-
Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
Steam engine V Steam Turbine
- Thread starter large_ghostman
- Start date
- Status
Depends on what levels of clean for either you are using. 
If both contain only sub percentage point traces of whatever was supposed to be taken out then either one could be better or worse. But if both are cleaned completely both are going to be 99%+ CH4 and for all practical application purposes indistinguishable from each other. (which is what I have been trying to point out from the begining here.)
I think we are both on the same page here but your arguing a different set of semantics than I am. You're on purity of your gas and I am on relativistic equality in end use applications which in real world work (IE running an engine/turbine/heat source as your thread here relates to) two fuels that are for the most part identical down to within a few percent or less of each other on all major points it's pretty much irrelevant to where either came from.
Everything else is just semantics!
Which BTW, regarding using your biomethane to generate electricity using a tiny boiler and steam engine, I am pretty sure that the working efficiency will be dismal at best given that tiny boilers and steam engines have terrible relative efficiencies compared to their highly applications specific industrial scale cousins. Rather like my early points about using it in a common IC engine Vs a new modern (high priced) purpose built commercial IC engine, of which you do not have as far as I know.
Regardless of what you are doing, overall start to finish systems efficiency and cost to implement play huge rolls in anythings overall real world viability. Even more so when you are at the front lines level of experimentation and development, given if you screw up your research and its related real world numbers (or just get an attitude against the wrong person on the wrong day over something small and irrelevant [Funding yanked out from under you]) it could have huge negative ramifications for you and everyone who chooses to follow your research later.
If both contain only sub percentage point traces of whatever was supposed to be taken out then either one could be better or worse. But if both are cleaned completely both are going to be 99%+ CH4 and for all practical application purposes indistinguishable from each other. (which is what I have been trying to point out from the begining here.)
I think we are both on the same page here but your arguing a different set of semantics than I am. You're on purity of your gas and I am on relativistic equality in end use applications which in real world work (IE running an engine/turbine/heat source as your thread here relates to) two fuels that are for the most part identical down to within a few percent or less of each other on all major points it's pretty much irrelevant to where either came from.
Everything else is just semantics!
Which BTW, regarding using your biomethane to generate electricity using a tiny boiler and steam engine, I am pretty sure that the working efficiency will be dismal at best given that tiny boilers and steam engines have terrible relative efficiencies compared to their highly applications specific industrial scale cousins. Rather like my early points about using it in a common IC engine Vs a new modern (high priced) purpose built commercial IC engine, of which you do not have as far as I know.
Regardless of what you are doing, overall start to finish systems efficiency and cost to implement play huge rolls in anythings overall real world viability. Even more so when you are at the front lines level of experimentation and development, given if you screw up your research and its related real world numbers (or just get an attitude against the wrong person on the wrong day over something small and irrelevant [Funding yanked out from under you]) it could have huge negative ramifications for you and everyone who chooses to follow your research later.
Thread starter
#64
Depends on what levels of clean for either you are using.
Well as i dont give up easy, and i hate seeing people struggle to grasp things lets try it this way..
do you know what this molecule is?
Thats is what is put into the grid, that molecule.
Now do you remember the pics of all the other molecules i posted? Well those are a FEW of what is in your fossil fuel gas AFTER cleaning it.
Sometimes you get some some water 0.001%
Now do you understand? METHANE ALONE IN MY END GAS
Wiches brew of stuff in yours, and no they are not good this, they up emissions and burn less completely therefore produce less energy. You have been proved completely wrong, the same way mike myers was taken apart, but like him you insist in persisting, so i got to ask with respect....Are you really Mike Myers in disguise? Or related, because your really starting to sound alot him.
Thread starter
#65
If both contain only sub percentage point traces of whatever was supposed to be taken out then either one could be better or worse. But if both are cleaned completely both are going to be 99%+ CH4 and for all practical application purposes indistinguishable from each other. (which is what I have been trying to point out from the begining here.)
NO AGAIN AND AGAIN
The LIST you gave from YOUR source shows whats left in the gas AFTER ITS BEEN CLEANED, you cant get natural gas more than 87-97% pure the average your ref gave was 94% ours is 99.99%
Thread starter
#66
Correct, but had you actually got someone to read it all to you, you would discover that isnt what we are looking at, we want to know if the mechanical motion can be used to achieve something while still turning a generator. I pointed out it wouldnt be a good scale, but it would show if the set up would work after we had modified it.
