Energy Efficiency, CO2 Reduction, Recycling and Total Waste Reduction

Here's excerpts of the discussion that started this thread. Some parts may not make sense, since the order is backwards & other subjects are mentioned in passing.

Hi all, I'm wondering why we don't have this discussion on CR4? There really doesn't seem to be any disagreement in principle, just perspective. Hari is coming from a very practical place [which I share]. What can we utilize that is cheap or already exists? What is going to be the easiest for the end users to maintain? Tank & Gwen are thinking about what is the best solution. As a long term goal we need the highest efficency possible [fuelcells, sterlings...] In the short term we will be using obtainium [IC's] In the tropics we will need to add very little if any heat to the digesters, in colder climes we will have to reclaim some of the wasted heat to keep the efficency [yield & time] high. Aren't we going to need heat for the various chemical refining steps also? I have a similar conundrum, which is water. I'm going into a partnership with a company that services portable toilets & empties grease traps. They will empty the grease traps. We will separate the grease from the water. We will use the water to wash the biodiesel we produce. We will separate the biodiesel from the water. This water will contain some glycerol & trace potassium hydroxide. We will give this water back to our partners who will use it for their portable toilets, after the toilets are used they will pump out at the local sewage treatment plant. The same water will be used at least 3 times, reducing the consumption of potable water!

