[Stoves] Air pollution in cities

Frank Shields franke at cruzio.com
Thu Nov 23 22:20:50 CST 2017


Dear Crispin, Stovers,

My real interest is testing the characteristics of biomass regarding use 
as a fuel. I believe there are others with more expertise and equipment 
to study this. I am not surprised the oxygen level may drop in closed 
environment but am surprised that CO is the concern.  Methane and CO2 
must also be released(?).

I only mention the 'durability' setup to Tom because it is easily 
constructed. Anyone can set up a good pellet lab in their backyard. In 
addition to what the pellet industry require on their very controlled 
feedstock I suggest adding 1) solvent solubles and 2) particle density. 
That because our pellets made from a variety of biomass and used in TLUD 
(packed in cylinders) different than how a modern pellet stove receives 
pellets. Using resins, gums, oils etc as binding agents I believe will 
effect combustion and would be good to know (solvent extraction). Also; 
Tom mentioned the bulk density results but if particle density was 
included we would know the void space between particles used for moving 
air. And knowing percentage of carbon we would know the total carbon in 
the cylinder and the carbon density of the particle. All I think 
important reported as a range for each type of stove.

So good luck on your CO release from piled pellets. Really - CO?


Regards


Frank





On 11/23/17 7:47 AM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
> Crispin,  cc list
>
> Can you give a cite for the Hopke article.
>
> I doubt that this will be desired for any pyrolysis approach.
>
> Ron
>
>
>> On Nov 22, 2017, at 8:45 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott 
>> <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Frank
>>
>> Now that you are back in the lab, I would really appreciate it if you 
>> can work out how to make or treat pellets so they don't produce CO. 
>> Phil Hopke published his analysis of the problem and how to solve it. 
>> He announced it about a year ago and now it is published. Good for 
>> everyone.
>>
>> But as a pra‎ctical measure it needs proof of concept in multiple 
>> ways. You might be able to advise us in practical ways how to prevent 
>> it.
>>
>> What do you think‎? Interesting?
>>
>> Regards
>> Crispin
>>
>>
>>
>> Lots of good news - Tom,
>>
>> I am wondering if the testing procedures for the quality program the 
>> Pellet Inst. uses could be used here to help make adjustments in 
>> formulation and state pellet qualities would be helpful. Their 
>> standards may not need be met but just to provide numbers to 
>> constituents of importance. I built a tumbler for the durability test 
>> at the old lab. I might also suggest additional tests beyond what the 
>> Pellet Inst. list due to the much more variable biomass used in your 
>> projects.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> Gabilan laboratory
>>
>> https://pellet.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/understanding%20the%20quality%20mark.pdf
>>
>>
>> On 11/22/17 3:10 PM, Tom Miles wrote:
>>> Crispin,
>>>
>>> Thanks. The pellets they have selected for carbonizing are 8-12 mm. 
>>> We have done a lot of densification and we understand the issues 
>>> related to densifying crop residues. We’ll see how long the dies 
>>> last. The pellets I saw had corn stover blended in with the rice 
>>> straw. The corn stalks could act as a binder and lubricant. If I 
>>> recall the intended working radius for each pellet plant is about 50 
>>> km. Delivered cost of the pellets to the biochar plant is USD$70/ton.
>>>
>>> It’s interesting to learn about the Hebei project. The handling and 
>>> processing infrastructure for one project should help another. Some 
>>> successful biochar producers are supplying different fiber and char 
>>> products to different markets.
>>> Tom
>>> *From:*Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org]*On 
>>> Behalf Of*Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
>>> *Sent:*Wednesday, November 22, 2017 1:01 PM
>>> *To:*Discussion of biomass cooking 
>>> stoves<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>> *Cc:*'Biochar'<biochar at yahoogroups.com>
>>> *Subject:*Re: [Stoves] Air pollution in cities
>>>
>>> Thanks Tom
>>>
>>> I know my posts don’t go to the biochar list so you can post it on 
>>> if it is relevant.
>>>
>>> The pelleting of agriwastes is mechanically difficult because of the 
>>> ash in the material and contamination from dirt. The trend is to 
>>> make relatively large pellets that are square in cross-section. The 
>>> energy input is really high even at low density so the ‘moving 
>>> parts’ are difficult to keep together. The subsidy/was/about $50 per 
>>> ton and the limitation of the system is that the transport radius is 
>>> defined by the subsidy, if you boil it down. It is something like 
>>> 150 km. When the distribution radius is small, the factories can’t 
>>> be too large.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a dual approach would yield the best overall system 
>>> performance when agriwastes are digested before being pelleted. Who 
>>> tries, wins.
>>>
>>> The Hebei Clean Air Project ($500m) is implementing 51 measures with 
>>> a large ($80m) component of improved stoves. I have yet to see a 
>>> really improved ‘wood briquette’ stove, only coal stoves.  Some 
>>> basic research is needed to fill that gap.
>>>
>>> At least some of the H-CAP items attempt to ‘do something’ with the 
>>> agriwastes from fields because it is a major contributor to poor air 
>>> quality in Beijing in October. The smoke is similar in content and 
>>> concentration to the illegal Indonesian peat burning to create 
>>> biodiesel plantations that affects Singapore air.
>>>
>>> At this time, it seems likely that some form of crossdraft stove, 
>>> perhaps similar to the Fyro-stove layout, will be able to burn these 
>>> large ‘pellets’ (briquettes). The heat applied to the pyrolysation 
>>> has to be greatly reduced compared with the successful coal gasifiers.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Crispin
>>>
>>> Crispin,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments. The agricultural science that we have seen 
>>> is done at a high level. It is also done in collaboration with 
>>> expert institutions around the world. In just our limited view we 
>>> are interacting with a large department of soil and crop scientists 
>>> at a “key university” for biochar. They are collaborating with some 
>>> large corporations. They have really been innovative compared to how 
>>> others around the world are thinking about the conversion and use of 
>>> biochar. The people we are working with have been at it for at least 
>>> 10 years, so it hasn’t happened overnight.
>>>
>>> The business model is unique and there clearly are subsidies. There 
>>> are multiple objectives, but a main driver is to reduce the open 
>>> field burning. Improving soil health, reducing effects of pollution, 
>>> increasing yield and sequestering carbon are other targets. There 
>>> are many local challenges to deal with, like arsenic and cadmium. 
>>>    National, county, and local governments are involved organizing 
>>> supporting policy and funding businesses.
>>>
>>> They are moving very quickly to scale. The scale is not surprising. 
>>> You can get to the current stated capacities with only 25 plants 
>>> each processing 30,000 tons of residue per year at about 4 tons per 
>>> hour. They have engineered one processing scheme and have cloned it. 
>>> Meanwhile they are working on incremental improvements. Whether each 
>>> plant is actually producing 8,000 hours per year may be debatable 
>>> but that’s also true of our small North American biomass plants. 
>>> Field testing in300 locations is impressive. There is a whole 
>>> educational program at each level.
>>>
>>> I haven’t seen their pelleting operations, but I have seen other 
>>> stationary systems with Chinese equipment and know their typical 
>>> limitations. The pellets are not very dense which should offset some 
>>> of the wear issues associated with crop residues.
>>>
>>> This is still evolving. It will be interesting to see where they are 
>>> in a year’s time.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>
>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Frank Shields
>> 444 Main Street Apt. 4205
>> Watsonville, CA  95076
>>
>> (831) 246-0417 cell
>> franke at cruzio.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>

-- 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171123/dbccd004/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: franke.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 264 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171123/dbccd004/attachment.vcf>


More information about the Stoves mailing list