A good Mechanical Engineer...?

What sort of wattage are you shooting for?

Normally, I would say the turbine required between the boiler and the generator would be the expensive part, but if you really don't need much output you could look into using the turbine off an automotive turbo - maybe $50 out of a wrecking yard. That just leaves the boiler to worry about...

15000 watts, 240 VAC, 62 amps. Enough for a conservative home. I had thought to use a small industrial transmission or motor cycle transmission to match the generator. The basic design will need to be refined as details become available. The design needs to be common, using available off the shelf products. Something you can find in a good junk yard. Once the steam engine is mounted people can modify the system to match their generator. Chain drive, transmission or Leprechauns if your Irish.( wee people) The general size needs to be able to be transported on the back of pick-up truck or lorry. Once installed or built, yes you will work to have power. If you live in Northern Canada, it would be worth it. This discussion is designed to talk out the details. It's open, so everyone can apply the design.

James

Hastings Electric wrote: "15000 watts, 240 VAC, 62 amps. Enough for a conservative home".

I think this power estimate may be high. 15kW is enough to power a couple of homes in my experience. But then I'm forgetting peoples love affair with makinng their homes as frigid as an ice box by running way too much air conditioning. Without air conditioning you can run the average single family home on 5kW or less. People with deep wells and submerged pumps do require a 10kW genset to start the pump. My wife's uncle still lives on the family homestead which is too far out of town to be electrified. He runs the whole place on a 3kw inverter. He neglected to get a low start surge well pump. That requires starting the genset to get it running. However once the pump is running it only takes a 3kW inverter to run the rest of the household.

With some upgrades to low energy use appliances, a typical household does not have to use more than 6kW or at most 10kW for peak surge demand loads. That should ease the power generation demands. Like Andy Germany, I also favor some form of Stirling engine mounted on top of the wood burning boiler.

I think your estimates are correct where no AC is in use....

Otherwise people would be forever complaining about their electricity bills!!!!!

I have replaced a lot of my lighting with FLs, CFS and LEDs.

I am already planning the new kitchen with further LED strips and of course we will use our 5 Induction hobs not only to cook better and faster, but save probably at least 40% of the electricity normally wasted when cooking on a hob (stove). Some actually estimate 80% saving, but I want to be a bit more conservative with my claims than that.....as I have not done the necessary testing myself....

Induction cooking is better in many ways as it gives up very little heat into the home, not like gas & normal resistive methods....nice in summer!

Sadly, induction cannot help with the oven.....

If you wish to know more, goto and read:-

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/12762

I will answer any questions you have about induction cooking in that Blog as that is where the answers belong.

One point about induction Hob cooking that is pertinent to this thread. There is often confusion regarding energy consumption in KWH and instantaneous power demand as in Surge loads in AMPS. You mentioned in your blog the hob using 2.4 or even 4 kW of energy yet you also mention the fact that because of fast heating the stove uses less energy. This is important to remember. If a stove requires 4 or 5 kW of energy to reach working heat this amp draw must be factored into the load demand placed on a generator. Doesn't matter if this load only last five minutes instead of five hours.

We are accustomed to thinking in terms of kW for gensets, but amps for loads like dryers, stoves, lights, and pumps. Any rotary generator has a very limited ability to handle surge loads beyond its rated capacity. This is where battery powered inverter systems really perform well. Steam engines (piston) have traditionally been considered as having very great torque ar zero speed. All that steam pressure pressing on the piston. Steam turbines work differently. The turbine only develops power with speed. This is a significant design criteria to consider when deeloping this concept.

The stove "wastes" no energy to speak of, only the pot or pan is heated, the "hob" itself, a glass or plastic material only gets slightly warm from the contact to the pan, not from the induction coil inside!!!! An important point. ALL THE ENERGY GOES INTO THE POT except for maybe less than 1%....

There is no stove "warm up time", the stove is instantly on and instantly off. The pot takes a bit of time to warm up, that is all.....you can stop boiling milk boiling over with one click!!

You can fry with a sheet of newspaper under the pan to catch any flying fat and the newspaper does not even go brown AT ALL!!!

Placing your hand on the hob JUST after frying will not burn you as it would with a gas or any other type of electrical cooking, you will not hold your hand there long, but you won't get burnt!!! Its just very uncomfortable....

So its also a good safety point with small children, plus the fact that the controls are on top, a bit farther away than usual from tiny fingers, which means tiny eyes cannot even see them, much less operate them!!!!

One should still of course take care with children and pot handles, that has not changed, excepting with us, we have "portable" units, 2 x 2 hobs and 1 x 1 hob, we push them back against the wall and even the handles are out of reach of small children!!!

These portable units are also far, far cheaper, but otherwise identical in operation with expensive units, with power, or temperature control that can be combined with time if required....FANTASTIC!!!!

Everyone that i know that has tried them, buys one.....my wife hates "new fangled" things, she loves induction hobs. We even take the single camping in summer as it puts no heat into the air worth talking about on a hot day!!!

Upon reflection I do not think a turbine is the best solution for this application. Turbines require high volume flow and this boiler would not meet such a high volume outflow. I am a steam engine buff and have seen steam turbine generators running on CASE steam tractors. A small boiler cannot compete with a 2 ton twelve foot long X 36" diamerter tractor boiler. One of steam's prime advantages is high torque at slow RPM. This is a good application for a speed doubler or maybe even tripler. The driving engine can then be a relatively slow steam piston engine.

Ordinary alternators capable of delivering 240V at 60HZ run at 1800 RPM so the steam engine has to reach either 900 RPM or 600RPM while delivering enough torque to spin the 12kW generator at 1800 RPM. This is well within the capabilities of ordinary farm tractor PTO driven equipment. 10kW, 12kW, and even 20kW generators for tractor PTO use can be found lying around many farms or used equipment dealers. These were much more common before the rural electrification program was completed.

An 1800 RPM steam piston engine is not a realistic goal. Keeping it low tech, a fly ball governor would probably suffice for the speed regulator to keep the generator close to the 60Hz needed by the household equipment.