Sorry i called you a troll, i dont think you are. i honestly dont think you can read and then comprehend longish posts. so I will answer yours in shortish burst to make it easy for you
Sorry i called you a troll, i dont think you are. i honestly dont think you can read and then comprehend longish posts. so I will answer yours in shortish burst to make it easy for you
Thread starter
#67
You mean like the Scania ones that were mentioned . Who knows who works with who eah
. Who knows who works with who eah
Thread starter
#68
Correct again, so how many scientific studies would you like posted that show Bio Methane wins on all those points? I can post them in tiny chunks if you like?
Thread starter
#69
Even more so when you are at the front lines level of experimentation and development, given if you screw up your research and its related real world numbers (or just get an attitude against the wrong person on the wrong day over something small and irrelevant [Funding yanked out from under you]) it could have huge negative ramifications for you and everyone who chooses to follow your research later.
To quote the Great Jim of Moderation who recently said to me............. Welcome to the big bad world. Yeah we got alot riding on this, even more for me,i got a business partner who has invested alot of money, as have I. I have my mums house on the line.
So consider this when arguing points with me, with all the above how much effort and time do you think i put into making sure i know what i am talking about?
Well.... Given what I am finding online, I have doubts on many of your points.
1. http://www.energy.wsu.edu/Documents/Biomethane_For_Transportation_WWCleanCities.pdf
2. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heating-values-fuel-gases-d_823.html
3. http://www.sgc.se/ckfinder/userfiles/files/BasicDataonBiogas2012.pdf
4. http://european-biogas.eu/wp-content/uploads/files/2013/10/eba_biomethane_factsheet.pdf
1. 2. 4. Seems the experts may feel you have your numbers on what's what backwards. Maybe you should argue with them since they are who have real skin, plus time and experience, in the game, unlike me who has nothing to gain or lose.
Given your condescending and a bit hypocritical attitude plus general low hanging fruit demeanor I am seeing here, NOT ENOUGH WHERE IT COUNTS!
You are aware that unknown to you nobody guys like me are who will likely become some of your investors someday, right? Do you think that presenting yourself as you have here, so far, would gain many well off peoples favor? Especially if they did their homework on the subject, even as poorly as I have, and found as much of what the established pros and irrefutable scientific facts say to be quite a bit different than you are claiming and not in your favor at that, and you proceed to give them a smug condescending attitude about basic questions for it?
So say you actually do have your families home and lives on the line. How would you feel if I was the guy holding all the big check that could make your life go someplace good, yet because of your condescending attitude I simply pull out my million dollar research grant check and tear it up right in front of you while saying,
'Your research is passable okay, but not great, however I don't care for your attitude so the deals off. And BTW, Since you didn't pan out, I'm off to see your competitors next. Have a nice life sleeping in your car until somebody else comes along!)
Manors and formal demor in all instances count, Especially when it's somebody else you know absolutely nothing factual abouts respect and money you're after.
But hey, it's just semantics that are not relevant to the science, right? So they won't really matter, even if your science is easily seen to be easily questioned and you attitude over it is condescending and poor, so let the smug condescending attitude fly where it may, right?
1. http://www.energy.wsu.edu/Documents/Biomethane_For_Transportation_WWCleanCities.pdf
2. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heating-values-fuel-gases-d_823.html
3. http://www.sgc.se/ckfinder/userfiles/files/BasicDataonBiogas2012.pdf
4. http://european-biogas.eu/wp-content/uploads/files/2013/10/eba_biomethane_factsheet.pdf
1. 2. 4. Seems the experts may feel you have your numbers on what's what backwards. Maybe you should argue with them since they are who have real skin, plus time and experience, in the game, unlike me who has nothing to gain or lose.
Given your condescending and a bit hypocritical attitude plus general low hanging fruit demeanor I am seeing here, NOT ENOUGH WHERE IT COUNTS!
You are aware that unknown to you nobody guys like me are who will likely become some of your investors someday, right? Do you think that presenting yourself as you have here, so far, would gain many well off peoples favor? Especially if they did their homework on the subject, even as poorly as I have, and found as much of what the established pros and irrefutable scientific facts say to be quite a bit different than you are claiming and not in your favor at that, and you proceed to give them a smug condescending attitude about basic questions for it?
So say you actually do have your families home and lives on the line. How would you feel if I was the guy holding all the big check that could make your life go someplace good, yet because of your condescending attitude I simply pull out my million dollar research grant check and tear it up right in front of you while saying,
'Your research is passable okay, but not great, however I don't care for your attitude so the deals off. And BTW, Since you didn't pan out, I'm off to see your competitors next. Have a nice life sleeping in your car until somebody else comes along!)
Manors and formal demor in all instances count, Especially when it's somebody else you know absolutely nothing factual abouts respect and money you're after.
But hey, it's just semantics that are not relevant to the science, right? So they won't really matter, even if your science is easily seen to be easily questioned and you attitude over it is condescending and poor, so let the smug condescending attitude fly where it may, right?
