Hmm you can take wood, put it in a retort, set it alight, then seal it up, use any volatile gases to further heat the wood. Bingo it's charcoal. So Torrefaction is the same? but at a lower temperature? The stuff coming out the end looks just like charcoal. Comments on energy efficiency vs retort manufactured charcoal briquettes?
Very Nice... but I suggest to use or test also other than woods based biomass, like straw, roots, cornstover, rice husks, fruitpulp residuals, recycled urban stuff etc.., because wood can be used/applied for many better, sustinable construction purposes. !
I am sorry, this seems silly to me. I am trying to understand how this could be efficient. There were no figures given on the amount of energy input vs output. How long will we continue to spend tax dollars for research when math would answer the question in a few minutes.
@ArtisanTony Dude prof and doctoral students knows math. Its similar to whether to refine petroleum or directly use it. when you upgrade the quality of energy, there will definitely be some losses but gains are higher.
@dhunganaalok if they know the math then demonstrate that by showing the amount of energy it took to produce the equipment and the fuel and all other energy expended just to get to the point where they get energy out of their product. But as with all of these types of videos we are to assume everything before is free so that all of the energy coming out of the system is efficient but it is not.
@ArtisanTony I'm sure Mr. Hopkins would be happy to answer any of your questions concerning the feasibility of this technology. It is a little surprising to me that you expect all of this to be posted on a youtube video comment page. It seems obvious that the purpose of this video is to introduce people to the idea, not to give a complete technical break down of the system.
P.S. you would probably be surprised at the amount of heat produced from the VOCs and the small igniting flame.
@ewfleisc It does not take a PHD, just a little common sense, to see that this is not an efficient process. The description says 10% loss in energy of wood chips. The wood chips have to be produced and delivered to a site. It takes a good amount of HEAT and chemicals to produce the end product. The end product has to be shipped back to user. It is an easy equation. Efficiency = output/input * 100%. If he has built a better mouse trap the world will come knocking. Let's see.
"The description says 10% loss in energy of wood chips."
Actually, the description says "The pellets are lighter than woodchips but retain 90 percent of their original energy content." This has nothing to do with the efficiency of the process and everything to do with the description of the output material.
@ewfleisc Your kidding right? If they retain 90% of the "original" energy content that means they have lost 10%. This is simple math dude. This is just the energy loss of the wood chips due to his process. This does not include all of the energy used to ship, process and ship again. Are you suggesting that there is an increase in efficiency, lol, Sorry, no more time wasted due to your lack of objectivity.
@ArtisanTony I don't think you understand what this statement means... it is, however, simple math and I will write it out for you.
(Initial energy content of wood - energy content of wood(now bio-char) after process)/Initial energy content = percentage of energy lost due to process
This is all that this statement boasts. The reason this energy loss is acceptable is that the bio-char actually sees an increase in energy density (energy per unit weight) as opposed to wood.
@ewfleisc You mean material density not energy density. Energy will always be lost through a process or system not gained. This is the law of physics. And I do understand what his statement means. He is stating there is a loss of potential energy but the mass of the material is more dense than before. I am sure he would argue like a school girl like you are about the laws of physics. No more about this silly subject. I checked your channel. You obviously are just trolling.
@ArtisanTony No, I do not mean material density. I mean energy density. Material density is mass per unit volume. Energy density is energy per unit mass (or volume depending on how you want to look at it). lets set up a theoretical situation values being nowhere near correct.
If you have 10 lbm of wood that has 100Btu of energy in that 10 lbs, then it would have an energy density of 10Btu/lbm. If you lost 10% of the energy, but also lost say 50% of the weight, then you would have 90Btu of energy in 5lb of bio-char. The energy density would then increase from 10Btu/lbm to 18Btu/lbm. Therefore, if you are able to transport 10,000lbm on a truck, this technology allows you to transport 180,000Btu per truckload as opposed to 100,000Btu per truckload.
"It takes a good amount of HEAT and chemicals to produce the end product."
What chemicals, may I ask, are needed? The only "chemicals" needed to my knowledge would be fuel to keep the pilot ignition flame going. The vast majority of the HEAT produced is from the burning the gaseous volatile organic compounds that are emitted from the wood chips themselves upon heating.
Yes, the end product must be shipped from the area where the wooden biomass is produced. Do you not have to ship coal from the mountain for it to be burned in the power plant?
"If he has built a better mouse trap the world will come knocking. Let's see."
Very true and I'm not saying he necessarily has built a better mouse trap, but the notion that it is automatically not worth investigating is ridiculous.
@ewfleisc It is a free country. He can do whatever he likes. I am an objective person. Bring the energy studies and we will see. This was a year ago. What happened? No Nobel prize yet? :)
Hmm you can take wood, put it in a retort, set it alight, then seal it up, use any volatile gases to further heat the wood. Bingo it's charcoal. So Torrefaction is the same? but at a lower temperature? The stuff coming out the end looks just like charcoal. Comments on energy efficiency vs retort manufactured charcoal briquettes?
fizzguts 1 year ago
Very Nice... but I suggest to use or test also other than woods based biomass, like straw, roots, cornstover, rice husks, fruitpulp residuals, recycled urban stuff etc.., because wood can be used/applied for many better, sustinable construction purposes. !
ivahow 1 year ago
I am sorry, this seems silly to me. I am trying to understand how this could be efficient. There were no figures given on the amount of energy input vs output. How long will we continue to spend tax dollars for research when math would answer the question in a few minutes.