One thing that might prove slightly problematic is the continuous feeding of the boiler with fresh wood on an ongoing basis. The old steam tractors and steam driven paddle wheel boats had an insatiable appetite for wood. Once past the proof of concept stage, I suspect some R&D into more efficient boiler is in order.

Ships used something called a Scotch Boiler. It was a pyramid structure with lots of pipes inside over the fire box. They were far more efficient than the land based locomotive boilers. After all a ship cannot stop for more fire wod or coal out in th eocean. A locomotive can be resupplied at frequent intervals. So could the early steam boats plying our interior river systems.

Unfortunately I have only seen models of a Sctoch boiler that woudl fit into a pick up truck. Ordinarily these boilers are 8 feet to twenty feet high. However I have seen working models in several museums.

Hi elnav.

You were describing a "Yarrow" boiler not a Scotch boiler there. A Scotch boiler is a cylinderical type of boiler with a mass of smoke tubes running the length of the boiler. Both the Yarrow and the Babcock boiler use an arangement of water tubes placed in and above the fire box. Of these the Yarrow and the Scotch boiler is for marine use, and the Yarrow is twice as effective as a Scotch boiler.

I have been a marine engineer all my life and and for the higher powers and efficiencies we always used the Yarrow boiler.

Spencer.

This site seemed interesting. Might be able to scale something up from here...

http://npmccabe.tripod.com/steam.htm

Good answer. Does Morris Engineering Dept. have an e-mail?

Thanks, James

Don't know, but these guys do... http://www.ltd-stirling.de/id46.htm

I just got one of these for a Christmas present, and I must say it is about the coolest gift I have ever received...

OK

James,

You got my attention. The only problem is that my knowledge of the necessary fields is just enough to get me in a lot of trouble. (of course that's what keeps life interesting) I've been thinking for several months about using an auto alternator to produce power for my camper using water to turn it.

I've just spent several hours trying to find out info on turbochargers used on trucks. I'm thinking steam would turn them and they would have the power output to do what you want. So far, I haven't found the info that one really needs such as pressure, velocity etc. I think if they can be used it will certainly help to keep the size and weight down versus a steam engine.

On Holset's website I see them talking 100,000 to 130,000 rpm so one would have to slow the final shaft speed down by about 55 to 72 times. I'm thinking it might actually be easier to control the alternator speed more precisely by working on the high RPM side of things.

There are enough smart people kicking around here that can easily fill in some of the needed info. It will be a fun project.

Randy

I think that you should forget steam completely, thats only good for large needs, not a household.

My best bet is still a Stirling motor, big enough for your power needs.

Obviously wood could be burnt, but difficult to automate, so what about wood pellets and a properly built automated burner??

They have been automated for years, I have one to warm my kitchen and halls, it is fantastic.....

Andy Germany wrote: I think that you should forget steam completely, thats only good for large needs, not a household.

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

REPLY

After looking at the Mike Brown website link provided I concur. Mike Brown says his one horsepower steam engine requires 20 pounds of wood per hour to drive a 500 watt generator. Using Hastings Electric original estimate of needing a 15,000 wat generator that translates into needing 600 pounds of wood per hour. I don't think this is practical. With ten times better efficiency this still means requiring 60 pounds of wood per hour which presents some logistical problems. Looks like it would require one person almost full time just to stoke the boiler. < big grin> Come to think of it, that is exactly what train locomotives and ships were doing. Big ships often employed seveal "stokers" per shift to keep the big boilers fed with wood or coal. My very efficient home stove uses about 20 -30 lbs per day to heat our house. Even so we have to reload the fire box several times per 24 hour day.

You have beaten me in speed: I was going to propose the same.

A Stirling engine driven by a wood burner.

The resulting efficiency will be much higher as with steam dT is limited to approx 300K. The Stirling could have a dT of 600K or more.

3) Can it be environmentally friendly?

Are you kidding? Wood fires produce lots of smoke, ash, and "green-house gases". Increasing population in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire (and before the plagues of the Middle Ages and even after to some extent) and the use of wood-fired energy (for home heat, for cooking, for primitive manufacturing, etc. was primarily responsible for the deforestation of Europe and, some scientists believe, for bringing on or amplifying a "Little Ice Age" in Europe that shortened growing seasons and contributed to massive starvation. Were it not for the discovery and use of massive sub-surface (and cleaner burning) coal (and later, oil) deposits Europe might not have ever recovered or been able to start the Industrial Revolution.

In North America, we have been blessed with countless acres of forests versus an (originally) relatively small population, so our tradition of burning firewood for energy is still very much in our collective memory (where we often discover foolishly nostalgic ideas).

On the other hand, if you are talking about only onesy-twosy, or very few actual installations, the effect should be minimal, as long as you have an ample supply of dead firewood. But environmentally friendly? Not hardly!

STL Engineer is partially right about smoke and ash production. However on the subject of green house gasses, the jury is still out. Wood does not contain sulphur like some coal does. If this wood burner is used to produce power from waste wood then it makes sense. It does not make sense for urban dwellers to switch en masse to this technology.

I live in an area that is devatated by Pine Beetle infestations. The trees are literally rotting where they stand. If the trees are not harvested now while some good wood remains in the core, its totally wasted and letting them fall where they grew would make for an inpenetrable mess which could not even be reforested.

Consequently much of the wood is used locally for heat. If power generation could be added to the beneficial outcome of burning this wood for heat, so much the better.

Rotting or burning produces "EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF CO2 GUYS!!!" Rotting just takes a little bit longer......

There is no difference, so let us burn and make the co2 from a useful job!!!

"EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF CO2 GUYS!!!"

I was wondering about that, I'd have thought it was right, but...has anyone verified it? Do the bugs, bacteria etc produce CO² or does it end up as other compounds?

I'm not arguing...just querying if it is proven or an assumtion.

Del

["However, Reid and other advocates note that wood-burning plants do not increase the amount of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, released into the atmosphere, which contribute to global warming. That's partly because the wood burned would have eventually decayed naturally to produce carbon dioxide anyway. Moreover, as new trees grow, they remove as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as is released by burning the same number of trees."]