Thread starter
#71
Well.... Given what I am finding online, I have doubts on many of your points.
1. http://www.energy.wsu.edu/Documents/Biomethane_For_Transportation_WWCleanCities.pdf
2. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heating-values-fuel-gases-d_823.html
3. http://www.sgc.se/ckfinder/userfiles/files/BasicDataonBiogas2012.pdf
4. http://european-biogas.eu/wp-content/uploads/files/2013/10/eba_biomethane_factsheet.pdf
1.
2.
4.
Seems the experts may feel you have your numbers on what's what backwards. Maybe you should argue with them since they are who have real skin, plus time and experience, in the game, unlike me who has nothing to gain or lose.
Given your condescending and a bit hypocritical attitude plus general low hanging fruit demeanor I am seeing here, NOT ENOUGH WHERE IT COUNTS!
You are aware that unknown to you nobody guys like me are who will likely become some of your investors someday, right? Do you think that presenting yourself as you have here, so far, would gain many well off peoples favor? Especially if they did their homework on the subject, even as poorly as I have, and found as much of what the established pros and irrefutable scientific facts say to be quite a bit different than you are claiming and not in your favor at that, and you proceed to give them a smug condescending attitude about basic questions for it?
So say you actually do have your families home and lives on the line. How would you feel if I was the guy holding all the big check that could make your life go someplace good, yet because of your condescending attitude I simply pull out my million dollar research grant check and tear it up right in front of you while saying,
'Your research is passable okay, but not great, however I don't care for your attitude so the deals off. And BTW, Since you didn't pan out, I'm off to see your competitors next. Have a nice life sleeping in your car until somebody else comes along!)
Manors and formal demor in all instances count, Especially when it's somebody else you know absolutely nothing factual abouts respect and money you're after.
But hey, it's just semantics that are not relevant to the science, right? So they won't really matter, even if your science is easily seen to be easily questioned and you attitude over it is condescending and poor, so let the smug condescending attitude fly where it may, right?
1. http://www.energy.wsu.edu/Documents/Biomethane_For_Transportation_WWCleanCities.pdf
2. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heating-values-fuel-gases-d_823.html
3. http://www.sgc.se/ckfinder/userfiles/files/BasicDataonBiogas2012.pdf
4. http://european-biogas.eu/wp-content/uploads/files/2013/10/eba_biomethane_factsheet.pdf
1.
2.
4.
Seems the experts may feel you have your numbers on what's what backwards. Maybe you should argue with them since they are who have real skin, plus time and experience, in the game, unlike me who has nothing to gain or lose.
Given your condescending and a bit hypocritical attitude plus general low hanging fruit demeanor I am seeing here, NOT ENOUGH WHERE IT COUNTS!
You are aware that unknown to you nobody guys like me are who will likely become some of your investors someday, right? Do you think that presenting yourself as you have here, so far, would gain many well off peoples favor? Especially if they did their homework on the subject, even as poorly as I have, and found as much of what the established pros and irrefutable scientific facts say to be quite a bit different than you are claiming and not in your favor at that, and you proceed to give them a smug condescending attitude about basic questions for it?
So say you actually do have your families home and lives on the line. How would you feel if I was the guy holding all the big check that could make your life go someplace good, yet because of your condescending attitude I simply pull out my million dollar research grant check and tear it up right in front of you while saying,
'Your research is passable okay, but not great, however I don't care for your attitude so the deals off. And BTW, Since you didn't pan out, I'm off to see your competitors next. Have a nice life sleeping in your car until somebody else comes along!)
Manors and formal demor in all instances count, Especially when it's somebody else you know absolutely nothing factual abouts respect and money you're after.
But hey, it's just semantics that are not relevant to the science, right? So they won't really matter, even if your science is easily seen to be easily questioned and you attitude over it is condescending and poor, so let the smug condescending attitude fly where it may, right?
I will explain your links etc as we go along ok with you?
Thread starter
#72
Well.... Given what I am finding online, I have doubts on many of your points.
1. http://www.energy.wsu.edu/Documents/Biomethane_For_Transportation_WWCleanCities.pdf
1. http://www.energy.wsu.edu/Documents/Biomethane_For_Transportation_WWCleanCities.pdf
Biogas is not BioMethane as such, Biogas is the raw product, same way as crude oil is not petrol. Until relatively recently ALL commercial systems were single stage (module) batch process systems. In the last 2 -3 years multi chamber multi stage co digesters have begun to come online. As we go i will make sure i point out the advances and how things differ today.
