Renewable, Sustainable, Solid Biofuel....sounds good to me! :-)

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

14 posts / 0 new

Sound too good to be true? I HOPE NOT! This company called Arterran Renewables claims their NextGEN can totally replace COAL without having to change anything at the power plants.

""If you could make a 12,000± Btu coal substitute out of one of the most plentiful substances on Earth for about the same cost of coal that would be a big deal right? That’s What We Do!"

Please check out the site and tell me what YOU think about it.

http://www.arterranrenewables.com/

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Comments

Sonds great. Now let's see it in action.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

why use more energy to turn it into bio-coal of sort. Sounds like they have to spend energy to dry out the waste and then reducing it into bi-char of sort. see video on poor man's way of making bio-char. The process generates lots of pollution. Bio-char can be burnt and it can burn very cleanly.

Why not just use bio-digester to generate methane and use methane instead of natural gas to power the natural gas powered powerplants. Bio-digester doesn't use all that much energy to generate methane. you just don't want the methane to escape into the atmosphere.

smilingcat
Joined:
Sep. 23, 2010 8:14 am
Quote smilingcat:

why use more energy to turn it into bio-coal of sort. Sounds like they have to spend energy to dry out the waste and then reducing it into bi-char of sort. see video on poor man's way of making bio-char. The process generates lots of pollution. Bio-char can be burnt and it can burn very cleanly.

Why not just use bio-digester to generate methane and use methane instead of natural gas to power the natural gas powered powerplants. Bio-digester doesn't use all that much energy to generate methane. you just don't want the methane to escape into the atmosphere.

I hear what you're saying but I imagine they were trying to replace coal because there are so many coal burning plants in operation not only on our continent but across the pond too! Does their process generate a lot of pollution? I didn't dig into it that far.

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

You are correct to be excited Mrs BJLee Arterran's technology to produce a sustainable solid biofuel with ALL of the beneficial characteristics of thermal coal without the pollution or CO2 emissions of coal to be utilized in over 2300 coal fired plants worldwide without any costly modifications is a significant advancement.

Whereas before an expensive, $600,000 per MW, retro fit was required to convert coal fired facilities to biomass today as a result of Arterran Renewables innovation coal fired facilities can now simply switch to utilizing Arterran's NextGEN solid biofuel providing ALL of the beneficial characteristics of coal without the pollution or CO2 emissions of coal without any costly modifications.

Arterran's disruptive innovation not only presents the world with another vital tool to combat climate change, as a solution to the conundrum of coal's cheap, reliable, on demand base load energy but at a terrible cost to health and planet, but helps address the intermittency of solar of wind energy as the final needed and complimentary on demand renewable energy solution required to create a sustainable tomorrow.

www.slideshare.net/DavidTiessen/arterran

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73zep8p4o6M

David Tiessen

Arterran Director of Business Development

PS: Thom - we certainly would be happy to provide info on our company & tech to Mr Sanders for our well paying job creation, coal plant job saving, & climate change benefits as well as to assist his campaign. We may be a Canadian company but we're pro Bernie!

David Tiessen's picture
David Tiessen
Joined:
Aug. 20, 2015 5:18 pm

Sounds like a better more flexible way to provide Biomass fuel. Best application for biomass solid fuel is for home heating in Northern and/or isolated areas that do not have access to cheap natural gas and are stuck to use expensive heating oil. Also larger areas like Hawaii that are mostly on Oil electricity generation may choose to replace oil with thermal biomass which may be 60-70% of the cost of oil generation, with lower emissions.

The Biomass as a feedstock to coal power plants is still about 4X the cost of coal and double the cost of NG in OCGT power plants, triple the cost of NG in CCGT power plants in the USA, but comparable to the cost of LNG generation as is predominant in Japan.

Garbage or commercial & household waste can be burnt at high temperatures to produce electricity, rather than dumping it into landfills. Although that has little impact on GHG emissions, it does substantially reduce the size of landfill areas. But it costs 3X as much as regular landfill methods.

