Fuel from biomass: directly in the vehicle

[Elec]

Do you prefer gasifier: do you see 1000 cars on the periphery with that?

Not at all!
I gave elements on this thread which make it possible to realize that it is objectively a total dead end in the perspective of mass production.

We can produce electricity (in phenomenal quantities and all year round) in deserts and send it to Europe, which can supply hyperthermic heating resistors in the heart of "forests".

Hmm ... Transfer electricity to then produce heat and with this heat thermolyze the biomass. A truly awful energy balance!

To operate a solar thermal power plant, you need water (condenser / purge / mirror cleaning).
A precious resource in the desert ...

I know music, I am the founder of the antenna of the TREC / DESERTEC network for France;)

[Remundo]

Ah well it's interesting ...

Then you should know that water is perfectly useless in the context of a Stirling conversion. This is currently the path to best thermodynamic efficiency: 30% "Sun to Grid" has been achieved in the US.

Water vapor systems are conventional, but not very efficient because they are less hot and do not respect the isotherms of the Carnot cycle (the Rankine cycle is nothing exceptional except its ease of implementation); They currently cap at around 20% (rather less even) in "Sun to Grid".

And ultimately, we can circulate the water in a closed circuit.

Terrible performance is a question of point of view. Energetic, not optimal indeed. Economic, no one knows with zero cost and infinitely abundant energy like the Sun.

The only country that can afford solar allothermic thermolysis is France: transport the biomass / waste to the South, and send it back to the country as fuel.

At the sight of the colossal masses of goods which transit in the country, it would be only one drop of water.

In parallel, of course, develop hybrid and electric vehicles, and finally, put renewable energy in the electric mix.

Finally, tonight, I do in the waking dream ...

[Elec]

Ah well it's interesting ...

Then you should know that water is perfectly useless in the context of a Stirling conversion. This is currently the path to best thermodynamic efficiency: 30% "Sun to Grid" has been achieved in the US.

Yes, and with Stirling, no thermal storage and a cost per kWh equivalent to PV.

Assessment: better to make PV (or CPV, or PV thin film) in France.

The solution you are proposing has a very poor overall energy efficiency, which inevitably results in a very high price per liter of fuel at the end of the chain: deadlock on the market when faced with competing solutions.

The advantage of thermodynamic steam solar is thermal storage for production at night. With Stirling have less need of water (just to clean the mirrors) but you lose this advantage which makes all the interest of the thermosolar compared to the other ENRs.

The wind potential, just from the Baltic, is 2600 TWh / year? (and that Europe needs 3000 TWh; + around 300 TWh if the entire European heat pump goes electric). Intermittence from the source is not a problem for charging the batteries.

[Remundo]

The thermal storage is almost independent of the thermodynamic cycle chosen.

Stirling or Rankine, thermal storage is a choice of design of the plant, which will provide over the sun, or on request.

The main thing is to make a large thermally insulated mass and to circulate heat-carrying fluids: one to bring the heat from the concentrators, the other to extract it at will and take it to the thermomechanical converse.

Then you say two huge mistakes:
- if there is one area where solar storage is very difficult, it is to make PV.
- if there is one area where the solaroelectric efficiency is deplorable, it is the PV.

For the overall energy efficiency of a thermolysis or more modestly of a partial gasification of biomass with solar electricity, it is not that bad.

because we recover a whole pile of waste about as energetic as a fuel that could never have been otherwise.

So even if we have a modest return at the start of the chain, we catch up at the end of the chain.

But finally, we are not there yet, oil is flowing freely and nuclear kW is cheap

[Elec]

The thermal storage is almost independent of the thermodynamic cycle chosen. Stirling or Rankine, thermal storage is a choice of design of the plant, which will provide over the sun, or on request.

There is no thermal storage with Stirling dishes: as soon as the sun goes down, the electricity production stops.

The whole point of thermosolar steam power stations, for example cylindrical-parabolic ANDASOL type, is to be able to store the heated fluid which circulates to use it during the night and to continue the production of steam necessary for the electric generation.

ANDASOL, Storage:


More informations:
http://www.trec-france.org/pages/Stocka ... 24071.html

[Remundo]

But you are stubborn Elec ...

Yes, so far there is no Stirling central storage facility to my knowledge.

And there is water / steam (nice photo by the way).

Your conclusion "we can only store with water". Uh, well yep that's what ...

Because the "Dish Stirling" as its name suggests is a choice where a thermomechanical converter is placed directly at the hearth.

