Guest post by WUWT moderator Andi Cockroft
This has little to do with my beliefs (or otherwise) in CAGW, but more to the fact that I am tight with money and this project offers the ability to run my 5 litre SUV for free ! Please note however, this is only suitable for Petrol/Gasoline Engines – most definitely NOT for diesels
Now I should also state that I live on a block of “Native Bush” (read indigenous trees) in New Zealand, so I have a carbon sink of my very own. I also have access to an almost unlimited supply of pine from plantation operations where logging operations leave huge amounts of uneconomic timber behind – myself and several hundred souls benefit from this bountiful resource to heat our homes in winter.
Now I want to run my SUV on it as well.
So what is “Producer Gas”? Well our dear friends over at Wikipedia have an overview here. Unfortunately it is long on references, but short on detail.
So, I will define what I mean by Producer Gas, as a combination of various gasses obtained by “cooking” dry wood. Heat it enough, without burning it, and it will give off a mixture of primarily Carbon Monoxide and Methane – plus a few nasty bi-products such as tar etc. What remains we know as charcoal.
There are many different mechanisms for manufacturing Producer Gas, most concentrate these days on stationary platforms – however they are just as easily made for mobile use aboard a vehicle.
This image of a Ford Truck conversion, (courtesy of Per Larsson’s Museum) shows one of the many ways it can be achieved – here strapped onto the side of the truck.
Note the extra radiator in front, required to cool the Producer Gas after its manufacture by “cooking” – internal combustion engines work better with cooler fuels (think of this as an inter-cooler).
But looking at this doesn’t really gel with the aesthetics I want to achieve for my SUV – so how can it be done that bit better?
Let’s just look at how Producer Gas is made.
There are different designs, and I have researched many over the years I have been contemplating this project – brought to a head now simply by exorbitant fuel prices. Here is my preference for a “Stratified Downdraft Gassifier”
OK, so how do we convert our fuel (pine for me) into Producer Gas?
Here courtesy of http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/index.shtml is the version I choose to build. On the right is the main Gassifier – here’s where all the magic happens – but do visit their site, it is a goldmine of information.
Wood Fuel in the form of dried pellets of wood (about 1” cube) are stacked in the hopper at the top, and feed under gravity into the fire tube. At the base of the tube is a dish or grate riddled with air-holes – much like a colander. Both the fire tube, and the grate must be made of pretty heat tolerant material such as stainless steel. We need a small opening in the Gassifier so we can actually set fire to the material in the grate – and for reasons we will see later, this will normally have charcoal in it.
But before we set fire to things, note the other components. In the middle is a filter unit that can be of many designs, but meant primarily to prevent nasty stuff such as tar reach our engine, Use sawdust, oil, water or sand to trap the stuff you don’t want, and then our gas heads off to the left to be mixed with air and on into our engine.
You may notice there are actually 2 throttle controls – one the master throttle, the other to control air. This is OK for an engine that will run at constant speed such as a generator, but for a vehicle it would be far better if these could be linked together – something I am working on right now.
OK, before we can start our engine, we need to light our Gassifier. Easily done, with some charcoal in the grate, add a little lighter fuel if you feel brave, and light it. At the same time, note the provision of a blower – this is only used during this phase to get air flowing into the Gassifier from above, provide oxygen to the charcoal on the grate and start the process rolling.
I am told to expect 10 to 15 minutes for this to begin – but note THIS IS CARBON MONOXIDE – DO NOT DO THIS IN A CONFINED SPACE.
Also, you should include springs to hold the lid firmly on the Gassifier – not welded on. Just in case of a back-fire, the lid will momentarily lift, allow the built-up gasses to escape, then reseal itself.
My plan is to add a spark-plug to the funnel, so I can ignite the gas with ease. Once it is burning with a very pale blue flame then we can look to start the engine – just turn off the blower first.
It has been suggested that starting with petrol/gasoline and then switching to Producer Gas is far easier – but we will see.
