WI: Biomass gasification instead of burning coal?

[tallwingedgoat]

There's a lot of discussion on replacing steam power at an early age with clean electric generators. I think this is misguided because steam engines are not inherently polluting, its the burning of coal that's the problem. Even with electric generators you can't escape the need to power them with steam engines.

The alternative is biomass, a renewable, carbon neutral resource. Perhaps we can start with briquette burning steam engines and moving up with earlier understanding of wood gasification process. Would this work to replace coal as the standard fuel of the industrial era? Coal would still be cheaper. But like oil its only available in some parts of the world and there's the cost of developing coal mining and processing industry.

The reason Britain was the first to industrialize, it has been said, was due to its abundant and accessible coal reserves. With a briquettes, industrialization can proceed elsewhere. And with wood gasification technology off to a head start, the need to invest in coal industrial infrastructure would make investing in this fuel uneconomical.

[freodhoric]

Is methane suitable for use in a steam engine?

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by tallwingedgoat

There's a lot of discussion on replacing steam power at an early age with clean electric generators. I think this is misguided because steam engines are not inherently polluting, its the burning of coal that's the problem. Even with electric generators you can't escape the need to power them with steam engines.

The alternative is biomass, a renewable, carbon neutral resource. Perhaps we can start with briquette burning steam engines and moving up with earlier understanding of wood gasification process. Would this work to replace coal as the standard fuel of the industrial era? Coal would still be cheaper. But like oil its only available in some parts of the world and there's the cost of developing coal mining and processing industry.

The reason Britain was the first to industrialize, it has been said, was due to its abundant and accessible coal reserves. With a briquettes, industrialization can proceed elsewhere. And with wood gasification technology off to a head start, the need to invest in coal industrial infrastructure would make investing in this fuel uneconomical.

Biomass is not carbon neutral. At best you're slowing the problem down, not eliminating it.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by tallwingedgoat

The alternative is biomass, a renewable, carbon neutral resource. Perhaps we can start with briquette burning steam engines and moving up with earlier understanding of wood gasification process. Would this work to replace coal as the standard fuel of the industrial era? Coal would still be cheaper. But like oil its only available in some parts of the world and there's the cost of developing coal mining and processing industry.

One of the problems is that charcoal production was traditionally VERY inefficient. ENgland was deforested for energy needs - and turned to coal when charcoal ran out. In the 1632 forum over at Baens bar (http://bar.baen.com/Default.aspx) there is a lot of discussion on the 'scarcity' of wood in 163x. (basically almost every piece of wood in a forest in Germany was already earmarked for some purpose or other.)

So, your POD would surely have to START with efficient gasification, not end there.

[tallwingedgoat]

Biomass for fuel use are typically made from waste material with no other uses. Corn stalks, wheat chaff, peanut shells, etc. These agricultural waste products are typically burnt in the Third World which produce pollution and serve no practical purpose.

Turning this material into pellets or briquettes would make it a useful product and burning it in a gasification burner is far cleaner than what's done with them now. If biomass is deliberately grown for burning, then it uses up carbon in the atmosphere and is therefore carbon neutral.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by tallwingedgoat

Biomass for fuel use are typically made from waste material with no other uses. Corn stalks, wheat chaff, peanut shells, etc. These agricultural waste products are typically burnt in the Third World which produce pollution and serve no practical purpose.

But there WASN'T any 'waste material with no other uses'. People scavenged and used just about everything. Straw was used for thatch, for instance. Also, draft animals probably ate a lot of the 'waste' mass we have no use for.

[tallwingedgoat]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

But there WASN'T any 'waste material with no other uses'. People scavenged and used just about everything. Straw was used for thatch, for instance. Also, draft animals probably ate a lot of the 'waste' mass we have no use for.

I don't think that's true. Even today, Third World farmers on family plots end up with large quantities of left overs they can't use for cooking and heating. These end up being burned as garbage and cause pollution. The Asia Development Bank gives out loans to train farmers for just this purpose.

Had biomass been used in lieu of coal, farmers would be wealthier because their garbage would be worth money. Machinary would be cheaper to operate in places where coal was less available. Industry and transportation would be face less opposition becase they were cleaner burning without the dirty soot from coal.