We can now consider a network of Dish WITH individual storage.

OU

a DISH network with a large underground storage or on rotating building (carefully insulated pipes going to take the heat confined to the hearth.

And the Stirling in the case doesn't even have to be on every Dish.

Look, see on my site, thermoelectric solar / PHRSD section.

Since you like DESERTEC, you will be satisfied

[Elec]

Remundo,

We are talking about your idea of ​​transferring solar electricity from deserts to then produce heat in Europe (resistors), then producing liquid fuel by thermolysis. And then burn the fuel in a mediocre heat engine. The overall performance is very poor.

At the production site in the desert:

If you store heat (whatever the storage system: molten salts, concrete etc.), it is then used to generate electricity. And you need water to produce it:

- Capacitor
- Purge of the circuit
- And finally cleaning the mirrors

And using Stirling to produce heat is irrelevant here: the Stirling sector is more expensive than the tehrmosolar steam sectors.

Stirling is great for producing electricity on an isolated site, where there is not much water. For local consumption. The downside is that you have to use batteries for storage.

NB - Nice your Remundo site;)

[Remundo]

Remundo,

We are talking about your idea of ​​transferring solar electricity from deserts to then produce heat in Europe (resistors), then producing liquid fuel by thermolysis. And then burn the fuel in a mediocre heat engine. The overall performance is very poor.

Yes, because you live under the illusion that 100% of trips are compatible with electricity. It is not true. Hydrocarbon and electricity must combine. They are very bad without each other.

As for my proposal, insofar as the sun offers colossal inexpensive energy (as soon as we have the infrastructure, unlike oil which is ++ expensive despite infrastructure depreciated for a long time), but not very practical for travel, it is possible to envisage converting a part of it into "carburized biomass". It can also be a way to smooth solar production.

At the production site in the desert:

If you store heat (whatever the storage system: molten salts, concrete etc.), it is then used to generate electricity. And you need water to produce it:

- Capacitor
- Purge of the circuit
- And finally cleaning the mirrors

You're a big head with your water We don't need a condenser or a circuit (no steam engine ...)

To clean the mirrors, a periodic dry sweeping with a soft cloth, or even a vigorous blowing, can do the trick. The fine sand dust and the water, it makes the block, even the cement, it is well known.

And using Stirling to produce heat is not relevant here: the Stirling sector costs more than the thermosolar steam sectors.

You're wrong, Stirling, it's the top of the top of the direct heat to mechanical power converter with air as the heat transfer fluid. For the costs, maintain steam turbines with cavitation and corrosion, sometimes in open circuit ... better to have dry pistons in closed circuit.

NB - Nice your Remundo site;)

Thank you

[Elec]

You're a big head with your water. We don't need a condenser or a circuit (no steam engine ...)

The heat stored at the level of your production unit in the desert, how do you convert it into electricity so that this electricity is transferred to Europe by HVDC cable?

The heat allows water to evaporate; the steam obtained turns a turbine connected to an alternator.

You need water:
- At the level of the condenser (cold source). Dry cooling is possible but the cost of your kWh increases because you consume part of your electrical production.
- To purge the circuit.
- To clean mirrors

But even if we developed an ideal system with storage and without water, the overall efficiency of the chain you offer is low, resulting in a very expensive fuel at the end of the chain; unable to impose itself on the market in the face of competing solutions.

Hydrocarbon and electricity must combine. They are very bad without each other

This assumption is no longer valid with a charging infrastructure in place.
As long as we have not integrated the strength of a network of charging stations + battery exchange stations, we believe that this assumption is unavoidable.

[Remundo]

I explained it to you, but you didn't hit

You have a huge, well-insulated hyperthermic block.

During the day, you can make it go from 800 to 1200 ° C while taking the concentrated sun, with pretty little pipes which leave from the hearth of the parabolas towards the blocks
(and at these temperatures, the parabolic cylinder has no thermal trapping performance, it requires the parabolic of revolution).

And when you feel like it, you press the circulation button of a coolant which will take these beautiful calories to the thermomechanical machine.

To please you this can be a steam engine (a good fat overheated Rankine, like what is done in Nuke power plants in France)

But also, just for me, from Stirling.

The block will cool from 1200 ° C to 800 ° C.

And rebelotte the next day. Planning like one wants. Of course on average, we cannot exceed the installed power (predicted with precision by measuring average insolation in deserts), but that is true for all power plants (Nuke, coal, ...)

@+