Taken from ...here. Many other citations available. Appears to be in agreement with 'the Laws'

cr3

OK for the CO2 result of wood burning.

But I'm worried about the other resulting products of wood burning: NOx and micro particles. They are way worse for humans.

World is looking to narrow to the CO2 and should look beond it: The Idea of CO2 reduction was just a way to get the total pollution down, if we reduce the CO2 exhaust then the rest will automatically follow. Now some clever advocates found that if you count the tree as negative then the result of your wood stove is 0 or even negative.

None is less true, it is only the economical way of looking into problems: if you have to much positive just add a negative.

Firstly, I never said whether or not "green-house gasses" were harmful, just that they are produced, and that includes Carbon monoxide and Carbon dioxide, which would be a concern if you were "environmentally conscious", as in, why take the chance if there are better alternatives, at least when you arre talking large scale. Sulfur in coal produces acid rain as well as SO₂ gas, but, in the US at least, federal clean air regulations require utilities which burn coal to produce electricitiy to burn low-sulfur coal only or use "scrubbers" that eliminate or reduce sulfer emissions.

I have no problem with harvesting dead wood. Certainly pulp and paper mills have a great need for this resource. Some of the wood might even by good for structural use if it is not too badly damaged by the insects or rot. Burning on a small scale, as in occasional residential or recreational use I don't mind either, but on a large scale? I can remember massive Scout camporees involving thousands of Scouts and their leaders, before the use of cleaner burning charcoal or pressurized fuel cooking stoves became prevalent, where the entire valley filled with smoke (probably due to a temperature inversion which trapped it) causing nausea and coughing for affected Scouts and Scouters, hardly what one thinks of when one undertakes a nature outing!

All I am saying is to be careful recommending wood fires for energy use and to use common sense particularly when there are viable alternatives. There may also be ramifications of wood-burning not thought of, e.g. ash disposal, safety (from carbon monoxide poisoning, burn injuries, or sturctural and wildfires damage), opportunity costs (by using a resource which might better serve another use), etc.

Again, small scale use, usually no problem.

STL engineer wrote: Are you kidding? Wood fires produce lots of smoke, ash, and "green-house gases". >>>>snip <<<< if you are talking about only onesy-twosy, or very few actual installations, the effect should be minimal, as long as you have an ample supply of dead firewood. But environmentally friendly? Not hardly! >>>>>>> snip <<<<<<<< Firstly, I never said whether or not "green-house gasses" were harmful, just that they are produced, and that includes Carbon monoxide and Carbon dioxide. >>>> snip <<<< I can remember massive Scout camporees involving thousands of Scouts and their leaders, before the use of cleaner burning charcoal or pressurized fuel cooking stoves became prevalent, where the entire valley filled with smoke >> snip <<

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

First off, the proposed project is not just a glorified scouting camp fire type of burning. Secondly the concept was for a portable wood burning power generator for use by individual homes etc. that burned waste wood. By its very nature this is not an urban power unit intended for replacement of established urban power grid or natural gas fuelled generators. Lastly, the whole idea of this is to develop a much more efficient way to develop power on a small scale.

You mention smoke, ash and particulate emissions as an argument against the concept. Right now America is for the most part still using almost stone age technology wood burning devices. Government supervised EPA tests of new modern designs for wood stoves have proven these burn cleaner, produce less particulates and even less ash than what most people consider the "ordinary" wood stove.

Sadly people's lack of understanding of how to make a more efficient fire is the root cause of much of the opposition as exemplified by your statements in earlier posts.

Elnav

Yikes! Where to start?

Firstly, start at the end. Of my posting that is. Read the last two paragraphs, please.

I was only applying a caveat, not a condemnation.

The Boy Scout example was only for illustration of the hazards of wood smoke, not to argue that this would be the result of building such an invention. However, large scale adoption by small communities could lead to a similar problem given the right (or wrong) circumstances.

Of course it is not an urban power unit, did I ever say it was or even seemed like? Check my other posting. And, yes, I know that advanced technology can lead to better more efficient burning, but bear in mind the author was planning this as a "power generation unit the little man can afford" which I read as make it as low tech as possible to save manufacturing costs.

You seem to be going on off in a tangent, like looking for aggravation or an argument! I find your tone to be high handed and very rude....

You also show very little overall understanding of the problem and jump from point to point without much logic.

I would in your case sit down, take a breather and study the energy problem as a whole first before jumping up and shouting!!!

You live in one of the main/biggest polluting countries in this world!!

I stick up for Germany as they have had a re-forestry system probably longer than any other country......over 150 years.....

One should not forget that. They are not perfect, but they have agreed recently to finance complete new methods to try and cut down the usage of fossil fuels....

I agree that in some under developed countries, where the fast buck is paramount, and I include the USA as they have only signed up to reduce the CO2 output in the last 24 hours or so (with Australia and Canada being just as bad in their own way!!).

China of course did not as far as I am aware even go to the conference in the first place, but until those three countries I just mentioned have signed up, there is small chance that China will do so I feel.....if then!!

But with burning Bio products but at least the earth has a chance to replace the CO2 back in trees and other plant growth from back where it came.....

CO2 neutral....is still the way to go.

But it will take a long time.....

I would rather see trees burnt for fuel than rot on the ground as the CO2 footprint is identical, it just takes a bit longer.....

When countries actively replace forests (preferably at a higher rate than usage as we all want to breath oxygen I feel), then there are few unacceptable of un-fixable problems produced....

It is the use of fossil fuels "will nilly" that are causing the CO2 imbalance and a huge lack of Solar and thermal energy products that can be put to common use and good.........

The heavy AC on all summer burning up electricity, the V-8 engines with 10MPG etc etc etc.....some Americans feel that if they can pay for it, then they are due it!!! They are sadly not alone in this world......I hope they hear what their grandchildren think about that in 50 years time!!!

My personal impression is that with the exception of the USA & Canada, most other countries have cars with smaller, more efficient engines, higher proportion of diesels and lighter (I did not say light) cars......eg. more energy efficient, burn less fuel.

