Comparison of Biomass and Solar Energy Yields - Revision history

Marcin at 21:48, 29 August 2012

2012-08-29T21:48:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:48, 29 August 2012
Line 50:		Line 50:

	[[Category:Energy]]		[[Category:Energy]]
			[[Category:Comparison]]
			[[Category:Industry Standards]]

Conor at 09:54, 3 November 2010

2010-11-03T09:54:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:54, 3 November 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	On Mon, Aug 4, 2008, Greg Walker <greg@rtd.gb.com> wrote:		On Mon, Aug 4, 2008, Greg Walker <greg@rtd.gb.com> wrote:

	>		<blockquote>
	We were talking about energy yield from biomass. These are some of the figures that I have:-		We were talking about energy yield from biomass. These are some of the figures that I have:-

Line 12:		Line 12:
	Convert that material to charcoal, & you can get 135 Kg, which will give you 1150 kilowatt hours of fire power.		Convert that material to charcoal, & you can get 135 Kg, which will give you 1150 kilowatt hours of fire power.

	Convert it to Pyrolysis Oil and you get 315 Kg (25% moisture content), giving 1480 kilowatt hours of fire power.		Convert it to Pyrolysis Oil and you get 315 Kg (25% moisture content), giving 1480 kilowatt hours of fire power.</blockquote>
	<
			-----
			<blockquote>

	That is an amazing yield. Is this proven technology, or are you talking of a theoretical value? Please reference this if you can.		That is an amazing yield. Is this proven technology, or are you talking of a theoretical value? Please reference this if you can.</blockquote>

	>		----
	If we take woodland growing at yield class 15, it will deliver 15 cubic metres of timber per hectare, per annum – on average.		If we take woodland growing at yield class 15, it will deliver 15 cubic metres of timber per hectare, per annum – on average.
	<		<
Line 47:		Line 49:
	Overall, on economic terms - the harnessing of solar energy is viable. On ecological terms, it is absolutely essential.		Overall, on economic terms - the harnessing of solar energy is viable. On ecological terms, it is absolutely essential.

	~~=Comments and Discussion=~~		[[Category:Energy]]

Greg Walker: /* Basic Biomass and Solar Energy Calculations */

2008-08-04T15:35:41Z

Basic Biomass and Solar Energy Calculations

Greg Walker at 15:29, 4 August 2008

2008-08-04T15:29:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:29, 4 August 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:
	These are very important calculations. More below.		These are very important calculations. More below.

	On ~~Fri~~, Aug 1, 2008 ~~at 1:07 AM~~, Greg Walker <greg@rtd.gb.com> wrote:		On Mon, Aug 4, 2008, Greg Walker <greg@rtd.gb.com> wrote:

	> We were talking about energy yield from biomass. These are some of the		>>
	> figures that I have:-		We were talking about energy yield from biomass. These are some of the figures that I have:-
	>
	> If we start with 1 cubic metre of fresh cut timber, its cellulose content		If we start with 1 cubic metre of fresh cut timber, its cellulose content will yield 1476 kilowatt hours of fire power. Moisture content will lower the temperature at which that can be delivered. Cellulose content would be about 450 Kg.
	> will yield 1476 kilowatt hours of fire power. Moisture content will lower
	> the temperature at which that can be delivered. Cellulose content would be		Convert that material to charcoal, & you can get 135 Kg, which will give you 1150 kilowatt hours of fire power.
	> about 450 Kg.
	>		Convert it to Pyrolysis Oil and you get 315 Kg (25% moisture content), giving 1480 kilowatt hours of fire power.
	> Convert that material to charcoal, & you get 94 Kg, which will give you ~~803~~		<<
	> kilowatt hours of fire power.
	>
	> Convert it to Pyrolysis Oil and you get 315 Kg (25% moisture content),
	> giving 1480 kilowatt hours of fire power.

	That is an amazing yield. Is this proven technology, or are you talking of a theoretical value? Please reference this if you can.		That is an amazing yield. Is this proven technology, or are you talking of a theoretical value? Please reference this if you can.

