Nice thing about wood power is that as long as you have a sustainable source of wood, you're 100% solar-powered and carbon neutral. That is to say, it's a source of energy that is (can be) non-fossil, nor derived from any fossil sources, and which recycles it's own CO2 emissions.
There are very few other alternatives that can claim the same. Perhaps Hydro? Solar panels don't offset their construction CO2 costs, and in fact almost can't even pay back their own construction energy costs if you factor in batteries plus materials, mining, and shipping.
The whole point of gasification is the production of syngas. You don't vent syngas to the atmosphere for the same reason you don't pour gas on the ground. Burning syngas doesn't have to emit carbon monoxide, a catalytic converter like on almost every car out there would work just the same to clean up the emissions.
>Nice thing about wood power is that as long as you have a sustainable source of wood, you're 100% solar-powered and carbon neutral. That is to say, it's a source of energy that is (can be) non-fossil, nor derived from any fossil sources, and which recycles it's own CO2 emissions.
As long as you're happy pouring carcinogens into the air, sure. Also, compared to oil or coal there's not much energy in wood, so it doesn't scale very well.
Dried wood suitable for burning is around 20% water at most, else it won't burn with much heat. It can go down to around 6% IIRC for kiln-dried wood suitable for construction.
Fresh wood contains ~50% water (up to 70% for certain species), 'dry' wood lies around 15% water. Depending on the type of gasifier you can feed it anything between fresh from the tree to kiln-dried wood. Starting a gasifier requires dry wood or charcoal but once it is going it will do a lot of the drying itself. The reduction process in the lower part of the hearth - where the gas production goes on, reducing CO2 to CO - can also reduce H2O to H2. The end product of a wetter wood will be gas with a higher H2 content next to the CO which forms the main combustible component in wood gas. Yes, wood gas is mainly carbon monoxide and as such highly poisonous, you do not want to start a gasifier in an enclosed environment nor open an unvented gasfier in such.
Charcoal is made by burning wood in a low oxygen environment, driving off water and organics, while carbonizing lignin, cellulose, etc. Coal is a petrochemical mass formed underground from organic matter over long timescales.
You’re definitely right about EROEI, but I interpreted the parent as saying that solar panels literally don’t recapture the CO2 required to make them, which is true (if not entirely meaningful).
Solar doesn’t reduce atmospheric CO2, it just offsets other production of CO2.
It’s a CO2 emitter actually, since aluminum, glass and silicon all require high heat to make, and we presently do that with natural gas. It may offset its own production emissions by replacing dirtier methods of power but if we switch to all-solar they will be emitting CO2.
If you turn the wood to charcoal and only burn the syngas, it's even carbon negative. Charcoal is stable for hundreds or thousands of years when buried. It also improves the soil.
I have never seen a discussion about the real sustainability of biomass but I would be curious to know something. OK, the CO2 it emits gets recycled and in a stable biomass-burning world cycle, more CO2 will be emitted but also more trees will grow so it should balance out.
Would that not, however, durably increase the baseline CO2 levels? Sure it is sustainable but do we want to sustain a 500 ppm level? Where would it bring us if the whole world switched from oil to wood?
I saw some of these in use while visiting DPR Korea. We weren't up close, but the government tour guide confirmed that they were wood-burning trucks. Sadly I was not allowed to photograph the trucks.
Like the article mentions, deforestation is an issue they can cause, something Korea suffers from greatly.
In order to be efficient and powerful, a steam engine needs high-pressure steam, which can only be safely contained by thick, heavy boilers and pipes. This makes miniaturization of steam engines for cars difficult. Gasification of wood allows you to keep the benefits of the internal combustion engine.
Oh wow. I had been thinking about such a device for a couple of years now, great to see one in action.
The main problem is refueling, because the combustion chamber has a higher pressure. With a liquid fuel, you just spray it in at pressure, but with wood that isn't possible.
You can run a gasifier out of almost any biomass, coffee grounds, wood, leaves, corn husks. Then with minor modification you can run most cars on the resulting syngas.
I knew an elderly chemist/inventor who told of how he once converted his wife's car to run on cocoa bean husks. He said you wouldn't know the difference except for the slight smell of chocolate as you drove around town.
