[Terrapreta] 200 tons per day Dynamotive plant in Missouri

[Edward Someus]

Gentlemen, 

There is a need for Dynamotive process terminology clarification: 
GASIFICATION: The Dynamotive process is a true gasification process, which
is an interphase between  oxidation (incineration) and reduction (pyrolysis)
 but more towards in reductive environment. The goal is the gas/bio oil and
energy, it turns solid feed incl carbons to gasvapor/oil, while some carbon
remaining for energy utilization. This process is NOT optimal for TP
production purposes. US DoE, Germany, Sweden and other nations have
developed several (real big ones) gasification energy processes in there
past 25 years, pressurized and non pressurized as well. Some of these
gasification developments have been successfully others not. 

PYROLYSIS: Pyrolysis or carbonization is thermal desorption where you remove
(gas out) the volatiles from the solid and the pure carbon frame is
remaining as main product while the gas vapors are byproducts. This is truly
for the TP process. 
 
You might ask why not just burn the biomass instead of making oil? 
This is technical reason not business == Direct burning of biomass is a
technical challenge due to variating moisture content and high alkalines
which are generating (very nasty) settings and slag build ups in the boiler
as alkalines softening by thermal process. By gasification most of the
energetic value is converted to pure gas or by condensation liquid, so the
minor carbon solids remaining incl most of the alkalines. 
   

RE making charcoal for use as a soil amendment is not yet economically
viable...........
there are options for effect combinations and specific formulation for which
makes additional values that support economy



 

Sincerely yours: Edward Someus (environmental engineer)
Terra Humana Clean Tech Ltd. (ISO 9001/ISO 14001)
3R Environmental Technologies Ltd. 
ADDRESS: H-1222 Budapest, Szechenyi 59, Hungary
TEL handy:  +(36-20) 201 7557
TEL / FAX:   +(36-1) 424 0224
TEL SKYPE phone via computer:  Edward Someus
3R TERRACARBON:   http://www.terrenum.net 
3R CLEANCOAL ENERGY: http://www.nvirocleantech.com 
 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Sean K. Barry
Date: 2007.12.08. 6:03:20
To: Tom Miles;  Gerald Van Koeverden
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] 200 tons per day Dynamotive plant in Missouri
 
Hi Gerald (Gerrit?, whichever you prefer),
 
Tom is probably absolutely right.  Brian Hans said it, too.  Economic
considerations drive Dynamotive on what they do with the "products" of the 
fast pyrolysis" reaction that they use.  If generating electricity is more
profitable than selling raw Bio-oil, then that is what they will do.  If
using the energy in the charcoal for processing the biomass lowers the cost
of external energy inputs, then that is what they will do.  If putting 8
micron charcoal dust into the Bio-oil to increase its BTU content and value
is more profitable than selling charcoal as fuel or soil amendment, then
that is what they will do.  It is not surprising that any business would do
whatever it takes to improve revenues.
 
This is a compelling argument.  I confirms my earlier concern, that making
charcoal for use as a soil amendment is not yet economically viable.  Any
more profitable use for charcoal (process heat, activated char, filler in
bio-oil, fuel, etc) is taking it away as any possible source for
Agrichar/biochar/soil-amendment-charcoal.  That is an easy idea to
understand, right?
 
Regards,
 
SKB
 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Gerald Van Koeverden 
To: Tom Miles 
Cc: 'Sean K. Barry' ; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org 
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] 200 tons per day Dynamotive plant in Missouri


Tom, I think you are correct.  At the near-by plant, though some of the
bio-oil is sold for use in food enhancement, most is used to drive an
electrical generator to feed into the main power grid - which buys the power
for $.11/kw.   




On 7-Dec-07, at 6:11 PM, Tom Miles wrote:


Sean,
 
The product distribution listed is typical of Dynamotive or any of the other
pyrolysis systems. The fast pyrolysis systems tend to get higher yields of
useful oils which is their primary product. The market or use is not
altogether clear. Ensyn, for example, has built several bio oil plants that
are used for making food flavoring, liquid smoke. They have not yet built an
energy plant because the value of the oil is currently higher in the food
market. They use the energy in the gas and char to heat the pyrolysis
process. Both suppliers use the off gas, as mentioned below, to drive the
process. The amount of char available seems to depend on the energy needs of
downstream processing. The more heat required the more char would be
consumed.
 
Dynamotive’s IAI presentation suggests that in present market conditions the
char is worth more as energy than as a carbon offset. So they would use it
for energy rather than sell it as char. Having said that they are
participating in a 14 ton char trial in Iowa so they haven’t closed off the
option.  I think the agronomic , i.e. crop and soil enhancement, value of
charcoal is greater in the long term but I can’t prove it.  
 
You might ask why not just burn the biomass instead of making oil? I think
the answer is that they are in the business of selling a bio oil technology.
 
Tom
 
 
From: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 2:32 PM
To: 'Gerald Van Koeverden'; Tom Miles
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] 200 tons per day Dynamotive plant in Missouri
 
Hi Tom,
 
I know the process can be "tilted" as you describe it.  What is DYNAMOTIVE'S
plan?  They claim ...
 
"Three products are produced: BioOil (60-75% by weight), char (15-20% wt.)
and non-condensable gases (10-20% wt.). Yields vary depending on the
feedstock composition. BioOil and char are commercial products and
non-condensable gases are recycled and supply a major part of the energy
required by the process. No waste is produced in the Dynamotive process."
 
So, they are turning back some of the energy content in those products back
into the process.  They also do not mention external inputs of energy either
  I wonder what those are?  There is a product they have, too, called
intermediate Bio-oil, which has the char added back into the oil to increase
its BTU content.  The energy balances and energy fluxes in pyrolysis are
quite complex and to be honest I really do not see yet how char can be made
economically yet?
 
Regards,
 
SKB
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Miles
To: 'Sean K. Barry' ; 'Gerald Van Koeverden'
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:48 AM
Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] 200 tons per day Dynamotive plant in Missouri
 
Sean,
 
Another point to remember is that the process can be tilted.  You can "burn
out" the char by converting more of it to oil or gas depending on the
moisture in the fuel and the temperature of the reactor. In the absence of
char markets most processes plan to use the char as fuel to generate heat
for drying the fuel or for reheating the media  - sand, rocks, etc. - used
to heat and pyrolyze the fuel.
 
Tom
 
 
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 5:48 PM
To: Gerald Van Koeverden
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] 200 tons per day Dynamotive plant in Missouri
 
Hi Gerrit,
 
Well that's impressive.  I did not think "fast-pyrolysis" was capable of
such a high yield in charcoal.  My reading on this has lead me to believe
that it produced large gas and liquid fractions, but little or no charcoal. 
Apparently that is wrong?
 
Regards,
 
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Gerald Van Koeverden
To: Sean K. Barry
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; Shengar at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] 200 tons per day Dynamotive plant in Missouri
 
Here at Dynamotive's plant in West Lorne, they get about 18% yield of char.
 
On 6-Dec-07, at 12:45 PM, Sean K. Barry wrote:



 


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071208/934ecd9a/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1458 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071208/934ecd9a/attachment.jpe