Good going Peter. Good to see you still at it.
David Murphy.
On 18/07/2013 6:00 AM, Peter & Kerry Davies wrote:
I wouldn't recommend burning glycerin either.
We have successfully gasified Gycerin waste from
a biodiesel plant added to wood chip without any
measured toxic emissions, indeed it produced a
higher calorific value gas compared to straight
wood chip as it displaced the need for some of
the normal air as an oxygen source (thereby
reducing dilution with the normal nitrogen
fraction as well as releasing more H2 from the
added gycerin itself) so would not anticipate
any issues with it as a binder in pellets where
they were used in this way (at least through our
system). We will have the opportunity to test
this at least in the form of briquettes after
August. The combustion engineers present for the
earlier test were all a bit red faced at the
time as I recall since they were predicting all
sorts of dire things.
We are going through an EPA process at the
moment to have our system "exempted" from the
need for pollution permits, starting with clean
wood waste as the benchmark but will be adding
things like plastics and glycerin (along with
much more problematic organics) in due course.
The real barrier to overcome is the insistence
by the ignorant or mischievous in the
environmental movement that gasification and
combustion are interchangeable terms with
similar problems. The result from a practical
point of view is the cost of the stringent
emission tests required is in the order of
$25,000 per material being included where no
dioxins are anticipated and only one targeted
analysis for this is included (amongst the 20
general sample tests required) to confirm, up to
$150,000 should they believe dioxins might be
possible and this has to be repeated with all 20
samples.
What is amazing to us is our perpetual
researcher "competitors" in this space in
Australia generally have access to significant
public grants, yet can't give a lab certified
gas analysis from their systems only a
"predicted" value based on a literature review,
mostly of course citing references where the
same thing was done...
Peter Davies
On 18/07/2013 4:00 AM,
[email protected] wrote:
On 7/16/2013 5:27 PM, J. Paul Villella wrote:
>other possible suitable binders are Long Strand Glycerines from the
>production of Biodiesel (they burn like plastic too but need a
>stabilizer/wick/co-burn agent )
Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Burning glycerine produces acrolein. For some indications of its
toxicity, see Feng, Z; Hu W, Hu Y, Tang M (October 2006). "Acrolein is
a major cigarette-related lung cancer agent: Preferential binding at
p53 mutational hotspots and inhibition of DNA repair"
<http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0607031103v1>. /Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceedings_of_the_National_Academy_of_Sciences>/
*103* (42): 15404--15409.
Better to compost the glycerine, make soap, or produce biogas.
d.
-- David William House "The Complete Biogas
Handbook" |www.completebiogas.com| /Vahid
Biogas/, an alternative energy consultancy
|www.vahidbiogas.com
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