We also make sure that our cars are checked regularly that oil is not leaking out or being burnt and that emission controls are in good working order....these controls are seeming not followed by some US car owners according to CR4 members with oily leaky cars and trucks, whereas you also have vehicle emission standards in the USA, so I do not follow that fully.....

The CO2 footprint of a vehicle is a 1:1 ratio to the amount of fuel burnt....not how good the emission controls are anyway. That is Burning X gallons of Petrol = Y pounds of CO2, no matter who made the car and how old it is.

Smaller better fuel efficiency cars simply produce less CO2!

Please tell us, if you wish, what you have done in your own personal area of house and car etc., to reduce the production of CO2 in the last few years, what type of car you have, how many cars/trucks, lorries and motorbike etc.. What lighting fixtures have been replaced with what lamp types, anything....

...and please do it in a calm and collected manner, or forget it completely......

I am not looking for an argument nor as I think STL is. But please allow me to take this opportunity to offer the following as taught by the Zen master:

Certain things in the world appeal to you. Certain other things don't. You have your considered opinions about different issues. You may believe there is a benign power somewhere that cares for you. You may believe it's a chaotic world without any rhyme or reason.

How you perceive the world not only tells about the world, but it is also a reflection of how your mind works. Seeing your own mind in how the world appears to you is to come full circle and to come full circle is not the end but the beginning.

regards

cr3

Claptrap.

Andy, Andy, Andy....

Too many words, too little time (sigh).

1. I did not go off on a tangent, but you did! I was talking about the invention being "environmentally friendly" which was one of points that the original poster was asking about. You, on the other hand decided to bring up automobile pollution which has nothing to do with this thread!

2. Talk about being high handed and very rude.... just read some of the words you have written:

"You also show very little overall understanding of the problem and jump from point to point without much logic."

What? I was only commenting on one point, "environmental friendly" aspects of the problem, as requested by the original poster.

"I would in your case sit down, take a breather and study the energy problem as a whole first before jumping up and shouting!!!"

When did I jump up and shout?

"...and please do it in a calm and collected manner, or forget it completely......"

That implies that I did not write previously in a calm and collected manner. All I can say to that is, huh? Where did that come from? Sounds like pure, unfounded insult to me!

3. Stick up for Germany all you want, but my example was not false or misleading, and those 150 years you quote have not exactly been continuous. I did not even name Germany! There are many other countries in Europe. My example of the deforestation of Europe was only meant to show a possible effect of wanton use of wood as an energy source. It was not intended as a diatribe against Germany, as you have done to the USA. If you want to start picking on countries, shall we just check back about 70 years and talk about the good will and human brotherhood, as well as environmental concern, that Germany blessed the world with? No, I thought not. Yes, the USA has a long way to go in energy efficiency and pollution reduction. But we have come a long way as well, and your comments are neither accurate nor helpful. Your impressions are just wrong. Our government mandates that car producers, including the importers, achieve ever higher "Corporate Average Fuel Economy" and we have "gas-guzzler" taxes as well. Yes, some rich people believe that if they can afford it they can do it, but other rich people in the USA are the first buyers and early adopters of expensive "green" vehicles, hybrids, electrics, solar-powered, etc., encouraging production of these technologies.

4. Please tell us, if you wish, what you have done in your own personal area of house and car etc., to reduce the production of CO2 in the last few years, what type of car you have, how many cars/trucks, lorries and motorbike etc.. What lighting fixtures have been replaced with what lamp types, anything....

OK, I accept your challenge, and won't even insult you in the same way by asking "what have you done?", which is obviously what you want me to do, so don't sit there with such a smug smile on your face!

I have replaced virtually all of the wasteful incandescent lighting in my house with energy efficient (although more expensive) compact fluorescent bulbs. My wife drives a newer domestic mini-van (V-6 engine) that she often uses to transport many more children (ours and friends) than a normal vehicle, as well as oversize cargo that we would otherwise have to hire someone to move when we need to. We also equipped it with a trailer hitch to pull a rental trailer if needed (and we have). She recently used the van with Boy Scouts in a food collection campaign (Scouting for Food) to collect donated canned goods to community food pantries for distribution to needy families. We do have two vehicles because our jobs take us to separate parts of our metro area, and mass transportation is not available from where we live. However, on weekends we usually only use one vehicle and try to reduce travel as much as possible. My personal vehicle is an older Ford Taurus sedan (V-6 also) that still gets about 20 MPG and can carry our entire family if necessary. It recently (this summer) developed a leak in the air conditioner compressor, which we could not afford to replace, and rather than wasting expensive and polluting refrigerant, I had to fore-go operating the Air Conditioner despite high temperature and high humidity during my 26 mile (up to one hour with heavy traffic) commute. Thank goodness for cooler Fall weather! Hopefully, next spring, before the hot and humid summer, we can afford to buy a newer vehicle to replace it, one with better fuel economy as well. I have lived (travelled and worked) in southern Germany in the summer and it was delightful the whole time. No wonder you have no need for air conditioning!

We also use efficient natural gas appliances (water heater, oven and stove, clothing drier) that have virtually no pollution. Electric devices don't pollute either, but the production of electricity is often very polluting. However, for a large part we do heat food with a microwave oven for very short periods, or crisp some foods in a very small "toaster oven", both of which are fairly efficient. Therefore, we reduce the overall pollution in that way. To reduce the load on our house Air Conditioning in the summer I will often grill our food outside on the propane gas grill, rather than create more heat inside the house by cooking on the stove or in the oven. When we had our house built 13 years ago we paid extra for the most efficient windows and extra wall and attic insulation to reduce energy consumption for the long term. We do not own any other motor vehicles, unless you count our riding lawn mower which I use for about less than one hour every two weeks in the summer to mow our one acre lot. OK, I guess I could push a smaller mower for about 3 hours, but how much more efficient would that be? I would rather spend the extra time with my family during my time off work, considering what little impact the difference might have.

