[Terrapreta] Energy Source

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Max,

Thanks.  I'm sure your results can show that pyrolysis of biomass contains releases more than enough energy to carbonize the bulk of the biomass and still leave plenty of available energy for other sources.  There are some processes that convert biomass to oils, liquids, and chars that use only external energy sources (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization> or talk to Brian Hans).

What strikes me about using external energy, it that is can allow greater yields for all of biochemical liquids for chemical feedstocks, combustible gases for bio-energy, and charcoal for charcoal-in-soil sequestration.  This does not preclude pyrolysis with energy converted only from the pyrolysis feedstock itself.  I know this too will work.  The yields with external energy may be better, though, and the possibility of NO CO2 emissions is also a possible and laudible goal.

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: MFH<mailto:mfh01 at bigpond.net.au> 
  To: 'Sean K. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; still.thinking at computare.org<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org> ; 'Terra Preta'<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; 'Kurt Treutlein'<mailto:rukurt at westnet.com.au> 
  Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:14 AM
  Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] Energy Source


  Sean,

   

  I'll send some more detail through later, but my further trial last weekend indicates that with the capture and storage of excess gases there should be no need for any external 'fuel' other than the use of captured gases from previous batches. Also of interest given our previous correspondence about temperatures, is that I had glass from a broken bottle in a plastic phase ON TOP of the steel drum. Well, actually a little to the side, but I was able to prod this with a steel rod and fold it around. Whether this is the right sort of temp for char is not my main thrust here - I am still blown away (not quite literally) by the capacity of 100Kg of dry wood to produce energy outputs of staggering proportions.

   

  Max H

   

   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
  Sent: Monday, 12 May 2008 2:44 PM
  To: still.thinking at computare.org; 'Terra Preta'; 'Kurt Treutlein'
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Energy Source

   

  Hi Duane,

   

  I agree that Bob Dratch's ideas are not the normal for what I would expect.  I also agree that using nuclear power to carbonize more biomass into charcoal is a pretty good idea, compared to burning 1/2 the biomass we harvest (and letting the gases and heat go into the atmosphere, unused) to make the other 1/2 into charcoal.  Making Terra Preta Nova or Neo Terra Preta do the jobs we need it to do will take LOTS of charcoal.  Nuclear power can help us get more sooner.

   

  Hmmmm  ... Is there any proof that anyone one of us isn't stupid?!

   

  Regards,

   

  SKB

    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: Duane Pendergast<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org> 

    To: 'Sean K. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; 'Terra Preta'<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; 'Kurt Treutlein'<mailto:rukurt at westnet.com.au> 

    Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 10:13 PM

    Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] Energy Source

     

    Sorry Sean, Kurt, 

     

    I hadn't read the entire article by Bob Dratch that Kurt sent till now. I just saw the reference to nuclear energy and instantly developed a warm, fuzzy glow.

     

    Bob Dratch seems to me to be developing some new reactor physics. At least it's new to this mechanical engineer who worked in the nuclear power industry for 26 years. I say that by way of pointing out I'm not a nuclear physicist and would not be one to deny the possibility of new discoveries in that field. The methods I'm aware of for using thorium as a reactor fuel involves first converting it via neutron (or proton) bombardment to produce Uranium 233 which is fissile and can be used as reactor fuel. Not too different from converting uranium 238 into plutonium which can also be used as reactor fuel. These more plodding approaches, based on documented science, are discussed in a paper I presented in Japan several years ago. India is interested in developing thorium powered reactors.

     

    http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Publications/Sustainable%20Development.htm<http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Publications/Sustainable%20Development.htm>

     

    http://www.dae.gov.in/publ/ar0203/chap3.pdf<http://www.dae.gov.in/publ/ar0203/chap3.pdf>

     

    Bob seems to be raising some spurious points re hydrogen. The dream of using hydrogen as a means of storing energy from wind, solar or nuclear plants depends on temporarily converting water to hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is then "burnt" with oxygen - usually assumed to be from the air - to recreate water and produce energy where needed.  The amounts of water temporarily needed for hydrogen production are totally miniscule so the concern he raises - perhaps jokingly - re drying the planet are not credible.

     

    I came across this company a few days ago which is working on a novel concept for a fusion reactor. 

     

    http://www.generalfusion.com/<http://www.generalfusion.com/>

     

    It seems pretty incredible too considering the decades of effort exp-ended on fusion to date with no power plants in sight. The physical principles involved do appeal to a mechanical engineer with a bit of knowledge re shock waves and implosions. At this point I'd be more inclined to invest in General Fusion than in 

     

    http://bob-dratch.org/<http://bob-dratch.org/>

     

    At my age I doubt I'd get much return on my investment or any kind of satisfaction from either.

     

    Sorry for dragging us so far off topic, but I can't help thinking humanity will need a lot of energy and food over the coming decades and centuries. If neo terra preta works and nuclear energy can be used to help maximize  its production in some way - why not go for it.

     

    Duane

     

     

     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
    Sent: May 11, 2008 7:41 PM
    To: Terra Preta; Kurt Treutlein
    Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Energy Source

     

    Hi Kurt,

     

    I read the entire article about Thorium reactors.  I read about Bob's concerns over the theft of fissionable material (spent nuclear fuel) from nuclear fission reactors using Uranium.  I took issue with the first sentence at the top of the the article you referenced, is all.   I think Thorium reactors might be a great idea.  What is the problem with my reaction that you are having?

     

    Kurt, I quoted from the article in blue

     

    Did we not read the same thing?

     

    Regards,

     

    SKB

       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080512/fb59f8aa/attachment.html