SO tip
1) Check the date!! Like the first link in TCM post you will notice the report was written in 2011, then updated just 2 years later. 2011 was around the time main stream use was really being looked at, its a shame that all viable systems then were single batch systems. Most little more than a tank with waste in. (think 386 processor and DOS 6.2 V modern computers). They updated just two years later in 2015, so most of that report is well out of date and harks back to dark days. Hopefully i have been clear that all my posts are mainly dealing with, as TCM pointed out himself in one post 'more cutting edge' technology.
So when looking up this stuff try and find the date, it dosnt always matter but it can do.
This is from the first link
Quick side note Jim Jensen was one the best in single stage digesters, he also specialized in non co digesters, i learnt alot from his work.
Then i didnt get past the index. The reason was this bit.
So far we have been talking co digesters and while i have mentioned other matrials i have stayed clear of human waste etc. In this context i think i pointed out somewhere Siloxanes, this is something specific to the kind of feed stocks this report was based on, as shown in the second pic. I will go into waste water treatment (if we can sort the legal silly ness out, or do it on another site), A general rule of thumb is you wouldnt digest this kind of waste on its own in a single stage reactor. That said, the situation at the moment means most digesters in the UK are at waste plants, and single batch systems, thats one factor in the recent surge of research in this area.
My own belief is the way forward, and indeed the best way to use this technology is at waste water plants etc, they are gold mines of energy and the feed stock is a waste product!! So top priority in my book. The down side is these places need specialized systems, to some extent at the very least you need to co digest, as mentioned elsewhere this kind of waste needs a added pre treated high Carbon source.
If you dont and yu digest in single batch reactors you will get Hydrogen Sulphide and you will get Siloxanes (think sewer gas), again i am pretty sure in a couple of places i have touched on this, but i will go deep into this at some point purely because waste treatment plants are where digesters could really shine.
So why didnt i read past that bit? Because i am aware what the likely gases are and the problems in these systems, they are also not the systems being discussed and not used for natural gas, they always fair badly in these reports for the reasons above. The good news is, these reactors and plants and the problems associated with them are what have driven the modern research.
So the material in the report is both out of date and a specialized area being a extremely high Protein and Nitrogen feedstock. I dont blame you TCM but that report isnt about what we have talked of in this report, its not natural gas as such (like your other links were, and its woefully out of date). Please can we talk transistors or capacitors and not switch between tubes/valves and micros. You will make your head spin unless you keep the info on a single topic at a time.
Thread starter
#73
Well.... Given what I am finding online, I have doubts on many of your points.
2. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heating-values-fuel-gases-d_823.html
2. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heating-values-fuel-gases-d_823.html
Link 2
Thank you for this, it proves my point
, i have highlighted the relevant bits, they were slightly weasley with this, for natural gas they gave a range, so i think you have a choice here, pick the best value for natural gas or go for a middle value, if you pick the top figure given for natural gas even then look at how close methane is, if your sensible and except the chances of ALL natural or even more than a fraction of it being the super high end, then as your table shows Methane wins out.We have already established adnaseum I produce methane as a end product havnt we?
Anyway this is the Table in TCM link, personally i am not sure why your posting things that agree with what i have said, seems a bit desperate or your still not following?? Be aware this thread is about STEAM V TURBINE so in some ways we are way off topic, to begin with i didnt mind clearing a few things up. But after i have answered the links stick on topic please, you can bring the gas thing up in other posts, but not in a steam thread!!
My head is doing just fine.
But since you brought it up I am now having to suspect you need a beak but wont/can't admit to it?
Getting challenged on real world grounds and having to think beyond your idealisms and into the expanded realities that the world runs in is tough sometimes.
Just wait until you get your ideas worked over on the real world economic feasibility limitations aspects of it all where ever changing costs of feedstocks, labor, processing, user demographics, special interests limitations/roadblocks and wants and who knows what else all start ripping handfuls out of the profits possibility pie!
Not really. Rather nearly the opposite in fact. In finally admitting that the ranges vary and overlap barely (your best 100% pure end product still doesn't break the lower 1/3 range of raw unprocessed well based Natural gas) you have proved mine (that their is a overlapping range they both share) that I have been going for since the begining. Thanks for keeping up.
BTW in real world applications that bio derived CH4 value of 1011 Vs Natural Gasses value ~950 - 1150 variance is only ~ -6% to + 13% (a range that will not play a major make or break feasibility problem with any typical bulk heating/engine fueling applications) which means that their is a fair chance that any randomly sampled Natural Gas source has about a 2:1 odds of being equal to higher than your pure Methane source.