What else do you suggest I can do, within reason? No, I am not going to move my family to an urban box home on a postage stamp lot or into an apartment so we can all take mass transportation and fore-go the freedom to travel where we wish, as we wish, and not have a large back yard to play baseball and other outdoor games and sports. However, we will be taking a vacation next summer by train from the Midwest to East coast (New York City), taking mass transportation when we arrive there. I got to see the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island (where my Grandfather immigrated through) and the WTC Memorial, visit museums, observe the city from the top of a skyscraper, etc. when I was a kid and low oil prices made a car trip much more cost effective. I want my kids to have the same opportunity, visiting one of America's greatest cities, learning more about their history and culture than they can get in a book.

Oh, and yes, I have been known to burn a log or two while camping with my family! Oh, the shame of such inefficiency!

That's all I have to say and I shall not respond to any more of your criticism of me or of my country. Good day, sir!

That is another Americanism:- "We might do a lot wrong, but we do not allow criticism of one of the most CO2 producing countries in the world".....

By the way, I have a 4 cylinder Diesel, I can (if I wish - but rarely) drive at almost 2 times your national limit of 70 MPH......but when I don't, I average between 40-60 MPG....I get 30MPG when driving at 50MPH pulling a 1.5 metric Ton Trailer.....I do not feel that my car is unusual, its just got a European Diesel Engine in it!!! Bog standard for Europe....136BHP and fuel efficient!

My wife and Daughter share a small Nissan 4 cylinder, that uses a similar amount of petrol, but does not go as fast.

We have over the years insulated the house in many areas and have reduced our gas consumption by half. More outside insulation is planned for early next year, once I have put a new window in the new kitchen.

All rooms, except one, have gone over to FLs, CFS or LED lighting, once the kitchen is finished I will be replacing the Halogen lighting in the lounge for CFLs...

I am sure that there will be further areas that I can improve upon as there is in any house.....

....and at the end of the day, Australia, the USA and Canada are STILL the most polluting Western countries, followed by Russia and China.....and are so recognized by the rest of the Western and other nations......its in the news right now!!!

Under heavy World duress they have FINALLY signed up to improve matters and help to stop acid rain etc....

I could go on, but when you have so much unused ammo as I have, shooting fish in a barrel just gets boring!!!!!

Mines bigger.

Rummy,

When I worked for a German-American joint venture company, in the US office we had a saying about our colleagues in Deutschland:

"You can always tell a German.....but you can't tell him much!"

BITCH FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Andy you are right up your own arse, STL is pointing out a few bad points of this wood burning exercise. Get over yourself!

I need, just for clarity, and to make it very it clear, state that this is not my post. Whether I agree or disagree. I did not post it.

You have completely misunderstood the concept, even though I and several others have told you about it and why....

Then listen to the world news, its not a new concept, its not a difficult concept, it is talked about almost daily here, I am sure its the same where you are and it will work....if we all do our best to understand it and implement it !!!

Or are you just playing "dumb Bunny" to keep us all typing!!! Or is it really you?

The real reason for burning wood is that it is carbon neutral, which is why it is needed to be used first and foremost.

Burning carbon fossil fuels is not carbon neutral and causes more problems because of that. I do not need to detail them here surely.....

The reason that the forests disappeared is because nobody planted new trees, they just took and did not give back to the forest.

The policy in Germany is that they must plant MORE trees than are cut down....its that simple!!!!

This policy is followed in most developed countries, if it is not done in your country, it is because you are not yet a FULLY developed country!! It will come....

This policy is followed in most developed countries, if it is not done in your country, it is because you are not yet a FULLY developed country!! It will come....

Who defines what IS or IS NOT a FULLY developed country? And how is that a guarantee that mandatory reforestation will be required, or even work, if the damage is already done on a massive scale? Sure, that's the policy in Germany, NOW. So what, the last 30-40 years are going to make up for centuries or millennia of poor forest management? Well, its a start.

What about Brazil? Burgeoning population in rural areas, hmmm... just perfect for the "small wood fired generation system the little man can afford" might become quite in demand, giving slash-and-burn agriculturalists (farmers) prevalent in the Brazilian rain-forests even more incentive to cut-down the major oxygen producers on our planet. Hmmm...Brazil is now exporting canned meat products, producing automobiles, and has one of the most robust economies in Latin America, aren't they "fully developed"?

OK, maybe I am just "stirring the pot" a little, but somebody needs to!

The real reason for burning wood is that it is carbon neutral, which is why it is needed to be used first and foremost

Also, wood is neither mined nor manufactured and is easy to catch in a foot race.

The reason that the forests disappeared is because nobody planted new trees, they just took and did not give back to the forest.
The policy in Germany is that they must plant MORE trees than are cut down....its that simple!!!!
This policy is followed in most developed countries, if it is not done in your country, it is because you are not yet a FULLY developed country!! It will come....

It does not take a mathematician to see the error of this logic. If I cut down 100 trees today and plant 1000 I am still not preventing deforestation. You see Andy, it is the rate at which trees grow versus the rate at which they are cut that creates the problem.

respectfully,

cr3

Good points Rummy!

I did not realise that you were expecting a treatise on reforestation in Germany, I thought a small indication of the basic principle would be enough for most people....also you are the only one I have read up to now that seems upset! Maybe the rest understood that?

...and your example is appalling childish, surely you can do better than that?

Reforestation is a science....not a sentence.

James,

I like your idea of generating power from wood energy. I have thought about it for a long time but have never got off my duff to actually try anything.

It might be worth considering that since power generation is so inefficient (fuel to electricity=about 25% efficient) that the power plant be tapped for a kind of a "central energy source" for your needs. Waste heat can be used to heat water for home heating and hot water needs. In the summer, waste heat could be used to power an adsorbtion (ammonia cycle) cooling system.

Fuel handling is a big issue--throwing wood into a firebox on a distressingly regular basis rapidly turns into a job that sucks big time. Breaking the fuel up by hogging or chipping it makes something that can be handled by screw augers or chain conveyors, allowing some sort of automatic feed. This is a much better solution.

To get a handle on how much wood one would consume per day to get 10 kW, maybe we should do a little figuring:

A pound of dry wood can yield about 8000BTU. Derate it to 5000BTU because it has some water in it. Derate that to the 25% wood-electricity efficiency and you have 1250 BTU/lb actually turned to electricity. The conversion is 1BTU/hr=0.29Watts.

