High temperature molten salt reactors and ethanol production
@libero.it Romeo Gigli
energy crisis forever - Cheap energy again! " ), I re-post here (slightly
changed)
I see an interesting potential symbiosis between MSRs, capable of producing
clean and cost effective high temperature
heat, and ethanol or biofuel production. We all well know that current
ethanol production from corn is a non starter, because it has an energy
return of 1 to 1 or even negative (one unity of energy of fossil fuel is
burned for one unit of final product). Certainly, other biofuel options
could do a better work with an higher energy return ratio (sugarcane,
swithgrass, wood, etc...). However, even with corn ethanol more than half of
the energy input need is low temp steam (< 200 �C) to fermetate and
distillate the product and about 2/3 of the primary energy need is low temp
heat + electricity.
See for example :
http://www.klprocess.com/pdf/USDA_Shapouri.pdf
http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf
If this heat + electricity input is produced from a non-fossile clean
source, the ethanol production is easier or, alternatively, we can produce
ethanol or other liquid biofuels from non-food poorer crops or even
agriculture wastes with a decent energy return ratio
I have no idea how much agriculture waste is yearly produced in a typical
industrial country, but supposing we are successfull to develop some biofuel
crop
with an energy return of at least, say, 1,5 (the final product has one time
and half
the energy used to make it), so to produce 20 billions liters/year of
ethanol (one
liter of gasoline equivalent is ~ 10 kWh thermal) we have to use only 90
TWh/year, half of which is low temp steam and something like 60-70% is
electricity + heat. Not easy, but quite feasible to do. This is, of
course, NOT an alternative of electric/plugin vehicles but a way to
integrate it, for those uses not easy to electrificate (airplanes, ships,
diesel trains or plugins themself for trips longer than daily battery
ranges)
Bret Cahill
Some of the waste from the methanol process could be burned to heat
the next batch of bio.
Bret Cahill
Eric Gisin
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:951c823a-f38f-49ba...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
@libero.it Romeo Gigli
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:951c823a-f38f-49ba...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> What is the cost of making MeOH from biomass?
>
> Some of the waste from the methanol process could be burned to heat
> the next batch of bio.
Maybe I may dead wrong, but I think the main problem is we need a lot of
hydrogen to produce "clean"
methanol (or ammonia, for example), according to the reaction CO2 + 3H2 =
CH3OH + H2O (or N2 + 3H2 = 2 NH3 for ammonia, in both cases one kg of
hydrogen for about 5,5 kg of final product is needed). With ethanol, we
don't need any hydrogen, but heat to simply fermetate glucose and to convert
into liquid fuel ethanol. Moreover, one liter of ethanol (considering octane
improvement) is ~ one liter of gasoline, vs two liters of MeOH. I think that
ethanol is less toxic and much simpler to handle, including to burn in a IC
(unmodified) motor, than methanol. Frankly, I don' t understand why methanol
should be a better strategy than ethanol
Bret Cahill
Androcles
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:2a5798c7-eb46-4472...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> www.bretcahill.com
Bret Cahill will pay $200 for the first hardcopy answer to The Question from
any outspoken fuckwit.
The Question is of fundamental importance to nobody.
The rules are simple:
1. The letterhead must be from Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation, American
Enterprise, Cato, or the Chicago School of Economics*.
2. The Question must appear in the body of the letter.
3. Some text must follow and appear to be an answer to The Question. The
text can say anything including but not limited to a "yes" or "no" or "I
don't know" or "I don't think either free speech or free markets are
important to the economy."
4. The signature of the outspoken market economist must appear in the
letter.
5. Email BretC...@aol.com
where he won't print out a hard copy, so you failed.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.
Bret Cahill
-- Nietzsche
Bret Cahill
> > Some of the waste from the methanol process could be burned to heat
> > the next batch of bio.
> Maybe I may dead wrong, but I think the main problem is we need a lot of
> hydrogen to produce "clean"
> methanol
All you need is wood for "wood alcohol" or "producer gas" (methanol. +
CO).
Supposedly you can get up to 80% of the heat in the solid fuel:
Some Swedes put any entire producer gas plant in the trunk of an old
Volvo and had a post modernish pipe running on the outside of the car
to the slightly modified gasoline engine.