Plus beyond that, in real world operation conditions, where purity is not so critical and end point costs is, the efforts you will have to put forth to clean your gas up just to meet the lower end average of natural gas will set you back way more given the bulk of your impurities are low to zero value byproducts (water vapor, nitrogen compounds, CO2, H2S, oxygen, Etc) where as raw well gas "witches Brew" has a load of highly valuable secondary gases that in their removal work toward paying for their separation hence the reason that Natural Gas processing plants are highly profitable!
Unlike well gas sources of which many can and do run straight form well to end user, and those that doe get theri secondary compounds processed out (profitably), your bio process is alway going to be totally dependant on a feedstock supply that is either labor and cost intensive to gather process and dispose of or is stuck with being tied to a waste process only feed source (nitch source application).
Plus you will alway be up against the limited value of what your secondary byproducts that come from cleaning you gas has (measurable energy and financial outlay with little return for it just to get your end product up to base level competitive spec).
I think your work has merit on the academic end but I am not seeing a strong power play on the greater implementation end, so far, due to the likely large up front cost to set up plus parasitic secondary efforts and their cost that may be involved, which is what investors are looking at ( I obviously would be any way) when they give you money, that they ultimately want it back and with a preferably good profit for it.
The whole reason they are rich is because they don't buy into blind idealisms that don't pay equitable dividends.
Especially on the real world bigger picture application efficiencies and cost comparisons, like say comparing the typical real world engines (typical mom and pop daily driver vehicles) users to your high cost special purpose built rigs (Tesla roadsters very few will own simply due realistic costs and limited range of applications involved).
One may have way better working efficiency but its cost is way outside of what the average person and end user can afford to work with or cost justify.
We can continue on but at this point with your latest revelations I see no need to. You have pretty much shown what I have been getting at all along, that they in fact partially overlap on energy density, with yours running largely second to common well source Natural Gas on all levels of measure in likely 2 out of 3 instances.
Winning 1 game in three on average energy comparison alone does not make you the superior player. Even less so if you have to put forth a lot more efforts just to play at that level while your competition does not.
But since you brought it up I am now having to suspect you need a beak but wont/can't admit to it?
Getting challenged on real world grounds and having to think beyond your idealisms and into the expanded realities that the world runs in is tough sometimes.
Just wait until you get your ideas worked over on the real world economic feasibility limitations aspects of it all where ever changing costs of feedstocks, labor, processing, user demographics, special interests limitations/roadblocks and wants and who knows what else all start ripping handfuls out of the profits possibility pie!
Thank you for this, it proves my point ,
,
BTW in real world applications that bio derived CH4 value of 1011 Vs Natural Gasses value ~950 - 1150 variance is only ~ -6% to + 13% (a range that will not play a major make or break feasibility problem with any typical bulk heating/engine fueling applications) which means that their is a fair chance that any randomly sampled Natural Gas source has about a 2:1 odds of being equal to higher than your pure Methane source.
Plus beyond that, in real world operation conditions, where purity is not so critical and end point costs is, the efforts you will have to put forth to clean your gas up just to meet the lower end average of natural gas will set you back way more given the bulk of your impurities are low to zero value byproducts (water vapor, nitrogen compounds, CO2, H2S, oxygen, Etc) where as raw well gas "witches Brew" has a load of highly valuable secondary gases that in their removal work toward paying for their separation hence the reason that Natural Gas processing plants are highly profitable!
Unlike well gas sources of which many can and do run straight form well to end user, and those that doe get theri secondary compounds processed out (profitably), your bio process is alway going to be totally dependant on a feedstock supply that is either labor and cost intensive to gather process and dispose of or is stuck with being tied to a waste process only feed source (nitch source application).
Plus you will alway be up against the limited value of what your secondary byproducts that come from cleaning you gas has (measurable energy and financial outlay with little return for it just to get your end product up to base level competitive spec).
I think your work has merit on the academic end but I am not seeing a strong power play on the greater implementation end, so far, due to the likely large up front cost to set up plus parasitic secondary efforts and their cost that may be involved, which is what investors are looking at ( I obviously would be any way) when they give you money, that they ultimately want it back and with a preferably good profit for it.
The whole reason they are rich is because they don't buy into blind idealisms that don't pay equitable dividends.
Especially on the real world bigger picture application efficiencies and cost comparisons, like say comparing the typical real world engines (typical mom and pop daily driver vehicles) users to your high cost special purpose built rigs (Tesla roadsters very few will own simply due realistic costs and limited range of applications involved).
One may have way better working efficiency but its cost is way outside of what the average person and end user can afford to work with or cost justify.
We can continue on but at this point with your latest revelations I see no need to. You have pretty much shown what I have been getting at all along, that they in fact partially overlap on energy density, with yours running largely second to common well source Natural Gas on all levels of measure in likely 2 out of 3 instances.