Therefore, 10kW of electrical generation equates to burning about 30 lbs/hr of wood, or 700 lbs per day. About a half a pickup load per day.

This isn't a problem with an auger feed but unless one is fairly industrious with a chainsaw the fuel preparation might get onerous. I haven't been worried about this for my area; dry fuel in the form of planer shavings from sawmills in the area can be had by the B-train load for $20 a ton. A little checking around would probably yield similiar sources in just about any area--maybe not sawmills, but offcuts from furniture factories, hogged waste from land clearing or construction waste in the form of ground pallets, demolition waste, etc. Wood pellets made expressly for fuel can be a good option, depending on price. They can be a little more efficient when burning, because they are very dry, although they cannot beat planer shavings made from kiln-dried lumber for dryness.

Regarding the issue of smoke and greenhouse gases, the discussion is probably so much hot air. If a boiler smokes, it is not burning correctly. That simple. We aren't talking about a campfire here. The arrangement of over-and underfire air is critical to proper burning. Those planer shavings I just mentioned are burned in a simple firebox at my place of work--they achieve 2500F and the stack gases are just a heat shimmer in the air, without a trace of blue. As someone mentioned before, greenhouse gases are carbon neutral as far as wood burning is concerned. If you give a rats butt about the issue, go plant a bunch of trees to replace what you are burning.

Jon.

Sawmilleng wrote:

A pound of dry wood can yield about 8000BTU. Derate it to 5000BTU because it has some water in it. Derate that to the 25% wood-electricity efficiency and you have 1250 BTU/lb actually turned to electricity. The conversion is 1BTU/hr=0.29Watts.

Therefore, 10kW of electrical generation equates to burning about 30 lbs/hr of wood, or 700 lbs per day. About a half a pickup load per day.

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

thanks for providing hard numbers based on present day technology. This looks better than the figures culled from Mike Browns website where he quotes 20 lb per hour per horsepower for his steam engine reproductions. However, the numbers are also dismaying to the small scale operator or home owner looking to use wood for electrically powering his home.

We heat with wood. Three pickup truck loads of beetle killed pine will last us three months. To generate the amount of electriciity we use (about 3.5 kwh per day) according to our utility bill would require a huge increase in wood burning. This now represents an inordinate and unworkable amount of time devoted to boiler tending. By the same token I can work 4 hours and earn the required amount of money to pay the utility bill. Sometimes a project may be technically feasible but quite impractical in the real world.

The capital cost investment in acquiring any boiler/generator would also need to be considered.

Ah! You have seen the light brother! Even in when blessed with ample supply of the fuel material, other problems make this solution unpractical.

Jon, the sawmiilleng, has just given some figures to work from. Now we have something to start calculating end results from.

I'm really interested in the turbine route so I would like to see some starting figures on pressure/volume to produce how much horsepower from the output shaft. I'm thinking used truck turbos from the junk yard. Maybe they won't have the output but so far I think they may be able to do it. I'm going to send a note to Holset to see if they might share some info that would help with that determination. I like the turbo because it is small and light as compared to a steam engine.

How about a closed system wherein used auto radiators cool the steam back down to a practical temperature before being reheated by the boilers?

A small comment about trees. The hardwood trees (forests) of the Eastern part of the US are much more abundant than they were in the early 1800's when the country was basically unsettled. I'm not sure about the softwood forests of the West. There were many areas heavily logged because the trees were old and dying and because of disease. The areas I'm familiar with, which were logged, are now young, healthy and vibrant.

We have a problem with our forests in the West because there are millions and millions of acres which are diseased and dying. Our mountains of forested land are turning red. They are burning and they are burning so hot that the regeneration of the new forests are slowed by many years because the ground is damaged so bad by the intense heat which scorches the ground. We have a problem in that the so called enviromentalists prevent sound forest management. Our government has made it possible for any snot nosed kid to stop the professional foresters from properly managing our forests by filing a lawsuit which destroys the good management and value of the forests. Even the burned forests which can be utilized for the good of all are being held up by these stupid enviromentalists and their lawsuits until they are so rotted there is no value in them.

As has so wisely been pointed out is that the carbon is going to get to the atmosphere one way or the other. Why not get some benefit from it?

I'm really interested in the turbine route >> snip <<

How about a closed system wherein used auto radiators cool the steam back down to a practical temperature before being reheated by the boilers?

REPLY

Would this not be counter productive. turboes are notoriously sensitive to back pressure in the exhaust flow.

I guess I wasn't aware of it being a problem. I have read many years ago about doing it and I had a friend who worked for a company in Spokane about 20 years ago doing work on the Stirling engine. He said thats what they were doing although it was with different fluids.

So what you're saying is that the back pressure would just about kill it. OK... My thoughts were running to the idea of saving the energy needed to raise the water from say 45 F to boiling vs say 95 F to boiling. I thought saving the energy needed to raise the temperature those 50 degrees would translate into some real savings. Money, physical, or resources.

Randyl wrote: So what you're saying is that the back pressure would just about kill it. OK... My thoughts were running to the idea of saving the energy needed to raise the water from say 45 F to boiling vs say 95 F to boiling.

REPLY

Not necessarily kill totally but probably impair the effectiveness.

One of the things I learned when researching the nature of wood burning stoves is that if you extract to much heat from the wood stove chimney (such as for water heating) you reduce the draft which is needed by the fire for a clean efficient burn. From my own hot rodding days I know too much back pressure on a turbo kills engine performance.

So the challenge is how to extract the heat without reducing the velocity and preferably not introducing too much back pressure. Maybe by reducing the number of fins on the tubes in a car rad. Look at how the inter-coolers are designed in a two stage turbo installation. These are also designed to avoid introducing air flow restriction. Unfortunately not so many around in scrap yards.

Surely you intend to use this proposed system to recharge a battery power storage system, rather than running it all day long.

You might try to calculate just how long and often you'd need to fire it up in order to accomplish this.