July 3, 2008 Hello tank, Your observations and advice are well taken, and totally appreciated Please recall that I had made the statement ... “... as I said earlier, let us make a start at some level!� Thus, we need to begin our Project. And, there is no reason why we could not consider all the different options, as we progress. There is no dogmatism involved here. The current discussions are perhaps the “first� Think-Tank technical debate on some very significant requirements of our projects, in the days to come. It is nice to see that we are able to begin and organize ourselves in an open, unbiased manner. It is also a definite possibility that we would soon be able to have association and “joint-venture� programs for energy conversions with many a player in the field However, as we need to begin our first APIX_Composite + Energy Module plant sooner than later, we would need to consider the “best available� option; and if at all my statements on these are to be taken, it should be in the light of this factor. Cost would be a definite factor at this moment, apart from our need to be strictly within our concept of Zero Waste-Zero Carbon-Business Model (ZW-ZC-BM) If, in the meanwhile, Gwen/ chandu and others in our Think-Tank group could take up the initiative and come up with appropriate arrangements for any collaborations, even at this inception stage, it should be welcome.. and definitely a Good move Best wishes Hari Subject: Re: The Sterling Engine Debate Hari and gang, With all this said and done, I believe we need to hold all our options open. Since the prop[osed package for the proposed Sterling CHP generator does have some advantages we should not overlook: First of all, the research, development and testing of the 3kw unit has already been accomplished, thus, it now market ready.. Second, the installation and operation is straight forward, requiring a minimum of training and is a one person project. Third, the entire package is easily placed within an area equal to a simple water heater, the actual space required being 600 mm by 600 mm by 800 mm tall, plus a vent pipe. Although there is a heat (fire safety) concern, it is not insurmountable for a home owner, just as with the said water heater or a cooking stove. Fourth, the cost is about twice that of other types of units, including the SOFC. However, the Sterling engine will work with the exhaust of a SOFC and could b e used in combination with the SOFC in place of the gas turbine hybrid proposed by Siemens. On fact, the Sterling Engine/SOFC hybrid would solve both the safety (fire) and space problems for small units in the 3kw to 6kw size required for individual home owners. Since the SOFC is 50% to 60% efficient in producing electric power, the CHP configuration with the Sterling engine could theoretically approach 90% efficiency, thus becoming a major savings in the coarbon footprint. Fifth, the sterling engine can be designed to operated with the heat produced by a passive solar collector using any relatively low temperature liquid to gas fluid such as water, butane, or other common refrigerants. Taking the five points above into consideration, I do think we should investigate an alliance with the Sterling CHP generator. However, our final alliance selection should always be with the total industry and not limited to the one manufacturer. That is, let's see what other CHP peopl e have to offer as well. This would include the SOFC CHP being offered in England by Ceramics, Ltd of Australia, and Hari's IC engine powered generators in CHP configuration. It would not be unreasonable that we form an alliance with several different CHP configuration manufacturers. In fact, I can see Agro-Biogenics designing and holding the patents on a passive solar powered Sterling engine CHP generator which could be most usable in desert regions. Respectfully submitted for your consideration, tank July 3, 3008 Hello Gwen Thank you for "helping" me go back to my basic engineering degree subject Books on Thermodynamics and heat Engines .... Yes! I was all along ignorant about this aspect on Sterling Engine, which I thought to be the Thermodynamic Cycles at the Superheated Steam stage in either the Steam Engine or the Steam turbines!!! The reference books were as old as 1967-68, my second year Engineering degree course study series!!! Further, I have also searched deeper in the net, and at this moment, I do have some idea of what Stirling Engines are; what they could do: what they would not do ... etc. I have observed the following, with the limited knowledge I gained on Stirling Engines: The technology of Stirling Engines have not yet matched up to the levels of the standard IC engines, although, from the Thermodynamic Cycle computations, the Stirling engines have great potentials Limitations of the Fluid medium (gas), in terms of low viscosity needs and high thermal conductivity need, restrict the choice of gases ... most present choices being specialized in nature, as well as those that are capable of causing dangers (barring Helium, amongst the "better" gases) The need for extreme temperatures to pass through the gas containers restrict the material selection (a metallurgical challenge) The engineered systems would be very heavy ( combination of materials + design challenges) Varying the power output needs more design refinements The overall best thermal efficiency so far achieved is about 15% to 20% (compared to 33% and more in IC Engines ... This does not consider the high efficiencies achieved in many US labs/ NASA) Although further R & D would definitely take the Stirling Engine system to more usable and competitive levels, personally, I would prefer the development of Thermo-Electric generators, which could be designed to have excellent efficiency ranges ... and here there would be no need for designing various moving parts. In fact, I did present one "discussion thread" in CR4, which stopped half way, for want of enthusiasm: http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/17587#newcomments!!! When we look at the less developed world, in such countries like India, it should be recognized that at this moment, we do have basic Power generation systems "readily available" for immediate and straight use from the "shop" that have very low costs. For example, we have Diesel generators of 15 KWe size at Rs.250, 000 (approx: US $5, 794). Personally I wish to "convert" these locally designed and constructed engines to become CHP systems ... as explained in my earlier mail. It would also be possible for us to design and develop "household" type systems that could be used at individual homes. Our first plan is to use the existing Diesel engines, using Bio-Diesel, to be followed up with modifications of the Otto cycle engines. The gas would be methane generated in our APIX Energy modules. And, as I said earlier, let us make a start at some level! Best wishes Hari pvh Developing a New Business Paradigm .... that reduces the gap between rich & poor Subject: Re: The Sterling Engine Debate Hello All Gwens suggestion and approach is technically sound as it has great relavence to Indian condition and also to countries like Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Nepal and Indian North East. It will compliment the poineering work being done by AAPIX. I will contribute more technical inputs of Sterling as the tech. discussion gathers momentum. Solar Industry I am associated with has begun plans of sterling application in its design and development. Chandu Good to have a technical debate started up. I agree with your choice: IC engines are known and available throughout the world and especially in rural areas the availability of knowledge and parts is critical. But: a Stirling engine is not a steam engine. It is a completely different approach. You could compare it with the super heater for high pressure steam applications: it cranks up the total performance of the system. A Stirling is this super heater without the steam but directly a working gas which does not change faze. For applications were the energy production is more important than the alternative agricultural products we should try to find a decent partner which can give us high conversion rate products. The Lebanon project is such an example. And here is where we can bring in the force of a small international dynamic group: bring in the options that have been forgotten in the 50's as oil was to cheap and cars needed speed. Keep us posted and don't hesitate to ask for that little bit of help or advice. Subject: The Sterling Engine Debate July 2, 2008 Hello Gwen and friends 1. Thank you Gwen for your thoughtful note and presentation. 2. As a young Mechanical Engineer, during 1971 through '74, I had the good fortune to have "first hand" experiences in Steam powered systems while I was a Sales Engineer with a Private Co, supplying Engineering equipments and systems to various Steel Plants in India. In fact it was at those times (awed by the greatness and magnificence of Integrated Steel Mills) that I learnt my "fundamentals" of Practical Engineering 3. I fully and totally agree that the Steam engine per se' is a very simple and sturdy system. Yet, in the modern world of "weight reduction needs", unless steam engine systems (Sterling) are reduced in weight, we would not be able to compete in Cost/ weight/ Performance functions. More over, the steam engine would need heavy flywheels to Keep up the "push" (which you call the "reaction time"). Please note: Any heavy system would need MORE materials to manufacture (steel, and other metals) ... all these draw heavily on the meager fossil energy resources and also on non-renewables, apart from creating huge pollutions. Thus, the very idea is self defeating with respect to the basic Objectives of APIX ... that of "going back to nature" ... reducing environmental and ecological imbalances through Self Regenerative Recycling. The debate is excellent, and such discussions are NEEDED. So that we get self corrected and become more "knowledgeable" Best wishes Hari pvh Developing a New Business Paradigm ... that reduces the gap between rich & poor Hari, I think that you do not see the force of Sterling engines. At the back end they are simple, cheap and reliable. IC engines miss these aspects. The big difference is the production system: IC engines are made in quantities of millions. Stirling is mostly made on purpose. (One in a time, sometimes small series) Why is the Stirling never used in cars? It has been tried but the engine has some difficulties with reaction time: pushing the throttle does not result is immediate speed increase or power rise. The hybrid wave in the automotive world will certainly bring the Stirling cycle back in the picture. And when you look to the external combustion principle: it does not matter what you burn, as long as it supplies heat it will drive the process. What do we need more? A joint venture with a company like Disenco would bring us the energy module for "free" and them a chain of enthusiastic believers in sustainable energy engineering. We could prove together with them that there is a lot of energy hidden in what we flush down the drain. As Charles mentioned: couple the vent of the septic tank to the air intake of the burner and burn the gasses which come out of digestion process. (It will be not as easy as pictured but that is where we engineers need to invent) It is a very down to the earth approach of our APIX schedule, which is sellable in the West.

I have long now thought that the Sterling as an External Combustion Engine had the decided advantage of being able to function using a multiplicity of fuels, or heat sources. Another advantage was that it was in the public domain. They do seem "mythical" in that I've never actually touched one. I'm not certain that we would not be better off to make a deal with the best of the Sterling makers. Kockums of Sweden making the ones for Subs, was of interest to me, for I thought their design would likely be advanced. I am aware that Stirling Stan is retired, but he can tell you an awful lot about Sterling, and I believe it was he that turned me on to an animated depiction of how they work. From what I can tell, many of the parts can actually be made from wood, which is another advantage for the poor. Still the bottom line as far as an engine, as far as APIX is concerned, in my judgement, is that it be capable of running from a number of heat sources. Now it is possible that there are other External Combustion Engines, but this Sterling Engine has come up over and over in the course of my studies. In the case of Chandu's Solar Cooker I started a thread asking what small turbine would run from it, and it turned out that Turbines need to be large, and then the Sterling was recommended. (Supercharged Aircraft Pratt and Whitney 18 Cylinder Radials had a similar problem as reported concerning the throttle slam sometimes desired, since if you did that, the engine stalled. How to Turbo Charge a Sterling and make it acceptable as an Auto or Truck engine, would be a fun thing to discover. The Turbo Charger was not as likely to stall, and of course you can slam a jet engine, but there is still a lag for the Turbo Fan engines as far as aircraft are concerned.) Possibly our CR4 Question might be, What External Combustion Engines are most perfect? I myself would love to direct one companies Sterling, or ECE R&D towards Standard Setting interfaces with common Electrical Generating machinery. I am always willing to compromise perfection if otherwise nothing practical of use to people will appear. For an industry, such as the Sterling Engine Manufactures, for those that might consider making such engines for our applications I expect that a Gear box for running Electric Generators would be a good Standard we might recommend to the overall industry. As far as the Sterling Auto engine is concerned, I am certain the throttle slam problem could be solved, as was the Supercharger, replaced with the Turbo Charger. In the case of Gas Generation I also discovered that Porta Potty wastes were more desirable than Septic Tank wastes, since fresh wastes are better than old stale wastes. For City Grid Power Fresh Human wastes, if applied to a production of gas system, offer something useful. I'm not the chemist of the group, but I have found out that Portable Toilet Construction Site Sorts of human waste, are most perfect for sewage gas production. Personally I prefer shoveling Horseshit to human shit, and find it a real drag when the Blue Room Service Pump Truck comes and stirs it all while cleaning it. They ought to put a suck valve fitting on the bottoms of the things like on Aircraft, instead of just sticking a hose in the well. It would be good if APIX had an office at the airport that ran from technologies we endorse, or have systemitized. I had forgotten about the time when I was hooking up to the Toilet on a Boeing 707, and the cap was all that was holding the contents since the valve had been left in the open position. Typically you will find that Aircraft and Submarines are very advanced technologies, and that they provide insights and direction when considering how to be most efficient. Certainly we could make a name for ourselves if we figured out Sustainable energy solutions for Aircraft. One problem is the freezing point of Bio Fuels. Branson of Virgin Airlines is putting money into the problem. Garthh might have an interest there. I am pleased that Chtank is of a similar mind as I am, though better with the math, concerning the Sterling. Rick is very well qualified as well, concerning human waste gas systems. If some of the rods and flywheels and gears of the Stirling could be made from Hari's Polymer, this would be nice. What is the Most Perfect External Combustion Machine? Russell