The beauty of this design is that the production of gas is totally dependent on demand – ie the suction provided by the engine – put your foot down and it will draw and manufacture more gas. Ease off and it will slow down. And best of all, turn the engine off and it will simply go out – but that takes another 10-15 minutes, so restarting in that time should be just a matter of turning the ignition key.
I am in the process of building the Gassifier right now, and I have a pickup SUV, where I can mount the Gassifier outside on the back and run all that plumbing outside the cab as well. I will keep you apprised of my progress.
I am also working on a stationary engine coupled to a 20Kw alternator that will not only supply all my needs, but allow me to sell the excess (at 3x retail) back onto the grid – heck if they pay subsidies to windmills, then why not to me!
Up until now, I have only mentioned pine as a fuel source, but depending on where you live, you could use left-overs from many agricultural products – corn stalks, sugar cane, coconut husks – even coal if you really want to.
Also on the design-table is a device to take large pieces of pine and chop them into the ideal sizes required – and if I can run that directly of the engine, I just about have perpetual motion – well at least motion at zero cost.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There are higher-tech variants of this process to manufacture transportation fuels – coal to liquid (CTL) and gas to liquid (GTL) technology. CTL was pioneered by the German scientists Fischer and Tropsch – the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) process. This uses a source of carbon – coal, lignite,wood etc, partially combusts it to produce CO and H2 (syngas), and then recombines these gases over a catalyst to make a range of hydrocarbons. Initially, this was a scientific curiosity, but in war-torn Nazi Germany when oil was hard to come by, a significant fraction of the oil for the war effort came from the F-T process. After the war, cheap, abundant oil made the process uneconomic and it vanished. It was reprised in Apartheid South Africa to overcome oil shortages arising from economic sanctions. Despite the FT process’s unfortunate association with nasty regimes, it flourishes today. South Africa still operates a very large CTL plant. A large development in GTL has also taken place recently, as this technology has a lower CO2 footprint than CTL. It also produces a different range of hydrocarbons, such as waxes. These can be readily hydrocracked to make both diesel and petrol (and even aviation fuel). Incidentally, the F-T diesel product is sulphur-free. Normal diesels has a high sulphur content which not only produces toxic SO2, but also result in a very smokey exhaust.
If you are a AGW proponent, you’d frown upon F-T processes due to their CO2 footprint. But the reality is that they convert local energy resources into that most useful of forms – liquid transportation fuels. In South Africa a very significant fraction of national fuel demand is met from local coal and gas resources, which saves valuable foreign exchange on imported oil. Also, many thousands of highly skilled jobs are created locally and the industry produces large tax revenues for the government. The chemical feedstocks and by-products are used to produce a huge range of polymers, fine chemicals and fertilisers, generating valuable export income. A large number of countries either have built, or are now exploring, GTL – including the Middle East, where by-product gas is often flared (eek more CO2) as there is no local market for it. The US is also investigating CTL, since it is now awash with cheap shale gas. Imagine a World where we were no longer dependent on the Middle East, and other equally unstable parts of the globe, for our energy. China, with its immense coal reserves, is looking at CTL. However, the larger CO2 footprint than GTL will make CTL unpalatable for most other countries, whileever the AGW mindset prevails. No doubt China has an eye on energy independence, something most European governments seem to have completely forgotten about. US/European shale gas developments combined with CTL have the potential to radically change the energy landscape, and most importantly, the price of liquid fuels, since CTL/GTL-derived synthetic crude oil is now much cheaper than crude oil.
I take my hat off the boffins in NZ for their technology. Sadly, producer gas has a relatively low energy density and so is never going to get you breaking any speed records. The feedstock is certainly the right price though (free). For your next challenge, consider building a Fischer-Tropsch plant. In fact NZ toyed with the idea, but chose instead to manufacture methanol from its local supply of natural gas, and convert it to synthetic fuel via the Mobil process. A process which it has now abandoned. There is an interesting history on this at:
http://www.techhistory.co.nz/ThinkBig/Petrochemical%20Decisions.htm
The take home message is that if anyone ever says to you that peak oil has passed and we are doomed to run out of transportation fuels in the next few weeks/months/years – just mention the two magic words: Fischer-Tropsch, and best of all, no food crops were harmed during the making of this fuel.