Ah ha! yes. It so happens that I earn my living designing such systems. For $4 worth of gasoline I can recharge my battery bank to run my household for 24 hours using equipment I presently have lying around my garage. The effort involved in doing the same with wood burning is considerably greater from the look of things. However we can explore the possibility of applying new technology approaches.

Gasoline is scarce and geting more expensive. I live in an area with wood as far as the eye can see from an airplane at 6000 feet. Much of this wood is killed by beetles and as such becoming worthless. Its free for the taking in many places. A wood burning power generator to complement my wood heating stove seem to make a certain amount of sense. James is also asking about using waste wood that would ordinarily end up in a land fill site. To that end I support his quest for a solution.

Not every country is blessed with the low population density and extremely high acreage of virgin forest as is Canada. In some cases this could be very appropriate technology, in others, not so much.

http://stephenchastain.com/book6.htm

Well,

You got a lot of screaming by people who should perhaps know better. But, did you get any real help?

If this sparks an idea that makes life easier for someone, it's worth it. There is so much talent on CR4.

James

A virgin forest? A so called virgin forest is just a term for some trees that haven't been burned or destroyed by disease. Every forest has had many generations growing over and over on the same ground. Take the lodgrpole pine. It has a life span of about 100 years. How many times has a stand of lodgepole occupied the same ground? Its really not much different than a wheat field in the grand scheme of things except that it takes a little longer to mature. How many times has the earth gotten hot or cold over how much time. The problem with most people including myself is that they only take for the truth what they want to believe. They do it in context with their selfish, selfserving, blip of life here. We like to think we are so powerful that we can control the earth and everything here. The truth is that we are just along for the ride. Now, lets enjoy it.

By the way, what was the original question?

I, too, like the idea of investigating the use of a turbocharger to get the energy out of the steam. I suspect it may not be that efficient but it is a heck of a good way to start. Compare that with building a reciprocating steam engine from scratch and trying to get any efficiency out of it!

Someone suggested condensing the spent steam after it has gone thru the power unit. Yep, that's a way to improve efficiency. But you have to use the heat that you recover by the condensing to actually make the gain in efficiency. Fortunately, that is where using it for space heating comes in.

The whole idea of burning wood sure is a hot button! One feels like it might not be a good plan to express an idea nowadays, for fear some environmentally-crazed idiot springs out of the woodwork with spewing pseudo facts carefully fed to them by some of the high profile enviro-saving corpor....I mean organizations.

I'm encountering a similiar situation in my rural area...A group of us have formed a Society to try to get some broadband wireless highspeed internet going in the area. (26 kbps Dialup is all that is available.) Guess what fell out of the nearest tree? A firebreathing, aluminium foil hat, hippie type who is convinced that the 1 watt radios are going to kill people at a range of 1 km. Maybe it screws up his Zero Point energy system or stalls out his perpetual motion machine.

Jon.

I was always aware of the "smoke issue". Thats the reference to "friendly". I hope to encourage a young brain to design a scrubber for the smoke. The "plant" could be used by an isolated farmer / rancher. The local dump might burn wood cuttings and generate income from the power. Might save me a tax increase. It would fill a void.

James

Well, now. That's very different. An isolated farmer/rancher is not likely to encounter to many problems from smoke congestion. With enough land available to isolate the "plant" from the main ranchhouse/barn/bunkhouse safety concerns would be at a minimum as well.

However, I am curious about one thing. How are the winds there in Georgia? Perhaps a wind generator and battery/inverter system (proven technology, lower down the learning curve now so cost should be more affordable) could be bought off the shelf for less than the development cost of a wood burning system, AND you never need to "go stoke the fire, Zeke!".

And I am not a tree-hugger, but it sounds like other technologies may be more practical for what you want to do.

HastingsElectric wrote: The local dump might burn wood cuttings and generate income from the power. Might save me a tax increase. It would fill a void.

REPLY; they could do much better than that. Several land fill sites near Toronto Ontario in Canada now collect all the methane gas created by the land fill and use it to drive generators to meet all their own electric power needs. They also sell back surplus power to Ontario Hydro. Similar systems are now under construction in other land fill sites. Curent EPA regulations require capping land fill with dirt and installing drainage chanels and test wells to monitor leachate. The cap construction includes methane collectos and vent pipes. From that is an easy step to pipe the collected methane gas to a storage facility prior to it being used in the on site generators. With enough methane gas available these generators can be used to sell back surplus power to the utility on a 24/7 basis.

the landfill exist in any case. EPA regulations require leachate control monitoring and a methane collector system. The latter for prevention of uncontrolled burns and explosions. So might as well use the gas for something useful.

Since most of the replies ignored your questions to grind their own axes I will take ach one in order. 1. Yes, there are some safe water tube boilers available from a very few manufacturers. You don't need a huge boiler if your home is extremely energy efficient, using little electricity. The boiler of a Doble was less than 36" dia. and less than 18" high and provided enough steam to accelerate a 4000 lb car to 85 mph within a reasonable time. I am not impressed by the hp and size/price of Mike Brown's engines. Check out Cyclone, Lynx and Green steam engines. A Tesla Turbine may be an excellent homemade engine to use at the lower temperatures of steam versus internal combustion. 2. The TT can run about 16,000 rpm full out, so it would need to be geared down. Piston steam engines run about 500-600 rpm at their most efficient speed and may need to be geared up to spin the generator at its most efficient speed. The great torque of a steam engine allows it to be geared up and not lose power. I would use a sealed, lubed gearbox and a 3 cylinder double acting engine [ no "dead" spots] 3. The burning of wood is carbon-neutral and adds no new CO2 into the air that was not taken out by the tree and which will not be taken out of the air by new, growing trees. By using a forced draft to supply enough air to the fire you should produce little smoke or pollution. I do not count CO2 as pollution.

A sealed condensing system needs only to cool the steam back into hot water and allows thermoelectrics to use waste steam heat and exhaust heat to make more electricity. A few batteries are needed to run all the pumps and fans. Also using wood pellets as fuel would allow mechanization of the fuel system and automatic controls. Pea coal would also work. Piston steam engines are much more efficient than IC engines. There would still be enough heat left to warm the house or a hot water tank.