There was a talk from the Royal Institution just uploaded yesterday (talk was in June), The Apocalypse and How to Avoid It[0], where Lewis Dartnell (author The Knowledge[1]) describes a gasifier stove you can make from a couple bean cans, and also brought up this gasifier engine technology and how it was used in London during the Blitz. This article has a ton of useful information that makes for a great followup.
Also at the talk were Vinay Gupta (Ethereum), Rosalind Eggo, and Hugh Lewis discussing different avenues to potential Apocalypse and their likelihood, etc.
Important downside explained half way through: "if we were to convert every vehicle, or even just a significant number, to wood gas, all the trees in the world would be gone and we would die of hunger because all agricultural land would be sacrificed for energy crops."
Wait, what? There's absolutely no evidence that "Japan chopped down the last of its trees". Why would you say such a thing? You enjoy lying on the internet?
It appears that about 12.5% of Japan's land area is old-growth forest. [1] However, I believe it is also true that there was a fair amount of deforestation in the WWII period, and that today, the majority of the forest is modified or plantations.
Energy crops (subsidized by the government) has already replaced agricultural land for Ethanol fuel production, up to 1% of cultivated land worldwide being use for it.
It looks like the author's first language may be Dutch, where carbon monoxide is "koolmonoxid" and "kool" can mean both "coal" and "carbon" (although there are more specific words for coal such as "steenkool" = "stone carbon").
In Russian, Carbon is "Uglerod", whereas coal is "Ugle". CO, when not referred to by its colloquial name, would be "Uglekislorod" - literally, Coal-oxide.
Politicians in Sweden after WW2 had interesting mindset. They really tried to prepare the country for various worst-case scenarios. Researching wooden gas for cars was one thing.
Another is how they investigated if they should make own nuclear weapons. They decided not to after getting assurances from industry that they can make an atomic bomb within months if needed.
I wonder what other possibilities or backup technologies they considered?
Possibly. But harvesting that heat directly to 'motion' would probably not be feasible. Storing that on batteries may be better, as they can be slowly trickle charged, but provide a lot of power when there is demand.
I think it's definitely common knowledge to Europeans who would have direct cultural awareness of this due to the impact of WWII, however this is mindblowing to a North American.
This will make for an excellent premise for a post-apocalyptic story, where eventually the organic biomass starts being over consumed. Basically "Soylent Green" but with cars.
68 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 28.6 ms ] threadThere are very few other alternatives that can claim the same. Perhaps Hydro? Solar panels don't offset their construction CO2 costs, and in fact almost can't even pay back their own construction energy costs if you factor in batteries plus materials, mining, and shipping.
As long as you're happy pouring carcinogens into the air, sure. Also, compared to oil or coal there's not much energy in wood, so it doesn't scale very well.
Solar doesn’t reduce atmospheric CO2, it just offsets other production of CO2.
Would that not, however, durably increase the baseline CO2 levels? Sure it is sustainable but do we want to sustain a 500 ppm level? Where would it bring us if the whole world switched from oil to wood?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RMVwbjp514o
To be fair, that is something that almost every single developing nation in the history of human kind has suffered from greatly.
The Doble steam cars are at least on the cusp of practical.
(they are very high maintenance compared to modern cars)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUg_ukBwsyo
https://youtu.be/E-8BX7dUk5c
No power takeoff from the turbine in this case, of course, but the principle is sound.
The main problem is refueling, because the combustion chamber has a higher pressure. With a liquid fuel, you just spray it in at pressure, but with wood that isn't possible.
Also at the talk were Vinay Gupta (Ethereum), Rosalind Eggo, and Hugh Lewis discussing different avenues to potential Apocalypse and their likelihood, etc.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPxBhqonZEQ
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Rebuild-Civilization-Afterm...
Ok they don’t chop down all of their trees. Of course they still have trees.
[1] https://rainforests.mongabay.com/deforestation/archive/Japan...
Coal as in coal power, coal barbecue, and the element carbon use the same word. That’s not a coincidence.
Apart from some exotic forms like diamonds, trees or rabbits (less pure), coal is how we normally encounter carbon.
(But carbon monoxide is "Kohlenmonoxid")
Also graphite. But yeah, coal is basically the purest form of carbon in common bulk usage.
Another is how they investigated if they should make own nuclear weapons. They decided not to after getting assurances from industry that they can make an atomic bomb within months if needed.
I wonder what other possibilities or backup technologies they considered?