The most practical and wisest use of biomass is to directly produce Methanol & DME, as substitutes for gasoline, diesel and heating oil. Indeed the many areas with diseased, dead, over mature or overgrown forest can be culled on site with portable wood to methanol production plants. This would greatly reduce the devastating and very unhealthy forest fires that have plagued the midwest as well as providing low emission fuel substitute for toxic, job killing, terrorist oil imports. Except Big Oil don't want that done and makes sure that market is blockaded in the west. Methanol & DME is widely used in China, although they mostly make it from coal, for about 13 cents per liter.

http://deq.mt.gov/Energy/bioenergy/Biodiesel_Production_Educ_Presentations/KVogt_Pablo_NCAT_10_31_07.pdf

Methanol use in China:

http://emsh-ngtech.com/methanol/about-methanol/

Low emissions transportation & home heating fuel is the obvious application for biomass, clean electricity can be done with Nuclear energy & Hydro and in some cases it is economical with solar, wind & geothermal. No need for biomass.

Big issue of biomass energy beside the higher cost and only modest emissions reductions is that supply is way to small to seriously impact world fossil fuel consumption. In most areas, including biomass loving California, biomass electricity production is not growing significantly. Many areas have already experienced biomass shortages and consequent price increases during the peak winter demand season.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am
Quote David Tiessen:

You are correct to be excited Mrs BJLee Arterran's technology to produce a sustainable solid biofuel with ALL of the beneficial characteristics of thermal coal without the pollution or CO2 emissions of coal to be utilized in over 2300 coal fired plants worldwide without any costly modifications is a significant advancement.

Whereas before an expensive, $600,000 per MW, retro fit was required to convert coal fired facilities to biomass today as a result of Arterran Renewables innovation coal fired facilities can now simply switch to utilizing Arterran's NextGEN solid biofuel providing ALL of the beneficial characteristics of coal without the pollution or CO2 emissions of coal without any costly modifications.

Arterran's disruptive innovation not only presents the world with another vital tool to combat climate change, as a solution to the conundrum of coal's cheap, reliable, on demand base load energy but at a terrible cost to health and planet, but helps address the intermittency of solar of wind energy as the final needed and complimentary on demand renewable energy solution required to create a sustainable tomorrow.

www.slideshare.net/DavidTiessen/arterran

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73zep8p4o6M

David Tiessen

Arterran Director of Business Development

PS: Thom - we certainly would be happy to provide info on our company & tech to Mr Sanders for our well paying job creation, coal plant job saving, & climate change benefits as well as to assist his campaign. We may be a Canadian company but we're pro Bernie!

Mr. Tiessen, your product is certainly intriguing but there is another metric needed to properly judge this breakthrough: pounds per cubic foot. As I'm sure you know most coal is delivered to power plants by rail or barge. Here: http://www.arterranrenewables.com/#!reports/c1iwb

your product appears to be substantially more voluminous than coal which would greatly increase transportation costs of the fuel. Am I reading that wrong? Thanks.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am
Quote David Tiessen:

You are correct to be excited Mrs BJLee Arterran's technology to produce a sustainable solid biofuel with ALL of the beneficial characteristics of thermal coal without the pollution or CO2 emissions of coal to be utilized in over 2300 coal fired plants worldwide without any costly modifications is a significant advancement.

Whereas before an expensive, $600,000 per MW, retro fit was required to convert coal fired facilities to biomass today as a result of Arterran Renewables innovation coal fired facilities can now simply switch to utilizing Arterran's NextGEN solid biofuel providing ALL of the beneficial characteristics of coal without the pollution or CO2 emissions of coal without any costly modifications.

Arterran's disruptive innovation not only presents the world with another vital tool to combat climate change, as a solution to the conundrum of coal's cheap, reliable, on demand base load energy but at a terrible cost to health and planet, but helps address the intermittency of solar of wind energy as the final needed and complimentary on demand renewable energy solution required to create a sustainable tomorrow.

www.slideshare.net/DavidTiessen/arterran

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73zep8p4o6M

David Tiessen

Arterran Director of Business Development

PS: Thom - we certainly would be happy to provide info on our company & tech to Mr Sanders for our well paying job creation, coal plant job saving, & climate change benefits as well as to assist his campaign. We may be a Canadian company but we're pro Bernie!

