Re: GAS-L: nice #'s, pete

[Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>]

Hi Skip;


At 09:01 PM 3/15/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Peter, I understand the hunt for truth through math.  But, you like me, know
>that sometimes 'ya just gotta build one'.   If you go to my website -- 

www.sensiblesteam.com

>and look
>at the back pages, you will see the 10hp Hurst boilers on trailers powering
>piston steam engines driving generators.  I get 25kw continous with 40kw
>surge.  It eats up to 500lbs an hour of non mulched wood, therefore little
>material handling.

OK -- quick figuring -- saying the wood is dried and at around 5000 btu per
pound.

2,500,000 btu divided by 3414 = 732.3 kwh

25/732.3 = 3.4% over all efficiency of the entire power plant.

Now -- looking for your engine efficiencies:

The Hurst boiler is at least 65% boiler efficiency. So:

732.3 * .65 = 476 KWH is being converted to steam.

25/476 = 5.25% engine efficiency.

Mind you -- these are my math short-hand calculations -- but it certainly
puts everything in the same ball park perspective wise.

All in all Skip -- for a small system -- that is very good! But my mission
is to make small systems reach 20%+ over all efficiency with out increasing
costs on manufacturing.

>exhaust steam raises feedwater to 220 and a simple economizer in the stack
>gets it to 300.

Yes -- that goes a long way to increasing efficiency! 

>Yes, a lot of waste goes up the stack but big deal.  It is not cost
>effective to chase it at that size.  If it was larger, I only would wish to
>preheat air.  No need for blowers.  Plenty of heat to push it up the stack
>still, but I always use a steam stack blower for hot roddin'.

Your right about the air preheat -- or even using waste heat to further dry
your fuel. Though the first is much less of a headache to implement than
the second -- especially on a small system. Your right there regarding cost
over advantage as well -- it simply would not be cost effective.

>I am of the attitude that you should build something that works, then start
>tweaking it.  If there is a solid promise of a better model, then it can be
>built.......with your own money.   That is the capitalist way!
>No grants, No govt., No ???
>skippy
>www.sensiblesteam.com

The once reasonable alternatives you have is to superheat your steam, throw
a small condenser (even a car radiator!) on the exhaust port.

And last -- you do not mention what model of piston steam engine you are
using -- but going to a unaflow design with a little super heat and a small
condenser would probably bring engine efficiency to over 20%. You would
then be producing 100 kwh with the same size unit!

This would give you an incredible 13.6% over all efficiency!

A small Unaflow should be cheaper to build than a small conventional steam
engine. Adding a superheater and a small condenser is no big deal in
expenses. Your price could increase by 50%.

The customer would be getting power for a capital cost per kwh 1/3 of your
present cost. And in the end -- capital costs per kwh is the very bottom line.

In your other message:

At 01:01 PM 3/16/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Pete, I believe the Titanic got 8lbs/hp/hr.
>figure 1300 btu's to the lb.  another 100 or so in superheat and reheat.
>she had two quad expansion engines and a reaction turbine on the center
>shaft.
>
>if you round to 2500btus per hp, you probably have 30% efficiency.  Todays
>powerplants do better but not by much.

Yes -- a point I continually pound on! The were achieving great
efficiencies 100 years ago! We need to look more closely at the past. The
Tesla turbine fits in that category as well.

>all in all, that is real damn good for utilizing a unrefined fuel, and, most
>important, she was HAND fired (33 boilers)

Wow!

>
>if the fuel is cheap or free, what does efficiency have over practicality?
>skip

I believe I answered that properly above -- more bang for the buck! 

>I am of the attitude that you should build something that works, then start
>tweaking it.  If there is a solid promise of a better model, then it can be
>built.......with your own money.   That is the capitalist way!
>No grants, No govt., No ???


Giving more bang for the buck might not work for Capitalism -- where the
rule is make as much money as you can; screw the customer -- but is a
killer in a free enterprise world where the best man (rather than the best
"connected" man) wins.

3rd world is not rich enough to support Capitalism -- but it thrives on
free enterprise. Just like Canada and the US did a few years back. 

Capitalism is about control. Eliminating competition through market
control. Free enterprise is may the best product win -- and always keep a
level playing field.

Modern world is big on subsidizing inefficient processes to protect their
capitalists. That is not a level playing field -- is it??

Now if I put a complete design together that would out preform your system
and had it built in China so I could sell it in the US for 1/4 the price of
your system -- yet giving 4 time the kwh's -- that is free enterprise.

Capitalism is making sure that can never happen! And we both know it will
not! But is that methology productive to advancing the human race??

Peter in Belize
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml