Pads and wood granules (pellets). business creation?

Renewable energies except solar electric or thermal (seeforums dedicated below): wind turbines, energy from the sea, hydraulic and hydroelectricity, biomass, biogas, deep geothermal energy ...
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 06/12/08, 18:10

Remundo wrote:Hehe, Did ...

You like to nuance ... Burning wood, it releases CO2. I do not recommend getting your head oxygenated in the fireplace: idea:


There, I am very disappointed with your somewhat brutal reaction!

Everyone - or almost everyone - also knows that plants have absorbed the CO² that their combustion rejects before they are burned. We are indeed in a CO² neutral cycle, with the nuance near the upstream / downstream of the sector. AND indeed, depending on whether you use biomass, gas, fuel to dry sawdust, the balance at this level is more or less good.

I agree, the nuance is of a certain size: roughly 10% of the energy value of the pellets (10% of fossil energy used to harvest sawdust, transport it, dry it, compress the pellets, deliver them. measured in energy, relative to the energy of the pellets ...).

But where the pellets are "disadvantaged" by transport (note that fuel is also transported, over distances not bad at all, especially if you start from crude oil!), Wood chipped is by grinding. It has not escaped your notice that industrial crushers are not with a moped engine!

I lost almost all my (digital) files in the crash of my previous computer. I will do my research again and put the data to you.

Ditto for your "for VOCs, that's kif kif". Because it is much more difficult to burn wet material than dry organic material. Since you talk about putting your head above the chimneys, put it over a wood fue in the Boy Scouts, and VOCs, you will smell them! So, it's not kif kif. This is 2 or 3 times more for chipped wood compared to pellets (with a great variability depending on the humidity of the chips).

I remind you: I'm not against platelets, I'm not as "ultra for" as you. I maintain: they have drawbacks, particularly in terms of volumes, handling and emission rates. AND it's not by making disinformation like it's kif kif that you will be able to change something.

To be complete, always for the readers who would arrive here from a search engine: the pellets are more expensive (about 2 times) per caloric unit, we are linked to an industrial sector, the balance sheet (carbon, energy ) degrades when transport distances increase. But their combustion is cleaner, including for emissions other than CO² (but about 3 times lighter than fuel oil or gas, which are not CO² neutral).
It’s complicated when you don’t hide your face!
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 06/12/08, 18:26

Remundo wrote:
Besides, since you like to talk about carbon footprint, you will make me the one of pellets compared to shredded wood or logs, we risk having a good laugh. : cheesy:


Here is a first approach - unfortunately there are no chips (which I locate between the logs - on the left - and the pellets, because of the shredder)

http://www.depv.de/holzpellets/vorteile ... -vorteile/

Open the page. Unfortunately, I can't "stick" to the graph.

These are CO² emissions in kg / MWh, including the whole chain of production / delivery. On the left, the logs, then pellets, then fuel, then gas then electricity (in Germany, therefore little nuclear therefore electricity from fossil energy).
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 06/12/08, 18:36

good pellets burn more cleanly than bad wood, but the simple combustion in a boiler is not the solution of the future

the ideal solution is or will be the gasifier: whatever the quality of the wood or other fuel the combustion is total and non-polluting

the gas produced can always be burned in a gas boiler, but it can above all pass through an engine to make cogeneration: electricity at low cost as long as the heat is useful

the pigs that the wood emits in a simple boiler are not recoverable: at the exit of the gasifier it can be recovered and make a significant amount of liquid fuel
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189




by Remundo » 06/12/08, 20:14

And why not a little biomass thermolysis :?: 8)
0 x
Image
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 06/12/08, 20:40

thermolysis, I say rather pyrolysis: this is exactly what happens when the fuel near the hearth of the gasifier but then in the gas all the carbon is gasified

in pyrolysis we produce charcoal: this is a good solution because this charcoal can be used in simple heaters with very good performance

of course with pyrolysis we make less gas since the charcoal is not burned

not to be confused with the too simple manufacture of charcoal or one burns and polished anyway
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189




by Remundo » 06/12/08, 22:22

Did67 wrote:
Remundo wrote:
Moreover, since you like to talk about carbon footprint, you will make me the pellets compared to wood chips or logs, we risk laughing. : Cheesy:


Here is a first approach - unfortunately there are no chips (which I locate between the logs - on the left - and the pellets, because of the shredder)

http://www.depv.de/holzpellets/vorteile ... -vorteile/

Open the page. Unfortunately, I can't "stick" to the graph.

These are CO² emissions in kg / MWh, including the whole chain of production / delivery. On the left, the logs, then pellets, then fuel, then gas then electricity (in Germany, therefore little nuclear therefore electricity from fossil energy).

Hi Did67,

Ach so, schöne Abbildung von CO2 emissions für die kleine Franzosen, immer noch spät von einem Zug 8)
Image
Stückholz: wood in pieces (chips)
Pellets ...
Erdgas: natural gas (propane, butane ...)
Heizöl: domestic fuel
Elektroheizung: electric heating (probably with German electric mix more than 50% coal ...)

And we see that the pellet rejects the trifle of almost 8 times the wood chips, which is almost carbon neutral.

This is why I said, "the best" is the plate: it works like pellet and it is almost clean in CO2. But in absolute terms, we can always find a criterion where the pellet is better (smoke a little more loaded, fireplace to be cleaned more often ...)
0 x
Image
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189




by Remundo » 06/12/08, 22:28

chatelot16 wrote:thermolysis, I say rather pyrolysis: this is exactly what happens when the fuel near the hearth of the gasifier but then in the gas all the carbon is gasified

in pyrolysis we produce charcoal: this is a good solution because this charcoal can be used in simple heaters with very good performance

of course with pyrolysis we make less gas since the charcoal is not burned

not to be confused with the too simple manufacture of charcoal or one burns and polished anyway

Good evening Chatelot,

Yes absolutely ... I had published an excellent state of the art on gasifiers ... 6 or 7 MB, but which was worth downloading ...

Here it is:
https://www.econologie.com/pyrolyse-et-g ... -4356.html

published on this topic
https://www.econologie.com/forums/thermolyse ... t5012.html
0 x
Image
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 06/12/08, 23:05

your pdf is interesting, but desperate: the 3 quarters of what we find in the books of 1900 has been forgotten

the gasifier and its purification system is not to be invented: it is simply to be reconstructed by automating what has worked there is a century
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189




by Remundo » 07/12/08, 10:19

Hi Chatelot,

This document aims to be a state of the art (2001), which has not changed much since given the deep lethargy of the biomass recovery sector.

The installations described there are modern, and very probably rely on the knowledge of the gasifiers of 1900, without trying to describe them in detail.

These did not escape fouling or other current technical difficulties (kinetics of reactions, feeding of ground material, tars ...)
0 x
Image
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 07/12/08, 11:43

The installations described there are modern, and very probably rely on the knowledge of the gasifiers of 1900, without trying to describe them in detail.


not exactly: they forgot what is found in the old books, or worse they hide the practical information to smoke us with hi tech!

but finally this document is interesting because it completes in a slightly more theoretical way what I had already concluded old results with my pifometre

while reading your pdf I had an impression of already read: I found it in my disc, loaded in 2006

please bring it out because currently google can't find it
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 212 guests