Disclaimer: I am actually in the employ of big oil, so please treat the above as complete denialist propaganda.
Ah, I love the Kiwis’ idea of an SUV . You guys always impressed me by not wasting anything. Last time I was down there I helped a guy fix his 1950 Lands tractor, still a workhorse on his farm.
Probably something to do with not having an indigenous car industry.
Best Kiwi T-shirt
“The Kiwi: eats, roots and leaves. ” (note the comma)
I can see a very punitive color coding process on the horizon to prevent people from using name brand BBQ smoker pellets in the family Buick :). The road tax will prevail!
Dave Mitchell says:
April 27, 2012 at 8:42 am
“Disclaimer: I am actually in the employ of big oil, so please treat the above as complete denialist propaganda.”
Thank you, Sir, for keeping this civilization running.
I have hundreds of tons of cedar (juniper) chips. Free – come and get them. Your producer gas will taste like gin.
Excellent! It’s always good to hear about bits of alternative tech like this, and I love that pic of the Ford truck conversion – it would give a Health and Safety weenie a heart attack on sight, I’m inclined to agree with those who question whether this is really producer gas, though – shouldn’t it be called “wood gas” or similar? Producer gas, as I recall, consumes charcoal, rather than leaving it unreacted.
I think JC’s comment is right. I have a dim memory from schooldays a half century ago of learning that they used to use plant which generated producer gas and water gas alternately, using the heat from the exothermic reaction (C + air) to jolly along the endotherrmic one (C + steam). I can’t remember whether they mixed the two products together, but I can’t see that it would be too bad to do so if you can tweak the engine.
Re people wondering about steam engines, I recall from a TV programme some years ago that the Stanley Steamer of about a century ago used to use one gallon of water and ten gallons of diesel per mile. If my memory is right (and I haven’t accidentally swapped the figures!) that doesn’t represent the most economical means of transport. Having said that, the performance of the Stanley was amazing for its time, and it would hold its own easily in modern traffic. As long as the route was along a river or canal … 🙂
Reminds me of WWII when the shortage of gasoline made the sight of gas producers quite common on commercial vehicles and doctor’s cars.
Steve C 10:08:
In my neck of the UK woods there is a gentleman who takes his hundred-year-old White steam car out to all the steam fairs etc. His car uses petrol (gasoline), has a top speed of 50mph (which is plenty when you only have rear-wheel brakes) and he says it does 30 miles to a gallon of petrol and 14 miles to a gallon of water. I believe it is a ‘flash boiler’ steamer.
See Tom Reed and Ben Peterson chat about gasification, methanol, biochar and torrefaction
“”””” grumpyoldmanuk says:
April 27, 2012 at 12:37 am
Is there no limit to human ingenuity? This post has really cheered me up. Heath-Robinson lives on in New Zealand. “””””
Well Grumpy, Heath Robinson, is getting a bit long in the tooth; well assuming the old bugger still has some teeth.
Those gasifiers were quite common in Kiwiland during WW-II. I can attest to having thoroughly inspected one about 1942 as I recall. I can even remember the color of the car; a sort of Orange Brown Detroitosaurus Maximus; usually owned by farmer types, rather than city slickers; also more room in the back seat to put more sheep.
But the WW-II “charcoal burners” were a lot more spivvy than those big brewery cauldrons you blokes have on the back or sides of your pickemup trucks. My recollection is they were about 18 inches tall, and maybe 8-10 inches in diameter max, and could run on either wood chips, or even coal or “coke”; well basically it is a carbon thing; with some hydrogen if you are lucky.
But you have to remember in WW-II days, NZ was at the far end of the petroleum supply road, so these “some assembly required” renewable energy” sources were the secret to getting around. Well there still was the tyre problem too.
But remember what Rutherford said; We haven’t the money, so we have to think.