nobody can answer the question, give us all the economic limits. If CO2 cost $1,000,000,000/lb or $.001 per pound, then adifferent answer.

We are engineers here, not "it feels good "so do it people!!

The discussion has got concentrated to Sterling . The original quaetion was different.

We are faced with energy crisis and also Global warming . If we list out major sources of Energy and look at the most efficient ways to use /cost effective/envinirment neutral etc etc.

1.Depleting and getting expensive fossil fuels , Coal,Oil,Shale/natural gas etc- Non renewable

2. Renewable Hydel

3. Nuclear fusion/Fission

4.Renewable bio fuels - as direct( like bagasse) or converted fuel (like Biodisel/ethanol)

5.Solar direct conversion or thermal

6 Wind

7 Tidal water

8 Organic fuel from wastes- by gas

9.Geo thermal .

10.Human labour

11.Lightning

12.Differential temperature with surface and sea bed.

There may be some more. Can they be rated from the point of view of.

1.Running Cost per unit of electricity

2.availability

3.Enviroment friendiliness

4.Efficiency of conversion to electricity

etc.

Hello chakraborty ranabir

Greetings and welcome to this discussion

This is an outgrowth of a series of other interactions that began in CR4, as early as November 25, 2007; finally culminating into a Blog:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blog/97/APIX-Pilot-Plant-Design-Project-Recycling-Wastes

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/4149/APIX-Pilot-Plant-Design-Project-Recycling-Wastes-Mission-

Our objective is to form an international Think-Tank Group, offering various technologies and product systems/ processes (in open source engineering) toward mitigating the Global problems of CO2 increases, poverty, and shifting populations. In all these our main thrusts are:

Utilization of Renewable Resources, utilization of available local labor, and recycling all process wastage

The question on energy efficiency has come up in view of our requirement to develop and set up a Pilot Module of a system to convert Agro-Renewable resources into Specialty Engineered Composites and Energy. Our present proposal is to convert the non-fibrous biomass systems into Methane gas, and run IC engine using the gas. If the Heat lost is recovered (to the maximum extent possible), it was felt that the IC-Engine efficiency (at the Electricity generator output) could be improved from the present 29.2% to over 76% (thermal efficiency)

Your experienced views may kindly be presented

sincerely

pvhramani

This is in continuation of the earlier thread

A few "bench-level" experimentation indicate that, if we could appropriately engineer the 62.4% "waste heat" in IC engine systems, not less than 75% of THIS "lost heat" could be recovered for utilization as "process heat"

Although a commercial level set up is still not totally designed and engineered, preliminary analyses do suggest that this method of "waste heat recovery" in IC Engines could be the contender for the most optimum energy conversion technology. Here, we use the word "Optimum" on the following counts:

1. We would use Biogas methane, generated through anaerobic conversion of agrowastes, as our fuel

2. The possibility of modifying petrol/ diesel engines to run in this manner is very high, and it should be possible to convert even small size engines (2 KW, 3 KW etc) efficiently and economically

3. As we would be using biomass based on agrowastes (and also the various plants/ vegetation wastes in farmlands), local people could get "value" for their so-called wastes which go without any value at the moment

4. It is estimated that a ton of "green wastes", having 25% organic matter would generate, if the entire organic matter were fermented anaerobically, about 65 Kg to 70 Kg methane gas. This could be converted into CHP of equivalent energy value = 730 KWHe

We are looking at the possibility of "hitting two birds using the same stone", when we begin a project that would use agrowastes for Plant fiber based Composites + Energy

Could the experienced and "R & D" engineers in CR4 discussion forums analyze these and also come up with their findings and views, please?

pvhramani

i need more information about it

Hello "shreyas"

Greetings!

Could you please ask specific questions, so that we could attempt to answer the same with appropriate focus?

regards

pvhramani