Winning 1 game in three on average energy comparison alone does not make you the superior player. Even less so if you have to put forth a lot more efforts just to play at that level while your competition does not.
Thread starter
#75
Well.... Given what I am finding online, I have doubts on many of your points. 3. http://www.sgc.se/ckfinder/userfiles/files/BasicDataonBiogas2012.pdf
3. http://www.sgc.se/ckfinder/userfiles/files/BasicDataonBiogas2012.pdf
This is interesting and there are a couple of points to address, on the one hand it seems to contradict but then swing to show what i have been saying. I am sorry but to fully explain your link and the conetents its likely to be longer than the attention span you have in reading posts. Do try and read to the end TCM, this is a good example why i split your links up.
So again we do a date check, just to make sure the data being used isnt like comparing a 1930 ford with a 2018 F1 car.
Interesting report, first many of the tables havnt been updated from the 1st ed which make some 11 years out of date, but some have been updated. i nearly didnt bother reading this, its a swedish report that was updated as evidence in a swedish court with the EU courts, but its worth going into, the most recent data shown however is 2015, although outdated slightly it is worth including some of this.
Sweden is a special, i would love to go into the Swedish side of digesters. but its highly political and based around Sweden wanting a different energy source,for those interestead Sweden Lost the court case
Back to the actual content of the link however.
I think TCM is relying on this table in the report, it deals with what is in the gas, now for the very last time i am going to repeat this. TCM from now on all links that dont take this into account will be ignored, simply because the principle is so easy to understand.
BIOGAS is normally taken to mean the RAW gas produced, much in the same way you would compare petrol to unrefined crude oil, you shouldnt compare BIOgas with Bio Methane, one is refined and one i not, generally biogas for the grid is simply passed through sodium hydroxide solution, sometimes carbon as well depends on reactor type etc.
The point being its very simple,cheap and leaves a valuable product behind (Sodium Carbonate aka baking soda).
I have marked the most relevant bits, you can clearly see whats in the raw gas in table, reading the report the table are from 11 years ago and the feedtock was raw sewage which we discussed above.
Now we get to an interesting table, remember TCM claiming energy is better from petrol etc? wel this table uses upgraded biogas compared to petrol and diesel, i should point upgraded biogas dosnt always mean Bio Methane, sometimes its just passed through carbon to get rid HS2 , even without taking that into account, his argument of petrol being better is falling apart using even his outdated links (why on earth do you post things that disprove your point???).
taken from same document link 3
Now link 3 is fairly large, i think i have more than rubbed his nose in it with this link, so i will stop at this point with that link, TCM if you wish me to fully go through that link and post it, please let me know, but as clearly seen it does not support your case at all. Maybe you thought randomly posting links while making a statement i wouldnt read them? Indeed maybe you even thought i had never seen these reports before???
You underestimate the research we have done, we have well over 3000 papers and reports on bio methane and bio gas, i can honestly say i have read every single one of them. This isnt a game to me, there are many 100,000's of £ at risk with the investments we carry. In fact i have everything on the line with this, maybe your more gun ho than me, but then maybe that is why aged 17 i co own several companies two of which will have significant end of year turnovers.
Your aged what? and have what?
Thread starter
#76
Well.... Given what I am finding online, I have doubts on many of your points. 4. http://european-biogas.eu/wp-content/uploads/files/2013/10/eba_biomethane_factsheet.pdf
4. http://european-biogas.eu/wp-content/uploads/files/2013/10/eba_biomethane_factsheet.pdf
Nice link, not sure why you posted but heyho. First of all when you know this business you can look at figures and tables etc and instantly tell what kind of digester, alot like many electronic circuits they have a signature, so take something like a SMPS, you dont have to show much of the circuit before those experienced in electronics know the schematic they are looking at is some kind of smps, or take the different amplifier circuits. AG could take a glance and instantly tell you what amplifier type etc etc.
Well this is my field and i can tell you that yet again you have picked a single stage digester!! I DO NOT DO SINGLE STAGE DIGESTERS. how many more time must this be repeated, how many more times do i have to point out how horrible they are and how inefficient?? This is why the industry is moving away from them.
Anyway it did have this one table worth looking at, i couldnt see much relevance in the rest of the short report.
Notice this shows the REDUCTIONS in GREEN HOUSE GAS from each ful compared to fossil fuel biomethane from manure gives a reduction in green house gases of 97% when compared to gasoline!!! couple that with the other link showing Bio Methane Burns better.........
GAME SET AND MATCH
Thread starter
#77
My head is doing just fine.
But since you brought it up I am now having to suspect you need a beak but wont/can't admit to it?
Getting challenged on real world grounds and having to think beyond your idealisms and into the expanded realities that the world runs in is tough sometimes.