	> If we take woodland growing at yield class 15, it will deliver 15 m3 of		>>
	> timber per hectare, per annum – on average.		If we take woodland growing at yield class 15, it will deliver 15 cubic metres of timber per hectare, per annum – on average.
			<<

	Tell me more about growing classes. I heard from sustainable forestry people back in Wisconsin, where I lived before, that the sustainable yield is about 2000 lb/year/acre - or about 4 cubic meters/hectare/year. Is your value for heavy-input plantations, or natural, integrated forests?		Tell me more about growing classes. I heard from sustainable forestry people back in Wisconsin, where I lived before, that the sustainable yield is about 2000 lb/year/acre - or about 4 cubic meters/hectare/year. Is your value for heavy-input plantations, or natural, integrated forests?

	> So 1 hectare should give us say 22,000 KWH of fire power per annum, about		>>
	> 2.5 KWH per hour, or an average output from burning the biomass created, of		So 1 hectare should give us say 22,000 KWH of fire power per annum, about 2.5 KWH per hour, or an average output from burning the biomass created, of 2.5KW. That’s 2.5 KW per Hectare, averaged for the whole year. Burn that to make electricity, & you're down to 250 Watts/Ha.
	> 2.5KW.
	>		Compare that with peak sun power of 1 KW per square metre. That's 10,000 KW/Ha. Allow for night & low sun, & you're down to 2,500 KW/Ha.
	> That’s 2.5 KW per 10,~~000 sq metres – or about ¼ watt per square metre~~
	>
	> Compare that with peak sun power of 1 KW per square metre. ~~A factor of~~
	~~> 4000:1~~

	> I guess the bottom line is “Solar power conversion doesn’t have a lot of		I don't know how much sunshine we can get into water with solar collectors, but, I guess the bottom line is “Solar power conversion doesn’t have a lot of competition from biomass”. Of course, after that there's still the same ~ 90% loss of converting the steam to electricity.
	> competition from biomass”		<<

	Right.		Right.

	> ~~I’m not sure what~~ public utilities charge for electricity in the US, but in		>>
	> the UK it’s about ~~$0.20US per KWH~~ – or it was until a few months ago, I		I understand that public utilities charge for $0.10 per KWHr for electricity in the US, but in the UK it’s about twice that – or it was until a few months ago, I think. It might have moved quite a lot since then. That puts biomass sales value at $200 per Ha per annum when converted to electricity.
	> think. It might have moved quite a lot since then. That puts biomass ~~cash~~
	~~> flow~~ at $~~4,400~~ per Ha per annum.

	~~Ok, but you are forgetting about the conversion~~ to electricity ~~here - which puts that figure at 10 times lower. In the US, it's about 10 cents/kWhr - so you'd make $200/ha/yr on that biomass.~~

	~~> If you can get 5KW from 40 m2 of solar (it is actually 30 m2)~~
	~~> collector, peak – that’s 0.125 KW/ m2 peak, say (one third of this, or:) 0.04 averaged over 24 hours.~~
	~~> $700,000 per Ha per annum! or $70 per square metre per annum. Wow~~.

	~~I'd consider one quarter~~, or .~~03 kW~~/~~m2 average~~, or $~~500~~,000 per Ha per annum.		If you can get say 5 bhp from 30 square metres of solar collector, peak – that’s 0.125 KW per square metre peak. It works out at 300 KW/Ha, averaged over the year. Lets go back to our electricity valued at $0.10 per KWHr. 1 KW year = 8760 KWHr = $876 per KW year. So our 30 square metre solar collector should deliver 5 x 876 x .75 = $3,285 per annum. 300 KW/Ha works out at $250,000 per hectare per annum. Wow.
			<<

	The cost for that amount of concentrator will be $1.2M based on linear extrapolation of our present system cost - which excludes labor cost because of DIY construction. ~~this~~ means ~~2-3~~ year payback.		The cost for that amount of concentrator will be $1.2M based on linear extrapolation of our present system cost - which excludes labor cost because of DIY construction. This means 5 year payback.

	Now to reality. For the first prototype with straight steam generation and no heat recovery, we're expecting 500W (2% overall efficiency) of usable power - based on Mike Brown's 1 hp steam engine and required steam flow rate. That's a start, and I think, at that scale, we can reach 15% overall efficiency if we are good - or 3.5 kW of usable peak power.		Now to reality. For the first prototype with straight steam generation and no heat recovery, we're expecting 500W (2% overall efficiency) of usable power - based on Mike Brown's 1 hp steam engine and required steam flow rate. That's a start, and I think, at that scale, we can reach 15% overall efficiency if we are good - or 3.5 kW of usable peak power.