ArtisanTony 1 year ago
@ArtisanTony Dude prof and doctoral students knows math. Its similar to whether to refine petroleum or directly use it. when you upgrade the quality of energy, there will definitely be some losses but gains are higher.
dhunganaalok 1 year ago
@dhunganaalok if they know the math then demonstrate that by showing the amount of energy it took to produce the equipment and the fuel and all other energy expended just to get to the point where they get energy out of their product. But as with all of these types of videos we are to assume everything before is free so that all of the energy coming out of the system is efficient but it is not.
ArtisanTony 1 year ago
@ArtisanTony I'm sure Mr. Hopkins would be happy to answer any of your questions concerning the feasibility of this technology. It is a little surprising to me that you expect all of this to be posted on a youtube video comment page. It seems obvious that the purpose of this video is to introduce people to the idea, not to give a complete technical break down of the system.
P.S. you would probably be surprised at the amount of heat produced from the VOCs and the small igniting flame.
ewfleisc 1 year ago
@ewfleisc It does not take a PHD, just a little common sense, to see that this is not an efficient process. The description says 10% loss in energy of wood chips. The wood chips have to be produced and delivered to a site. It takes a good amount of HEAT and chemicals to produce the end product. The end product has to be shipped back to user. It is an easy equation. Efficiency = output/input * 100%. If he has built a better mouse trap the world will come knocking. Let's see.
ArtisanTony 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArtisanTony "It does not take a PHD, just a little common sense, to see that this is not an efficient process."
Then why has a PHD student decided to invest time and energy investigating the viability of the process?
ewfleisc 1 year ago
@ArtisanTony
"The description says 10% loss in energy of wood chips."
Actually, the description says "The pellets are lighter than woodchips but retain 90 percent of their original energy content." This has nothing to do with the efficiency of the process and everything to do with the description of the output material.
ewfleisc 1 year ago
@ewfleisc Your kidding right? If they retain 90% of the "original" energy content that means they have lost 10%. This is simple math dude. This is just the energy loss of the wood chips due to his process. This does not include all of the energy used to ship, process and ship again. Are you suggesting that there is an increase in efficiency, lol, Sorry, no more time wasted due to your lack of objectivity.
ArtisanTony 1 year ago
@ArtisanTony I don't think you understand what this statement means... it is, however, simple math and I will write it out for you.
(Initial energy content of wood - energy content of wood(now bio-char) after process)/Initial energy content = percentage of energy lost due to process
This is all that this statement boasts. The reason this energy loss is acceptable is that the bio-char actually sees an increase in energy density (energy per unit weight) as opposed to wood.
ewfleisc 1 year ago
@ewfleisc You mean material density not energy density. Energy will always be lost through a process or system not gained. This is the law of physics. And I do understand what his statement means. He is stating there is a loss of potential energy but the mass of the material is more dense than before. I am sure he would argue like a school girl like you are about the laws of physics. No more about this silly subject. I checked your channel. You obviously are just trolling.
ArtisanTony 1 year ago
@ArtisanTony No, I do not mean material density. I mean energy density. Material density is mass per unit volume. Energy density is energy per unit mass (or volume depending on how you want to look at it). lets set up a theoretical situation values being nowhere near correct.
ewfleisc 1 year ago
@ArtisanTony
If you have 10 lbm of wood that has 100Btu of energy in that 10 lbs, then it would have an energy density of 10Btu/lbm. If you lost 10% of the energy, but also lost say 50% of the weight, then you would have 90Btu of energy in 5lb of bio-char. The energy density would then increase from 10Btu/lbm to 18Btu/lbm. Therefore, if you are able to transport 10,000lbm on a truck, this technology allows you to transport 180,000Btu per truckload as opposed to 100,000Btu per truckload.
ewfleisc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArtisanTony
"The wood chips have to be produced and delivered to a site."
If I remember correctly this unit is being designed to be mobile, in that it can be moved on site where the wooden biomass is initially obtained.
ewfleisc 1 year ago
@ArtisanTony
"It takes a good amount of HEAT and chemicals to produce the end product."
What chemicals, may I ask, are needed? The only "chemicals" needed to my knowledge would be fuel to keep the pilot ignition flame going. The vast majority of the HEAT produced is from the burning the gaseous volatile organic compounds that are emitted from the wood chips themselves upon heating.
ewfleisc 1 year ago
@ArtisanTony
"The end product has to be shipped back to user."
Yes, the end product must be shipped from the area where the wooden biomass is produced. Do you not have to ship coal from the mountain for it to be burned in the power plant?
ewfleisc 1 year ago
@ArtisanTony
"It is an easy equation. Efficiency = output/input * 100%."
I am very familiar with your equation. I have studied thermodynamics and heat transfer.
ewfleisc 1 year ago
@ArtisanTony
"If he has built a better mouse trap the world will come knocking. Let's see."
Very true and I'm not saying he necessarily has built a better mouse trap, but the notion that it is automatically not worth investigating is ridiculous.
ewfleisc 1 year ago
@ewfleisc It is a free country. He can do whatever he likes. I am an objective person. Bring the energy studies and we will see. This was a year ago. What happened? No Nobel prize yet? :)
ArtisanTony 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArtisanTony
"Bring the energy studies and we will see."
I am glad to see we are on the same page. :)
ewfleisc 1 year ago