Just wait until you get your ideas worked over on the real world economic feasibility limitations aspects of it all where ever changing costs of feedstocks, labor, processing, user demographics, special interests limitations/roadblocks and wants and who knows what else all start ripping handfuls out of the profits possibility pie!
Not really. Rather nearly the opposite in fact. In finally admitting that the ranges vary and overlap barely (your best 100% pure end product still doesn't break the lower 1/3 range of raw unprocessed well based Natural gas) you have proved mine (that their is a overlapping range they both share) that I have been going for since the begining. Thanks for keeping up.
BTW in real world applications that bio derived CH4 value of 1011 Vs Natural Gasses value ~950 - 1150 variance is only ~ -6% to + 13% (a range that will not play a major make or break feasibility problem with any typical bulk heating/engine fueling applications) which means that their is a fair chance that any randomly sampled Natural Gas source has about a 2:1 odds of being equal to higher than your pure Methane source.
Plus beyond that, in real world operation conditions, where purity is not so critical and end point costs is, the efforts you will have to put forth to clean your gas up just to meet the lower end average of natural gas will set you back way more given the bulk of your impurities are low to zero value byproducts (water vapor, nitrogen compounds, CO2, H2S, oxygen, Etc) where as raw well gas "witches Brew" has a load of highly valuable secondary gases that in their removal work toward paying for their separation hence the reason that Natural Gas processing plants are highly profitable!
Unlike well gas sources of which many can and do run straight form well to end user, and those that doe get theri secondary compounds processed out (profitably), your bio process is alway going to be totally dependant on a feedstock supply that is either labor and cost intensive to gather process and dispose of or is stuck with being tied to a waste process only feed source (nitch source application).
Plus you will alway be up against the limited value of what your secondary byproducts that come from cleaning you gas has (measurable energy and financial outlay with little return for it just to get your end product up to base level competitive spec).
I think your work has merit on the academic end but I am not seeing a strong power play on the greater implementation end, so far, due to the likely large up front cost to set up plus parasitic secondary efforts and their cost that may be involved, which is what investors are looking at ( I obviously would be any way) when they give you money, that they ultimately want it back and with a preferably good profit for it.
The whole reason they are rich is because they don't buy into blind idealisms that don't pay equitable dividends.
Especially on the real world bigger picture application efficiencies and cost comparisons, like say comparing the typical real world engines (typical mom and pop daily driver vehicles) users to your high cost special purpose built rigs (Tesla roadsters very few will own simply due realistic costs and limited range of applications involved).
One may have way better working efficiency but its cost is way outside of what the average person and end user can afford to work with or cost justify.
We can continue on but at this point with your latest revelations I see no need to. You have pretty much shown what I have been getting at all along, that they in fact partially overlap on energy density, with yours running largely second to common well source Natural Gas on all levels of measure in likely 2 out of 3 instances.
Winning 1 game in three on average energy comparison alone does not make you the superior player. Even less so if you have to put forth a lot more efforts just to play at that level while your competition does not.
But since you brought it up I am now having to suspect you need a beak but wont/can't admit to it?
Getting challenged on real world grounds and having to think beyond your idealisms and into the expanded realities that the world runs in is tough sometimes.
Just wait until you get your ideas worked over on the real world economic feasibility limitations aspects of it all where ever changing costs of feedstocks, labor, processing, user demographics, special interests limitations/roadblocks and wants and who knows what else all start ripping handfuls out of the profits possibility pie!
Not really. Rather nearly the opposite in fact. In finally admitting that the ranges vary and overlap barely (your best 100% pure end product still doesn't break the lower 1/3 range of raw unprocessed well based Natural gas) you have proved mine (that their is a overlapping range they both share) that I have been going for since the begining. Thanks for keeping up.
BTW in real world applications that bio derived CH4 value of 1011 Vs Natural Gasses value ~950 - 1150 variance is only ~ -6% to + 13% (a range that will not play a major make or break feasibility problem with any typical bulk heating/engine fueling applications) which means that their is a fair chance that any randomly sampled Natural Gas source has about a 2:1 odds of being equal to higher than your pure Methane source.
Plus beyond that, in real world operation conditions, where purity is not so critical and end point costs is, the efforts you will have to put forth to clean your gas up just to meet the lower end average of natural gas will set you back way more given the bulk of your impurities are low to zero value byproducts (water vapor, nitrogen compounds, CO2, H2S, oxygen, Etc) where as raw well gas "witches Brew" has a load of highly valuable secondary gases that in their removal work toward paying for their separation hence the reason that Natural Gas processing plants are highly profitable!
Unlike well gas sources of which many can and do run straight form well to end user, and those that doe get theri secondary compounds processed out (profitably), your bio process is alway going to be totally dependant on a feedstock supply that is either labor and cost intensive to gather process and dispose of or is stuck with being tied to a waste process only feed source (nitch source application).
Plus you will alway be up against the limited value of what your secondary byproducts that come from cleaning you gas has (measurable energy and financial outlay with little return for it just to get your end product up to base level competitive spec).
I think your work has merit on the academic end but I am not seeing a strong power play on the greater implementation end, so far, due to the likely large up front cost to set up plus parasitic secondary efforts and their cost that may be involved, which is what investors are looking at ( I obviously would be any way) when they give you money, that they ultimately want it back and with a preferably good profit for it.
The whole reason they are rich is because they don't buy into blind idealisms that don't pay equitable dividends.
Especially on the real world bigger picture application efficiencies and cost comparisons, like say comparing the typical real world engines (typical mom and pop daily driver vehicles) users to your high cost special purpose built rigs (Tesla roadsters very few will own simply due realistic costs and limited range of applications involved).
One may have way better working efficiency but its cost is way outside of what the average person and end user can afford to work with or cost justify.
We can continue on but at this point with your latest revelations I see no need to. You have pretty much shown what I have been getting at all along, that they in fact partially overlap on energy density, with yours running largely second to common well source Natural Gas on all levels of measure in likely 2 out of 3 instances.
Winning 1 game in three on average energy comparison alone does not make you the superior player. Even less so if you have to put forth a lot more efforts just to play at that level while your competition does not.
I always know when your aware its not going your way, you always use the
smiley or lol so predictable. Look mate, i am getting pms from people who i honestly consider your friends, they are pointing out that your starting to loose credibility and how painful its becoming to seen you torn to shreds.You know my comment about the oil 8 miles down? Seriously put the spade down now before you actually reach it.
My head is doing just fine.
But since you brought it up I am now having to suspect you need a beak but wont/can't admit to it?
But since you brought it up I am now having to suspect you need a beak but wont/can't admit to it?
Contradicts the above statement you made. When you consider how many times i had to post the same picture before you got the point, i think its reasonable to assume your attention span is somewhere in the region of a member from Mycetophilidae.
I was going to reply to the rest of it,but honestly i dont need to. i have proved my point using your data. so the rest of your reply is just normal TCM waffle designed to obfuscate the point and try and hide your mistakes.
Its gone too far TCM, your rapidly loosing any credibility you may have had. it dosnt matter to me, but the topic was steam engines V Turbines, i suspect you forgot long ago. you accuse me of going off topic!!!
Keep going as long as you like, i seen the best you got i havnt had to use a single link of mine yet. let alone a scientific paper. Just for some fun, would you like me to take each of those link and compare them with upto date recent scientific papers? i will post the relevant screen hots of the papers?
I know your well beat but your not the kind to stop at the point of looking silly are you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread starter
#78
I forgot to post these! they are from the same page, this is l0ast years latest report, this shows why dat matters on reports, look at the increases from 2011 to 2016!!! This is why using old reports for many of your figures is a bad idea.
I wont publish the full report as it costs 400 odd euros, i do have the full report but cant publish whats inside, the screen shots are from there own front page they have published, so free to be published elsewhere.
In the first pic read the very bottom bit about the growth rates of plant! Pretty impressive, compare that with growth rates of oil fields or wells.
I wont publish the full report as it costs 400 odd euros, i do have the full report but cant publish whats inside, the screen shots are from there own front page they have published, so free to be published elsewhere.
In the first pic read the very bottom bit about the growth rates of plant! Pretty impressive
, compare that with growth rates of oil fields or wells.Rubbed my nose in what? Your pointing out exactly what I have been going on about right from the get go and often doing it with my own links that I used to point out what you are proudly pointing out back to me as if it new info you found that I have not seen or understand. How many times do I have to point that out? 
You not getting that I am largely agreeing with you on most things doesn't make me look like the one who cant follow what the other is saying.
Continually pretending that I don't understand does not infact show that I don't. What it does show is that you have a huge irrational disconnect with what's been said to you and what you want to hear which is not and never will be my problem or embarrassment to deal with no matter how badly you want to spin it that way to save your butt.
You not getting that I am largely agreeing with you on most things doesn't make me look like the one who cant follow what the other is saying.
Continually pretending that I don't understand does not infact show that I don't. What it does show is that you have a huge irrational disconnect with what's been said to you and what you want to hear which is not and never will be my problem or embarrassment to deal with no matter how badly you want to spin it that way to save your butt.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread starter
#80
Cowboy, these boilers how big are they?
- Status
Latest threads
-
-
non-inverting amplifier with high pass filter input- Started by earckens
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