Now the GIs who were down there for a little R&R before going back to hell on earth, did have access to some Yankee gas.
I’m among those, incidently who believe petroleum is simply liquid rocks; and there’s nary a dinosaur molecule in it anywhere.
If you have all that pine available, why not just use a liquid fuel: turpentine and after you get all the turpentine, THEN make gas from the wood, too. Use the turpentine as your “starter” fuel and then switch to gas.
Here’s a nice “stove” volvo
and some more links:
http://houtgas.be/?page_id=12
You use what you can use and zero money for fuel, we can’t go cheaper can we…
Unfortunately the entire scene in Europe is infested with people who believe they have this mission to save the planet. Unfortunately.
Series produced Lanz Tractor 1942
They could have won the war with this one.
Sorry, forgot to post the link of the “stove” Volvo
http://houtgas.be/?attachment_id=65
If I built one of these “producer gas” machines, I’d need to get some wood, where’s the best place to get wood? anyone got wood? I need wood for my “producer gas”machine!
Anyone interested in building a wood gas tractor (or anything else) might want to check out these plans.
http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/index.shtml
During WW2 there were thousands of cars and trucks in Australia fitted with charcoal burning gas producers. Fuel was severly rationed – I remember being allowed two gallons one month and three gallons the next for a long time. They were dirty and harmful to engines, but they worked when there was no other fuel available. When fuel (petrol) rationing ended, several years after the end of the war, they disappeared immediately.
Wonder how many miles per cord you get?
Why not just use the wood to make wood alcohol and burn that?
Ingenious and all that but:
1) CO2 was the bug-bear behind all this ‘eco-‘ crap NOT lack of petrol.
2) I don’t mind higher levels of CO2 but CO is a different story all together
3) These things work so long as they’re a niche movement but out economies would be even more depressed if anyone thought that these were a general solution.
This is a hobbiest movement not some sort of real world solution. As Ace of Spades would say: Political leaders, lamp-posts, rope: Some assembly required.
Learned about producer gas back in high school at a time when the text books were hand written in Latin. Understood the gas. Never understood the stupid name for it.
I think the name is a riot!!!! To bad you couldn’t do something with the OTHER form of producer gas. Now that’s what I call having your bean burrito to go!
This power source was very common in Sweden during WWII. It is said that 70 000 vehicles used it. In Sweden it was called “gen gas” (or “gengas” as a compound word), “gen” for “generator” – the burner was called a generator. Actually worked fairly well, but it took minutes to start a car the first time of the day and the engine would only get 70% of the usual power. But it was only used by taxis, buses and official traffic (private driving was banned). The military used ordinary petrol but mixed with up to 50% ethanol.
–Ahrvid
I’m still waiting for my check. 😉
Maybe I missed something but your comments above looked like anti-oil. Finally, I echo DirkH’s sentiments, thank you. Almost everything that is man-made we enjoy today is directly or indirectly as a result of fossil fuels. I always tell anti-fossil fuel Warmists to simply get off the grid and go wind and solar. Very few actually are prepared to do that as NH winters can be a killer – see recent Eastern European winter when hundreds dies ON-GRID.
For those sticking comments in about steam engines, Bill Lear, he of 8-track, and Learjet fame, spent millions of $ trying to make steam work in the ’70s. His comment, “The thing about the Rankine cycle is that it’s rank.” The killer was the oil-water emulsion that formed over time and caused bearings and pistons to fail for lack of lubrication.
There is a lot of bogus information on the web about what he did and didn’t do. The Wallis steam engine never worked, and the turbine steam engine wasn’t efficient at all. Learium didn’t exist – it was supposed to be the solution to the oil-water emulsion problem.
Closed cycle steam turbines are a good bet, provided you use them to generate electrical power to drive the vehicle. Personally, I think just using electronically commutated generation on the turbine shaft is a more efficient way to get to electricity. And if electricity is what you want, why not just use nat-gas or a liquide derived therefrom to drive the turbine in the first place.