WikiSysop at 15:17, 1 August 2008

2008-08-01T15:17:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:17, 1 August 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
			=Basic Biomass and Solar Energy Calculations=

	These are very important calculations. More below.		These are very important calculations. More below.

WikiSysop: New page: These are very important calculations. More below. On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Greg Walker wrote: > We were talking about energy yield from biomass. These are some...

2008-08-01T15:16:53Z

New page: These are very important calculations. More below. On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Greg Walker <greg@rtd.gb.com> wrote: > We were talking about energy yield from biomass. These are some...

New page

These are very important calculations. More below.

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Greg Walker <greg@rtd.gb.com> wrote:

> We were talking about energy yield from biomass. These are some of the
> figures that I have:-
>
> If we start with 1 cubic metre of fresh cut timber, its cellulose content
> will yield 1476 kilowatt hours of fire power. Moisture content will lower
> the temperature at which that can be delivered. Cellulose content would be
> about 450 Kg.
>
> Convert that material to charcoal, & you get 94 Kg, which will give you 803
> kilowatt hours of fire power.
>
> Convert it to Pyrolysis Oil and you get 315 Kg (25% moisture content),
> giving 1480 kilowatt hours of fire power.

That is an amazing yield. Is this proven technology, or are you talking of a theoretical value? Please reference this if you can.

> If we take woodland growing at yield class 15, it will deliver 15 m3 of
> timber per hectare, per annum – on average.

Tell me more about growing classes. I heard from sustainable forestry people back in Wisconsin, where I lived before, that the sustainable yield is about 2000 lb/year/acre - or about 4 cubic meters/hectare/year. Is your value for heavy-input plantations, or natural, integrated forests?

> So 1 hectare should give us say 22,000 KWH of fire power per annum, about
> 2.5 KWH per hour, or an average output from burning the biomass created, of
> 2.5KW.
>
> That’s 2.5 KW per 10,000 sq metres – or about ¼ watt per square metre
>
> Compare that with peak sun power of 1 KW per square metre. A factor of
> 4000:1

> I guess the bottom line is “Solar power conversion doesn’t have a lot of
> competition from biomass”

Right.

> I’m not sure what public utilities charge for electricity in the US, but in
> the UK it’s about $0.20US per KWH – or it was until a few months ago, I
> think. It might have moved quite a lot since then. That puts biomass cash
> flow at $4,400 per Ha per annum.

Ok, but you are forgetting about the conversion to electricity here - which puts that figure at 10 times lower. In the US, it's about 10 cents/kWhr - so you'd make $200/ha/yr on that biomass.

> If you can get 5KW from 40 m2 of solar (it is actually 30 m2)
> collector, peak – that’s 0.125 KW/ m2 peak, say (one third of this, or:) 0.04 averaged over 24 hours.
> $700,000 per Ha per annum! or $70 per square metre per annum. Wow.

I'd consider one quarter, or .03 kW/m2 average, or $500,000 per Ha per annum.

The cost for that amount of concentrator will be $1.2M based on linear extrapolation of our present system cost - which excludes labor cost because of DIY construction. this means 2-3 year payback.

Now to reality. For the first prototype with straight steam generation and no heat recovery, we're expecting 500W (2% overall efficiency) of usable power - based on Mike Brown's 1 hp steam engine and required steam flow rate. That's a start, and I think, at that scale, we can reach 15% overall efficiency if we are good - or 3.5 kW of usable peak power.

At that rate, the payback time will be 4 years.

Overall, on economic terms - the harnessing of solar energy is viable. On ecological terms, it is absolutely essential.

