It is still more efficient to supply
> process heat directly with steam rather than first turning it into
> electricity. That pretty much limits what gassification/gas turbines
> can do.
Whoa. Who said anything about using electricity for process heat?
That's clearly very inefficient. Rather, the idea was to produce the
process steam with the waste heat from a combustion turbine (possibly
a steam-injected gas turbine, in Larson's case). The fraction of the
heating value of the fuel that doesn't end up in the steam is
converted to electricity at very high efficiency. For a given output
of electricity, one ends up with more steam than if the electricity
were to be produced by steam turbines taking part of the steam from a
boiler.
This is just mundane cogeneration; the only novel thing here is the
fuel is gasified biomass rather than natural gas.
Paul
Douglas A. Harrell
>
>Which environmental organizations exactly are controlling
>academic funding?
Uh, how about the US Government, with people like our pal Al Gore in charge...
Hey, Yack, you get a new job or sumthin?
Didn't you used to hail from umass?
Joseph Coughlan
You describe a problem but what is the solution. Do you have a better
idea about how an ecologist should obtain better forcasting of long
term climatic patterns, PPT, Temps, humidity, etc. ?
For example, I have an ecosyustem model and I am asked to determine
what the sensitivity of the ecosytem is to a climatic warming or drying
for the intermountain region of the United states.
What to I do? What climatic pertubation should I use?
I understand the limitations of GCM output but you cannot expect a
hydrologist or ecologist to stop experiments and forcasting until GCM's
become more accurate. This is science not engineering. The problem is
misunderstanding the uncertainity in the forecasting, not in conducting
experiments.
It is not GCM misuse when you understand what your using. If you do
not - well most tools or measurements are misused when not understood.
Model output is not unique.
joseph coughlan
John De Armond
Oh boy, this ought to be good. OK, Dave, tell us how it can be done.
First, of course, accurately describe a paper mill of your choice
complete with sizes and capacities just to show us you even have the
general concept down pat. And then tell us what you'd take out and
add in to the process to make ethanol using the bulk of the same
facilities. Be sure to keep it easy and simple. Remember now, the
mods have to be "slight".
David R. Smith
John De Armond, with his scepticism, exemplifies all that is
not productive in the change to renewable energy systems.
Anyone with minimal education in the sciences knows that
wood chips are full of carbohydrates, once they are cooked
at proper temperatures, and that carbohydrates are easily
converted to alcohol via the usual distillation principles
in use since antiquity.
I do not need to be an expert on designing and building]
pulp mills to know that the wood chips are there and
so are the heating systems.
Of course, if such a mill successfully operates, turning
out both paper and alcohol, there may occur an excess
of pub napkins and the like, rather than the usual high
quality paper bond grades.
:))
David Smith
E. Michael Smith
>af...@Freenet.carleton.ca (David R. Smith) writes:
>
>>Incidentally, as far as wood energy conversion, it is very
>>simple chemically and industrially to convert wood chips into
>>ethanol. In fact any pulp mill could be modified only slightly
>>to allow this production.
>>David Smith
>
>Oh boy, this ought to be good. OK, Dave, tell us how it can be done.
>First, of course, accurately describe a paper mill of your choice
>complete with sizes and capacities just to show us you even have the
>general concept down pat. And then tell us what you'd take out and
>add in to the process to make ethanol using the bulk of the same
>facilities. Be sure to keep it easy and simple. Remember now, the
>mods have to be "slight".
I'll help David a bit here (fellow Smith and all ;-).
At the point where you have wood chips, you add a LARGE
fermentation tank with Tricodermata Viridae to make sugar.
(multiple thousands of tons/day would be nice...)
Then another LARGE fermentation tank to make ethanol from the sugar.
Use all that steam you were talking about to keep things warm...
Send the fermented mash to a steam driven vacuum still...