Another alternative would be to use a solar boiler in addition to the wood to reduce the fuel needed as well as provide electricity at night. Aside from certain areas having lots of wood available it would be good to build some that can use ethanol, vegetable oil, methane, propane, natural gas or even furnace oil for those who are not near a bountiful source of wood. Still low in pollution.

Your problems in building such a system though, are trivial when compared to the legal problems. Since fire tube boilers in apartment buildings and factories used to explode with loss of life, ALL boilers were deemed dangerous by law. You need licenses, permits and expensive inspections on ALL boilers. A water tube boiler has the steam pressure contained within the tubes and the tubes are contained within a jacket to keep the heat concentrated on the tubes. A failure of a tube releases the pressure within the jacket and it goes out with the exhaust, it is contained so there can be no explosion. But the lawbook says "boilers" have to be passed, inspected yearly, licensed for a fee, so here again an obsolete law stands in the way of progress. You then may run into problems from zoning boards and neighbors who object to "a hazard' being placed in the area or near them.

My dream is to have a steam-electric hybrid car, that will run 80% of the time as a plug-in electric car, with the steam-powered generator keeping the batteries charged whenever it exceeds its 50 mile all electric range. Alas, I am old, have two left thumbs and no money, so I can only hope that someone will build one so that I will know it will work as all my research says it will.

Energy usage often ranges from 100kW to 6mW and above, with typically, a 2:1 ratio between thermal and electrical output.

Last time I checked the average is between 45-55 kW per day for a 1550 sq' home in the U.S. The set-up shown really is a bit more than needed for typical home. I would think that 250kW max and a UPS back up system could get a guy along way toward self sufficient. Also, I could not find dimensions to check physical size/scale of boiler unit itself.

Very cool though. I wonder if there is similar for smaller single unit off the grid users?

Good link!

This would be very demanding to keep fed. If you work out of your home, or have an outside office, you will not get any work done, you'll be feeding the fire. It seems that wood or pellets would be used to make steam. The steam would be used to drive a small steam turbine to generate electricity. Automation to feed the fire from a large pellet storage would be needed to make life easier.

I think sawmilleng hit the nail on the head with a sizing analysis before getting into any particulars. You could knock it down running at full load for several hours a day and charging a battery bank and inverter. If I hadn't left my thermo book at work, I'd be looking at necesary expansions and steam flow rates.

Anyway, I think you'd get into more than you could justify with an old turbo.

*You'd have to feed it clean oil at say, 30 psig- not hard

* You'd have to reduce a 100,000 rpm operating speed to something useful.

* Live steam leaks are invisible, and it only takes one to ruin your day.

Besides it being a nifty idea, consider that utility steam turbines a multi-row, multi expansion systems, and you'd have a single row, single expansion system w/ an old turbo.

I'd consider other things first:

* What is your wind availability like? Some windy places like Scoraig are wind electrified. There are also OTS solutions like the AIR X These solutions would probably be 12V and you could run off of 12 V or an inverter.

* Solar (Government incentives are pretty good in some places, look into it)

* You can modify a diesel genset to run on waste vegetable oil. You could buy the genset, or pull a junked engine and shadetree it.

There may be a better way to use wood to produce heat. It's woodgas. I was digging around the net looking for info on turbos and steam and found a mention of woodgas. I further found that around 1 million vehicles used woodgas for their fuel during WWII.

Would it be better to use woodgas and run an internal combustion engine powering an alternator and just skip the steam generation?

I also found that people were taking internal combustion engines and converting them to steam engines.

Presumably the newer technology has found a way to clean the wood gas. I remember hearing my father and uncle describe the endless maintenance required because the internal combustion engine clogged up with tars and gum from the wood gas. Admittedly this was wood gas generators added to busses and essential trucks in use during WW2 by the civilian population. The wood gas generator was mounted directly on the back bumper of the vehicle and the raw gas fed to the engine carburetor. Stoking the fire at frequent intervals was yet another chore for the drivers.

We used the bark from trees in the pacific to run a gas generator on the back of a converted school bus. It was interesting to see it work for the first time. Ran well and the length of pipe going from the back to the front acted to trap the oils and tar along the run on top of the bus. Cleaning out the tar was a real icky mess but the engine seemed to like the gas and ran well enough to get the bus from one side of the island to the other on shells and bark. Actually anything that could be burned produced gas and was fair game for the "Smokey bus" IC engines are able to be run in this way and can be used in colder climates where the steam engine would freeze overnight. just have to use a lighter oil in the engine.

the length of pipe going from the back to the front acted to trap the oils and tar along the run on top of the bus. Cleaning out the tar was a real icky mess

REPLY

And that is the catch! That sticky residue contains a lot of objectionable substances. What do you do with it? As a one off prototype it isn't a problem but as a production product for general consumer use, the disposal of such residues come under regulatory scrutiny. Unless a satisfactory method of disposal or recycling is available, I see a problem getting such a product accepted by the general public or even permitted for consumer use.

One of the links I posted is a technical article, and it appears that they have figured out how to get rid of the tar problem. I really like the idea of steam through a turbine or engine; but if this works, it's fewer steps and less hassel--I think.

Oh yes! sorry I missed that. Second link page 4 bottom. As I read that they reduced tar, but was it completely eliminated?

It was not clear to me if all specie of trees would give the same yield in tar etc. I suspect this could vary by a certain amount.

1) Is there a small wood fired steam engine / boiler available?

Yeah. I found one round the back of SuperDrug. It's yours for a small downpayment with easy terms <splutter>

2) How would you couple it to a small generator?

Using the bits I've got in a box here. D'ya wannem? Come and get 'em. <Cough>

3) Can it be environmentally friendly?

Yeah. Really nice.

4) If it is viable, I would consider funding & your payment.

Now we're talking. Two crates of Special Brew, please. <Wheeze>.

FEDX is delivering the check today. UPS will pick up tomorrow.

James

your boiler should have a waste oil burner, Flame adjustable freely by air-inlet controller easily