They drove all over Sweden getting several kilometers/pound wood
chips.
Bret Cahill
Eric Gisin
news:0HZ3m.1039$vG4...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
Gasification converts to syngas: CH2O -> CO + H2
Addition of H2, heat/pressure: CO +2H2 -> COH4
This does not take as much energy as growing corn (ammonia) and distilling it.
@libero.it Romeo Gigli
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:8ff4389b-05f9-4816...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> > What is the cost of making MeOH from biomass?
>
>> > Some of the waste from the methanol process could be burned to heat
>> > the next batch of bio.
>
>> Maybe I may dead wrong, but I think the main problem is we need a lot of
>> hydrogen to produce "clean"
>> methanol
>
> All you need is wood for "wood alcohol" or "producer gas" (methanol. +
> CO).
>
> Supposedly you can get up to 80% of the heat in the solid fuel:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=OZYrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=methanol+%22carbon+monoxide%22+%22producer+gas%22&source=bl&ots=PQaDihdx00&sig=n-5N-7G7OUPkjShYCmTOGOt_UNM&hl=en&ei=y_ZQSvejLYLOsQO5muGqDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8
"Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:h2r7q3$m4j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> To convert biomass to methanol requires two steps:
> Gasification converts to syngas: CH2O -> CO + H2
> Addition of H2, heat/pressure: CO +2H2 -> COH4
The point is at the end, what's the energy return of the whole process?
We again need of some H2, in the ratio of 1 kg of H2 per 8 kg of MeOH, less
than previously stated but not negligilble; and I think that the heat and
electricity need is not so different than fermenting/distilling ethanol
> This does not take as much energy as growing corn (ammonia) and distilling
> it
Corn is not absolutely the only crop to start ethanol production, nor the
best one; indeed, we don' t need to grow anything, we could use agriculture
waste, too. I have nothing against other liquid biofuel option, even if I
don' t really understand which strategy is the less energy intensive one -
definitely, my choice is to prioritize the less energy intensive biofuel
strategy, at the moment I can't say which one it is
Bret Cahill
>
> >> > Some of the waste from the methanol process could be burned to heat
> >> > the next batch of bio.
>
> >> Maybe I may dead wrong, but I think the main problem is we need a lot of
> >> hydrogen to produce "clean"
> >> methanol
>
> > All you need is wood for "wood alcohol" or "producer gas" (methanol. +
> > CO).
>
> > Supposedly you can get up to 80% of the heat in the solid fuel:
>
>
> "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:h2r7q3$m4j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > To convert biomass to methanol requires two steps:
> > Gasification converts to syngas: CH2O -> CO + H2
> > Addition of H2, heat/pressure: CO +2H2 -> COH4
> The point is at the end, what's the energy return of the whole process?
Some Swedes put any entire producer gas plant in the trunk of an old
Volvo.
All they needed were wood chips and maybe some water..
No hydrogen was necessary.
They drove all over Sweden getting several kilometers/pound wood
chips.
> We again need of some H2,
That's in the biomass.
Bret Cahill
@libero.it Romeo Gigli
>> >> > What is the cost of making MeOH from biomass?
>>
>> >> > Some of the waste from the methanol process could be burned to heat
>> >> > the next batch of bio.
>>
>> >> Maybe I may dead wrong, but I think the main problem is we need a lot
>> >> of
>> >> hydrogen to produce "clean"
>> >> methanol
>>
>> > All you need is wood for "wood alcohol" or "producer gas" (methanol. +
>> > CO).
>>
>> > Supposedly you can get up to 80% of the heat in the solid fuel:
>>
>> >http://books.google.com/books?id=OZYrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=met...
>>
>> "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> ha scritto nel
>> messaggionews:h2r7q3$m4j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> > To convert biomass to methanol requires two steps:
>> > Gasification converts to syngas: CH2O -> CO + H2
>> > Addition of H2, heat/pressure: CO +2H2 -> COH4
>
>> The point is at the end, what's the energy return of the whole process?
>
> Some Swedes put any entire producer gas plant in the trunk of an old
> Volvo.