(I don't know what all one would do with the rest of the paper mill,
though ...make paper I suppose.) I think Dave was suggesting that
the mill could be modified to ADD alcohol production, not convert
away from paper to ONLY alcohol...
Alternatively, I suppose you could use a large vat for hot acid
hydrolysis of the wood chips ... but that would not be as
politically correct as the fermentation route...
Per size: Geeze, that depends on the mill... The one I'm most
familiar with is, well, gigantic. Sits on the coast up near
Humbolt. Larger than the old FORD plant was, I think...
I can see where you could use the pulp making equipment, and the
power/steam facilities. Everthing after the pulp stage, though,
seems wasted to me...
Carl J Lydick
=af...@Freenet.carleton.ca (David R. Smith) writes:
=
=>Incidentally, as far as wood energy conversion, it is very
=>simple chemically and industrially to convert wood chips into
=>ethanol. In fact any pulp mill could be modified only slightly
=>to allow this production.
=>David Smith
=
=Oh boy, this ought to be good. OK, Dave, tell us how it can be done.
=First, of course, accurately describe a paper mill of your choice
=complete with sizes and capacities just to show us you even have the
=general concept down pat. And then tell us what you'd take out and
=add in to the process to make ethanol using the bulk of the same
=facilities. Be sure to keep it easy and simple. Remember now, the
=mods have to be "slight".
I suspect it would be a bit easier were he trying to produce methanol rather
than ethanol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
David R. Smith
Thanks for a bit of encouragement from Michael Smith, though
I have read of various recipes not requiring nearly that
amount of sugar (or any), in fact I have a dandy US government
on converting wood chips to fuel alcohol (it is dated in
the 1920s, around the same time they were also still
discussing the best ways to grow hemp, etc.).
I'll look it up.
cheers, David Smith
Carl J Lydick
=I have read of various recipes not requiring nearly that
=amount of sugar (or any), in fact I have a dandy US government
=on converting wood chips to fuel alcohol (it is dated in
=the 1920s, around the same time they were also still
=discussing the best ways to grow hemp, etc.).
True. But you specified ethanol production. The "fuel alcohol" the 1920s
document is talking about is methanol.
John De Armond
>John De Armond, with his scepticism, exemplifies all that is
>not productive in the change to renewable energy systems.
Yup. Maybe it's just me but when I flip on the light switch, I'd
really like a light to come on. I realize some segments of society
are so enlightened that all the illumination they need can be had
by saying "Well the light WOULD come on if only we had sucked enough
money from the government to properly develop our fantasies."
>Anyone with minimal education in the sciences knows that
>wood chips are full of carbohydrates, once they are cooked
>at proper temperatures, and that carbohydrates are easily
>converted to alcohol via the usual distillation principles
>in use since antiquity.
Well, Dave, old buddy, old pal. We're still waiting for you to tell
us about HOW you easily convert saw dust into alcohol using slightly
modified paper mill equipment.
We're still waiting for you to describe, even in the most general
terms, how the paper making process works.
You obviously don't know jack about paper making. Tellya what.
We'll let you off the hook if you can identify even one component.
Let's say, the refiner. Vital piece of equipment, one that would
be needed in your mythical alcohol plant. So Dave, tell us what
a refiner is.
John De Armond
>>af...@Freenet.carleton.ca (David R. Smith) writes:
>>
>>>Incidentally, as far as wood energy conversion, it is very
>>>simple chemically and industrially to convert wood chips into
>>>ethanol. In fact any pulp mill could be modified only slightly
>>>to allow this production.
>>>David Smith
>>
>>Oh boy, this ought to be good. OK, Dave, tell us how it can be done.
>>First, of course, accurately describe a paper mill of your choice
>I'll help David a bit here (fellow Smith and all ;-).
>At the point where you have wood chips, you add a LARGE
>fermentation tank with Tricodermata Viridae to make sugar.
>(multiple thousands of tons/day would be nice...)
Ah but Mike, that's not simple and it can't be done with "minor modifications"
to the existing plant. "Minor modifications", to me is shuffling a
pipe here, adding a pump there but basically using the existing equipment.
Michael Moroney
>>Anyone with minimal education in the sciences knows that
>>wood chips are full of carbohydrates, once they are cooked
>>at proper temperatures, and that carbohydrates are easily
>>converted to alcohol via the usual distillation principles
>>in use since antiquity.
>Well, Dave, old buddy, old pal. We're still waiting for you to tell
>us about HOW you easily convert saw dust into alcohol using slightly
>modified paper mill equipment.
I'm not Dave, but cook the wood chips under pressure with dilute
sulfuric acid and you get sugar and lignin. Ferment the sugar water
with yeast after neutralizing the acid.
(Yes I know you'll bitch that a pressure tank isn't a "simple modification"
of a paper mill by your definition, but what the hell...)
-Mike
Russ Brown
>
>>Incidentally, as far as wood energy conversion, it is very
>>simple chemically and industrially to convert wood chips into
>>ethanol. In fact any pulp mill could be modified only slightly
>>to allow this production.
>>David Smith
>
well, what's a methyl group between friends. Mind that the energy put
into collection, processing, and purification may exceed the fuel value
of the product (which is dilute until energy is put into the
separation).
Details, details! It is _renewable_. A little thing like an energy
balance is probably too much to ask.
E. Michael Smith
>e...@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>
>>>af...@Freenet.carleton.ca (David R. Smith) writes:
>>>
>>>>Incidentally, as far as wood energy conversion, it is very
>>>>simple chemically and industrially to convert wood chips into
>>>>ethanol. In fact any pulp mill could be modified only slightly
>>>>to allow this production.
>
>
>>At the point where you have wood chips, you add a LARGE
>>fermentation tank with Tricodermata Viridae to make sugar.
>>(multiple thousands of tons/day would be nice...)
>
>Ah but Mike, that's not simple and it can't be done with "minor modifications"
>to the existing plant. "Minor modifications", to me is shuffling a
>pipe here, adding a pump there but basically using the existing equipment.
Well, I tried my best ... But honestly, I can't think of much other
than the chipper and power plant that you would re-use. And since
the wood often comes in chipped now, I'm not sure how you would reuse
the rest of the plant ... No, WAIT! I'VE GOT IT! You can reuse
the billing and accounting departments and the head office too! ;-)
I DO hope that David was suggesting that you could ADD ethanol
production to a pulp plant easily, rather than a conversion, since
the whole paper making set-up is kind of useless for ethanol production.
(you don't need to roll up alcohol...) IF you ship by rail, you
might be able to re-use the rail spur, but all the shipping dock
would even need to be redone. Better yet would be to add a tank
farm and use a pipe based shipping paradigm... Actually, thinking
about it, and oil refinery would be easier to convert than a paper
mill...
Drat, I seem to be doing a better job of making your case than his ...
Oh well ;-)
Greg Stewart-Nicholls
>John De Armond, with his scepticism, exemplifies all that is
>not productive in the change to renewable energy systems.
>Anyone with minimal education in the sciences knows that
>wood chips are full of carbohydrates, once they are cooked
>at proper temperatures, and that carbohydrates are easily
>converted to alcohol via the usual distillation principles
>in use since antiquity.
>I do not need to be an expert on designing and building]
>pulp mills to know that the wood chips are there and
>so are the heating systems.
about. If you contend that converting such a mill is easy, it
would be nice if you could convince us with some facts.
>Of course, if such a mill successfully operates, turning
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ... : Vidi
ni...@vnet.ibm.com or : Vici
ni...@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
Mark O. Wilson
|(Yes I know you'll bitch that a pressure tank isn't a "simple modification"
|of a paper mill by your definition, but what the hell...)
Considering that a simple modification is the standard that Dave set.
Why do object when others try to hold him to it?
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com