=Comments and Discussion=

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 4 August 2008
Line 5:		Line 5:
	On Mon, Aug 4, 2008, Greg Walker <greg@rtd.gb.com> wrote:		On Mon, Aug 4, 2008, Greg Walker <greg@rtd.gb.com> wrote:

	>>		>
	We were talking about energy yield from biomass. These are some of the figures that I have:-		We were talking about energy yield from biomass. These are some of the figures that I have:-

Line 13:		Line 13:

	Convert it to Pyrolysis Oil and you get 315 Kg (25% moisture content), giving 1480 kilowatt hours of fire power.		Convert it to Pyrolysis Oil and you get 315 Kg (25% moisture content), giving 1480 kilowatt hours of fire power.
	<<		<

	That is an amazing yield. Is this proven technology, or are you talking of a theoretical value? Please reference this if you can.		That is an amazing yield. Is this proven technology, or are you talking of a theoretical value? Please reference this if you can.

	>>		>
	If we take woodland growing at yield class 15, it will deliver 15 cubic metres of timber per hectare, per annum – on average.		If we take woodland growing at yield class 15, it will deliver 15 cubic metres of timber per hectare, per annum – on average.
	<<		<

	Tell me more about growing classes. I heard from sustainable forestry people back in Wisconsin, where I lived before, that the sustainable yield is about 2000 lb/year/acre - or about 4 cubic meters/hectare/year. Is your value for heavy-input plantations, or natural, integrated forests?		Tell me more about growing classes. I heard from sustainable forestry people back in Wisconsin, where I lived before, that the sustainable yield is about 2000 lb/year/acre - or about 4 cubic meters/hectare/year. Is your value for heavy-input plantations, or natural, integrated forests?

	>>		>
	So 1 hectare should give us say 22,000 KWH of fire power per annum, about 2.5 KWH per hour, or an average output from burning the biomass created, of 2.5KW. That’s 2.5 KW per Hectare, averaged for the whole year. Burn that to make electricity, & you're down to 250 Watts/Ha.		So 1 hectare should give us say 22,000 KWH of fire power per annum, about 2.5 KWH per hour, or an average output from burning the biomass created, of 2.5KW. That’s 2.5 KW per Hectare, averaged for the whole year. Burn that to make electricity, & you're down to 250 Watts/Ha.

Line 29:		Line 29:

	I don't know how much sunshine we can get into water with solar collectors, but, I guess the bottom line is “Solar power conversion doesn’t have a lot of competition from biomass”. Of course, after that there's still the same ~ 90% loss of converting the steam to electricity.		I don't know how much sunshine we can get into water with solar collectors, but, I guess the bottom line is “Solar power conversion doesn’t have a lot of competition from biomass”. Of course, after that there's still the same ~ 90% loss of converting the steam to electricity.
	<<		<

	Right.		Right.

	>>		>
	I understand that public utilities charge for $0.10 per KWHr for electricity in the US, but in the UK it’s about twice that – or it was until a few months ago, I think. It might have moved quite a lot since then. That puts biomass sales value at $200 per Ha per annum when converted to electricity.		I understand that public utilities charge for $0.10 per KWHr for electricity in the US, but in the UK it’s about twice that – or it was until a few months ago, I think. It might have moved quite a lot since then. That puts biomass sales value at $200 per Ha per annum when converted to electricity.

	If you can get say 5 bhp from 30 square metres of solar collector, peak – that’s 0.125 KW per square metre peak. It works out at 300 KW/Ha, averaged over the year. Lets go back to our electricity valued at $0.10 per KWHr. 1 KW year = 8760 KWHr = $876 per KW year. So our 30 square metre solar collector should deliver 5 x 876 x .75 = $3,285 per annum. 300 KW/Ha works out at $250,000 per hectare per annum. Wow.		If you can get say 5 bhp from 30 square metres of solar collector, peak – that’s 0.125 KW per square metre peak. It works out at 300 KW/Ha, averaged over the year. Lets go back to our electricity valued at $0.10 per KWHr. 1 KW year = 8760 KWHr = $876 per KW year. So our 30 square metre solar collector should deliver 5 x 876 x .75 = $3,285 per annum. 300 KW/Ha works out at $250,000 per hectare per annum. Wow.
	<<		<

	The cost for that amount of concentrator will be $1.2M based on linear extrapolation of our present system cost - which excludes labor cost because of DIY construction. This means 5 year payback.		The cost for that amount of concentrator will be $1.2M based on linear extrapolation of our present system cost - which excludes labor cost because of DIY construction. This means 5 year payback.