Re: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any solutions?

[Carefreeland@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/27/02 7:00:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, L INVENT writes:

> Daniel Comments
> Dear Daniel,
>     Thanks for the early morning support. It is after 4am here


> You can send me a check ;-)  Actually, a long overdue, small sample of some of your products would be in order.  I have a couple of small(1/8 acre or less)problem areas to try this on.  I will forward you my address, request it if you don't still have it handy.  Results of free field testing will be sent in a year or so. Possibly with orders.  

>     None of the biomass projects which I have seen in large scale are economically successful for two major reasons, cost of the fuel, (always positive) increasing with transportation distance, and power value. A recent presentation in Albuquerque by the McNeal Station manager showed that the value of electricity which they received from the grid was so low that the plant was only used for peaking. It was started and stopped several hundred times a month, whenever the power value exceeded the cost of operation. The cost of harvesting and transporting biomass was a the major factor in these economics.     
>     The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have massive problems with the harvested biomass from forest thinnings. There is an initiative to address the forest management by the Bush administration because of the recent uncontrollable fires which devastated massive areas of the Southwest and are now taking the toll on Oregon. The limited factor is the cost of disposal of millions of tons of biomass throughout widespread areas of the forested regions of the country. Gasifying it for power production does not work due to energy values and lack of remote connections for power transport. Other solutions are needed. It appears as though Thermogenics can play a major role in this program. 


> What roles do you and your companies anticipate being the most involved in? 
> What if we start with the assumption that clean combustion of these fuels, as opposed to allowing them to rot and contribute to greenhouse warming, is desirable > In some cases chipping to make local soil amendment (mulch) may help where soils are clearly degraded, and the cost of transport and combustion is prohibitive.  Other wood can be densified or pyrolized to char with portable equipment, or sold locally as firewood lowering the local cost.  The char could be stored indefinitely for after the initial surge of wood is cut. Then we have several avenues of attack on each of the other problems named. 
  > The electric rates paid for clean energy can receive a government subsidy, the additional connections to the grid can receive a subsidy, the work can be packaged in large units to lower development costs.  The states that have a net loss of income from out of state power purchases can subsidize this to lower internal revenue losses.  Any current subsidies for remote power delivery can be switched for the purpose of lowering delivery infrastructure costs. 
>How do you characterize the development cost as a percentage of total operating costs?  If a cluster of smaller generating stations were developed and built as a unit, the entire project would benefit from the economy of scale. This could be done even if separate interests financed each of the projects individually for their own use. For example, a remote town could build it's own power plant, but be part of a buying, developing and operating group as a package deal. The lower Biomass hauling costs would keep transportation distances down.  Other urban wood wastes could add to the mix, lowering overall hauling costs. 
> As far as harvesting costs, these costs would have to be looked at as an investment in fire prevention with a benefit for future land use. Some limited timber or pulpwood harvesting could be included as part of the deal, in order to break even on the cost of harvesting. I would appoint a person who's responsibility was for the good of the forest to make these tree selection decisions. 
>     If the density of biomass production was increased per unit area, then the transportation cost would decline and economics would improve, but there would still be harvesting cost and the like which would not change much. If genetics or fertility could change this a great deal, it would still not make much change in the economics. These economics of harvest and transport is the limiting factor in biomass utilization.


 > This is only true when the true cost of fossil fuel is not considered.  As these costs are phased in, the economics will look more inviting. 

>     If islands or areas where fuels are very expensive such as the outbacks and remote locations are used, that is a much better deal and possibly feasible for biomasses. European subsidies can assist there. 
>     I cannot respond to the stoves and bioenergy lists as I am not subscribed to them. 
>     
> > I will forward any subject matter of interest your way. 


Leland T. Taylor
> President
> Thermogenics Inc. 


     Daniel Dimiduk