>
> All they needed were wood chips and maybe some water..
>
> No hydrogen was necessary
However, it's even possible to produce ethanol from wood/cellulose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
what' s the difference/drawback from methanol?
Bret Cahill
>
> >> >> > Some of the waste from the methanol process could be burned to heat
> >> >> > the next batch of bio.
>
> >> >> Maybe I may dead wrong, but I think the main problem is we need a lot
> >> >> of
> >> >> hydrogen to produce "clean"
> >> >> methanol
>
> >> > All you need is wood for "wood alcohol" or "producer gas" (methanol. +
> >> > CO).
>
> >> > Supposedly you can get up to 80% of the heat in the solid fuel:
>
> >> >http://books.google.com/books?id=OZYrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=met...
>
> >> "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> ha scritto nel
> >> messaggionews:h2r7q3$m4j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> > To convert biomass to methanol requires two steps:
> >> > Gasification converts to syngas: CH2O -> CO + H2
> >> > Addition of H2, heat/pressure: CO +2H2 -> COH4
>
> >> The point is at the end, what's the energy return of the whole process?
>
> > Some Swedes put any entire producer gas plant in the trunk of an old
> > Volvo.
>
> > All they needed were wood chips and maybe some water..
>
> > No hydrogen was necessary
>
> what' s the difference/drawback from methanol?
It might be better overall considering EtOH has more energy/lb, lower
compression ratio [less smog] and a better flavor.
Even 1 cc of MeOH is lethal.
Bret Cahill
@libero.it Romeo Gigli
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:b808c6ea-2273-4174...@p36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> However, it's even possible to produce ethanol from
>> wood/cellulosehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
>> what' s the difference/drawback from methanol?
>
> It might be better overall considering EtOH has more energy/lb, lower
> compression ratio [less smog] and a better flavor.
>
> Even 1 cc of MeOH is lethal
Ok, so why did you emphasize the methanol (rather the ethanol) production?
What A. Fool
Denatured ethanol is also not very healthy.
Actually, methanol will run better in a non-flex-fuel vehicle
than ethanol, only special built fuel injected vehicles can use E85
or any mixture of E85 and gasoline.
Denatured ethanol is regular ethanol with something
nasty added.
Bret Cahill
> >>> wood/cellulosehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
> >>> what' s the difference/drawback from methanol?
>
> >> It might be better overall considering EtOH has more energy/lb, lower
> >> compression ratio [less smog] and a better flavor.
>
> >> Even 1 cc of MeOH is lethal
>
> >Ok, so why did you emphasize the methanol (rather the ethanol) production?
>
> Denatured ethanol is also not very healthy.
I'ld rather have a bottle in front of me than have a frontal lobotomy.
-- anon
harry
> > > What is the cost of making MeOH from biomass?
> > > Some of the waste from the methanol process could be burned to heat
> > > the next batch of bio.
> > Maybe I may dead wrong, but I think the main problem is we need a lot of
> > hydrogen to produce "clean"
> > methanol
>
> All you need is wood for "wood alcohol" or "producer gas" (methanol. +
> CO).
>
> Supposedly you can get up to 80% of the heat in the solid fuel:
>
>
> Some Swedes put any entire producer gas plant in the trunk of an old
> Volvo and had a post modernish pipe running on the outside of the car
> to the slightly modified gasoline engine.
>
> They drove all over Sweden getting several kilometers/pound wood
> chips.
>
> Bret Cahill
The problem with such devices is the time it takes to get them up and
running. This is a very old idea, it was done in the UK during WW2
but using coke (from the gasworks) Air is drawn through a red hot
mass of coke. This forms a reduction zone, the fuel produced being
nasty poisonous CO. It worked better if a tray of water was put under
the fire as the resulting steam was drawn through the coke liberating
hydrogenas well as CO. However, it takes a good two hours to get the
coke (or wood chippings/charcoal) burning up hot enough to function.
And there is a problem when the vehical stops as the inflammable,
poisonous gas has to be dumped. It wasn't unknown for the reduction
vessel to explode if the righ tmix of gas and air got in there.
Controlling the air supply so that CO is produced rather than CO2 is
tricky too.