From: Alex E.S. Green [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 11:54 AM
To: John Hurford
Cc: Sean Bell; Brian Becker; Prince,Candice M
Subject: Re: Cogongrass issue follow-up

 

To John/Sean/Brian/ Candice/ann
For a reason that  briefly appeared on my screen but quickly disappeared  this reply to John's questios was rejected by  the Best List. It is a civil, almost compulsory answer and intended in parts to be  educational and to stimulate some general reexamination of  GANGBUSTER by GRU interested  folks and MADBANG by UF. interested  folks  What did you all do to access the  list?
Alex





On 6/15/2012 10:36 AM, Alex E.S. Green wrote:

to John Hurford et al 
Very good question!.  Agreed that pyrolysis technologies have been around , in a number of  forms, for a long time and competing with current natural gas energy prices (~$2.3/million Btu) will be difficult. However  it will not be difficult to  compete with current gasoline energy prices (~$30/million Btu) with the right combination of strategies and the best form of pyrolysis. It is important not to to confuse pyrolysis  with other Solid Waste to Energy by Advanced Thermal Technologies (SWEATT) technologies (like combustion systems , partial combustion systems  etc) or various biochemical technologies. Among the forms of pyrolysis  common sense suggests the we choose  the one or combination technology  that best meet near and long term  national  needs.  Serving multiple societal objectives is the best strategy as  the GANGBUSTER (Grand Alliance of Natural Gas And Biomass for a Utility System's Total Emission Reduction ) proposal that I tried to launch about 12 years ago or the MADBANG ( Multidiciplinary Academic Demonstration of Biomass And Natural Gas) proposal that Professor Wayne Smith and I  came close to launching on UF's campus about 7 years ago. Job creation , national security, reduced energy costs (except for current natural gas), climate change, waste disposal, pollutant emission reduction, control of invasive species   are among today's  important needs.  The latest versions of  the Green Pyrolyzers  that Sean Bell and Brian Becker refer to can meet several  of these national needs.
Alex Green



Alex E S Green, CEO GLGT

Graduate Research Professor Emeritus,University of Florida,

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nuclear and Radiological Engineering

School of Forest Resources and Conservation

 

 

A 3-minute layman level exposition of  GP's carbon negative  possibility

http://www.wcjb.com/news/7359/technology-spotlight-8-10-10-green-pyrolizer-gasifier

 

 http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v54/i8/p40_s1?bypassSSO=1






On 6/15/2012 7:27 AM, John Hurford wrote:

Pyrolysis technologies have been around for a long time. Can the end product compete with $2.50 per 1000 scfm of Natural gas or even $2.68 a gallon gasoline? (these are the current commodity prices for each).

 


 

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Sean Bell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dr. Alex Green's pyrolysis machines can convert any (dried)  biomass into methane like fuel gasses.

You can see some of his devices t http://greenliquidandgas.com

Sean

On Jun 14, 2012 10:08 AM, "Brian Becker" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Candice,
 I applauded any creative solution to addressing the spread of cogongrass.  Dr. Rockwood, UF emeritus, worked for a number of years on controlling cogongrass in phosphate minelands by using fast-growing trees to shade out cogongrass and serve as a nurse crop for other species.  Several years ago we collected some samples for Dr. Alex Green, UF emeritus, to test for pyrolysis at his lab in the Energy Park.  They both may be able to supply you with additional information.  The use of invasive species for biofuels is indeed very attractive.  One thing I would add for including in your project is that cogongrass is listed on Florida's Noxious Weed List which restricts movement of the plant.  Last I heard cogongrass in Florida was still listed as sterile, propagating via rhizomes only, though it is a prodigious seed producer (if I recall correctly it was originally introduced to the US as packing material, at least raising the question in my mind of the possibility of viable see!
 d production).  Any use of the above-ground biomass as a feedstock would have to take these into consideration - barring a change in legislations, the design of your system would most likely have to be mobile to enable taking the unit to where the cogongrass is, and include the energy required for preprocessing and transportation.  Alternatively, areas of extensive infestation such as the minelands in Central Florida might support a permanent conversion facility if movement within the area of infestation was permitted and that was deemed to be the most appropriate use of the land.  Good luck with the project!

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Bioenergy and Sustainable Technology Society [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Prince,Candice M
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Question on Cogongrass

Hello BEST,

My name is Candice Prince, and I am an intern with Dr. Wilkie's BioEnergy Summer School. I am very interested in using cogongrass to make biofuel, particularly via anaerobic digestion. It is one of the top ten worst weeds in the world, and poses a huge problem in the southeastern United States. It produces a lot of biomass, and my thought is that it might be beneficial to remove it from the natural areas it invades and anaerobically digest it to make biogas. I have managed to find one article (here:
http://www.ncsu.edu/bioresources/BioRes_06/BioRes_06_3_2744_Lin_Lee_Simult_Sacch_Fermet_Grass_Bioethanol_1570.pdf)
showing cogongrass has potential as a feedstock for bioethanol, but have been unable to find any other sources in the literature. I was wondering if the BEST community might have any thoughts on using cogongrass to produce biofuel, or know of any research being done?

Thank you for your time,
Candice Prince