Vertical Shaft Brick Kiln: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(added pro/con (vs. CEBs) section) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
* updraft = heat is reused | * updraft = heat is reused | ||
* firing shaft is very well insulated on all four sides, minimizing heat loss | * firing shaft is very well insulated on all four sides, minimizing heat loss | ||
* bricks are loaded at the top and removed at ground level in a continuous process | * bricks are loaded at the top and removed at ground level in a continuous process (see animation below for details) | ||
* combines low cost of updraft firing with high fuel economy | * combines low cost of updraft firing with high fuel economy | ||
* operation very similar to that of a vertical shaft lime kiln | * operation very similar to that of a vertical shaft lime kiln | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
* [[Kiln]] | * [[Kiln]] | ||
* [[Biochar/Brick Co-production System]] | * [[Biochar/Brick Co-production System]] | ||
* [[Biochar/Lime Co-production System]] | |||
* [[Compressed Earth Blocks]] | |||
==Pros and Cons vs. Compressed Earth Bricks== | |||
Pro: | |||
* no stabilizer needed (e.g. lime, flyash, etc.), leading to energy savings | |||
* no liquid fuel needed (e.g. diesel, ethanol) to run the CEB press; energy savings from fuel and distillation for fuel | |||
* uses low-cost / low-quality fuel such as pyrolysis gas from other processes | |||
* carbon negativity more easily achieved (if part of a [[Biochar/Brick Co-production System]]) | |||
* reduced wear and tear per brick (larger volume of bricks produced | |||
* possibly more stable and more weather-resistant bricks (this requires comparisons, lab testing) | |||
* bricks are of consistently high quality (in fact, they HAVE to be, because of the compressive force that they have to withstand during the stacking) | |||
* possibly less work needed per brick (though this is not clear) | |||
* less need to monitor bricks over weeks (e.g. curing of CEBs) | |||
* possibility to re-used waste heat (space heating for applications such as greenhouses, fish tanks, etc.) | |||
Con: | |||
* possibly increased fuel use per brick (this is not certain, as the VSBK is very efficient, and the fuel use for CEBs is not zero either) | |||
* a larger installation means less flexibility (the facility is not mobile) | |||
* potential air pollution problems (this is largely a factor of higher volume/concentration of production) | |||
==Development Proposal== | |||
The standard VSBK is coal-fired. As shown in the animation above (on Vimeo), pieces of coal are scattered onto the bricks from the top. If such a brick kiln were re-designed as part of a [[pyrolysis]] system (e.g. [[Biochar/Brick Co-production System]]), what would it look like? How could firing the central bricks be assured if gas enters from the sides? | |||
==Further Information (links)== | ==Further Information (links)== | ||
Revision as of 17:56, 15 April 2016
About
- updraft kiln for firing bricks
- developed in China in the late 1960s during the cultural revolution
- updraft = heat is reused
- firing shaft is very well insulated on all four sides, minimizing heat loss
- bricks are loaded at the top and removed at ground level in a continuous process (see animation below for details)
- combines low cost of updraft firing with high fuel economy
- operation very similar to that of a vertical shaft lime kiln
Videos
vsbk (vertical shaft brick kiln) from sajid on Vimeo.
Related Pages On This Wiki
Pros and Cons vs. Compressed Earth Bricks
Pro:
- no stabilizer needed (e.g. lime, flyash, etc.), leading to energy savings
- no liquid fuel needed (e.g. diesel, ethanol) to run the CEB press; energy savings from fuel and distillation for fuel
- uses low-cost / low-quality fuel such as pyrolysis gas from other processes
- carbon negativity more easily achieved (if part of a Biochar/Brick Co-production System)
- reduced wear and tear per brick (larger volume of bricks produced
- possibly more stable and more weather-resistant bricks (this requires comparisons, lab testing)
- bricks are of consistently high quality (in fact, they HAVE to be, because of the compressive force that they have to withstand during the stacking)
- possibly less work needed per brick (though this is not clear)
- less need to monitor bricks over weeks (e.g. curing of CEBs)
- possibility to re-used waste heat (space heating for applications such as greenhouses, fish tanks, etc.)
Con:
- possibly increased fuel use per brick (this is not certain, as the VSBK is very efficient, and the fuel use for CEBs is not zero either)
- a larger installation means less flexibility (the facility is not mobile)
- potential air pollution problems (this is largely a factor of higher volume/concentration of production)
Development Proposal
The standard VSBK is coal-fired. As shown in the animation above (on Vimeo), pieces of coal are scattered onto the bricks from the top. If such a brick kiln were re-designed as part of a pyrolysis system (e.g. Biochar/Brick Co-production System), what would it look like? How could firing the central bricks be assured if gas enters from the sides?
Further Information (links)
- http://www.swisscontact.org/fileadmin/media/Medienberichte/0913_Vertical_Shaft_Brick_Kiln_VSBK_01.pdf (internal copy: here)
- http://www.fastonline.org/CD3WD_40/GATE_DL/BUILDING/VS/EN/VS.HTM
- http://www.teriin.org/technology/brick-kiln-technology
- Devalt.org: "The Vertical Shaft Brick Kiln : a technology for the masses" (internal copy here)
- Article from GATE - 4/91 - Environmental NGOs Humanity Development Library - The Chinese vertical Brick Kiln