Might I also add that it helps to clean up our planet also by what you are using to make the fuel! :-)

Thank you for your reply and for caring enough for our planet to actually do something about pollution issues.

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

I'm guessing because the "energy density is 50-60% higher than wood pellets" it would take 1/2 of the bulk density of wood pellets to have the normal required energy output so even though it's bluk density is 30% greater, you wouldn't need as much.

Wrap your head around that....LOL.....that's my take on it, for what it's worth. :-)

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am
Quote MrsBJLee:

I'm guessing because the "energy density is 50-60% higher than wood pellets" it would take 1/2 of the bulk density of wood pellets to have the normal required energy output so even though it's bluk density is 30% greater, you wouldn't need as much.

Wrap your head around that....LOL.....that's my take on it, for what it's worth. :-)

Science, you "gotta luv it." :-) Trouble is that comparison is to wood pellets, not to the pellitized coal this product seeks to replace. I make charcoal from trees I grow to burn in my forge. Properly carburized dry wood will increase in energy potential by almost 50%: From 20 MJ/kg to 32 MJ/kg.

The amazing thing about this transformation is that a chunk of wood that you convert to charcoal will be much lighter after the water and other volatiles are driven off, have much more energy but be almost the same size, which leads to my question to Mr. Tiessen about weight per volume.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Volumetric vs Mass energy density is not a significant issue here. The big issues are cost and supply. They cannot even come remotely close to supplying even a significant fraction of coal consumption even in Canada where the pellets are produced. And at a much higher cost, in fact more expensive than much cleaner Nuclear Energy. Which does not have the supply limit that biomass has.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

I should add the big problem with volumetric energy density with biomass is in gathering the raw, usually wet biomass, with a low energy density, over a large area to the processing plant, where the energy density will be increased by a factor of several times. That severely constrains the economics and the EROI (Energy Return on Invested) for biomass fuel. That's a big advantage of the transport trailer sized processing plants that can convert local biomass (i.e. diseased and over-mature forest) directly into compact, easily stored and tranported methanol fuel.

Also biomass is produced by solar energy with an energy efficiency of 0.1% to 1% vs solar PV at 8-20% efficiency. If biomass is burned for electricity generation that efficiency drops by a further factor of 3 to 0.03% to 0.3% efficiency or anywhere from 27X to 670X lower efficiency than solar PV. If you converted all currently utilized arable land in North America to the highest yield switchgrass production, it would not even supply 1/3rd of United States current energy consumption. And we still need that land for food & livestock feed, not energy production.

So really the big advantage of biomass is it captures carbon from the atmosphere. We don't need carbon for electricity production, you can use solar, hydro, wind, geothermal & nuclear for that. The carbon is needed to make liquid fuels, concentrated portable energy sources for predominantly transportation applications. All good liquid fuels have a high carbon content.

And moreso when you produce biofuels you want to have a high carbon efficiency, that is all the carbon captured from the atmosphere you want transfered into the liquid fuel carbon. That is one more reason why fermented liquid fuels like corn ethanol with a carbon efficiency of < 30%, are just plain dumb and a terrible waste of water and biomass feedstock. Direct biomass to methanol is the most efficient, practical, economic and enviromentally friendly to utilize that resource.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am
Quote Instant-RunOff-Voting:

I should add the big problem with volumetric energy density with biomass is in gathering the raw, usually wet biomass, with a low energy density, over a large area to the processing plant, where the energy density will be increased by a factor of several times. That severely constrains the economics and the EROI (Energy Return on Invested) for biomass fuel. ...

...which is exactly what I was trying to point out, for the other end of the process. At 12,500 btus/kg this biofuel is more energetic than bituminous coal and slightly below anthracite. A rail car loaded with coal averages between 100 -120 tons. If this company can't approach that capacity they are dead in the water.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

OK....so where is David Tiessen?

Please answer some of the points others have brought up.

I would love to know more. Thank you.

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Impeachment: The Difference Between Nixon & Trump

Thom plus logo There is a very simple reason why some Republicans participated in the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, but none have so far broken ranks against Trump. That reason is the US Supreme Court.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system