Power Plant Fueled By Nut Shells 297
sbszine writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is running an article about a green power plant that runs on the discarded shells of macadamia nuts. The power plant, located in Gympie, Queensland, is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around 9500 tonnes in its first year of operation."
Some times you feel like a nut... (Score:5, Funny)
waiting for the laptop version... (Score:2, Funny)
Reduction in Co2? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's like when I break into your house and leave gifts. I could have robbed you blind. Aren't you glad I'm such a nice guy?
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:2)
Bye egghat.
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:5, Informative)
But in the long term it's always better to burn plants instead of oil since burning oil introduces new C into our biosystem while burning plants only raises the C-level in the atmosphere but not in the biosystem.
By the way, this only works if you assume each burned plant will be replaced by a equivalent plant. Burning more plants means the average age and therefore size of plants will decrease and therefore the amount of C these plants can hold will also decrease. And then even the space that's available for plants is declining.
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, I fail to follow your example of a plant in a box. OK, while the seeds are actually aflame CO2 will be produced faster than it's being absorbed. But overall, the amount of carbon in the system is constant: anything which is not in the plant is in the atmosphere. Therefore so long as you burn the plant no more quickly than it grows, you'll never end up with a higher CO2 concentration than when you started.
Your argument only applies if you start burning something which has been growing for decades -- eg old-growth forest -- in which case you're releasing CO2 that took decades to remove from the atmosphere. But so long as you burn material grown only over, say, the last year -- eg fast-growing bamboo -- then the net amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere over that year must be zero.
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're missing a fairly big hole in your arguement. Burning the nut shells will release C into the atmosphere, so will the rotting process. However burning the shells will mean that you will need to burn less oil and coal (C removed a very long time ago when there was a greenhouse effect in place due to the high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere) so you are reducing the overall amount of C released by putting the inevitable release of C due to the nut shells to use and reducing or eliminating the need to burn oil and coal.
If we assume that qualtity of C released from the nut shells (N) is the same for both burning and rotting, that the quantity of C removed from the atmosphere growing the nuts (P) is costant in both cases (we are talking about using a waste product of an existing industry here, not about growing the nuts as a fuel source) and the the burning of the nuts will provide the same energy as burning oil and coal that would release a quantity of C we label F then the quantity of C released to the atmosphere (A) will be for each scenario):
Rotting: A=(N+F)-P
Burning: A=N-P
Stephen
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:2)
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:2)
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:2, Insightful)
But when I have to choose from nut shells or coal, the choice is easy but in fact there's a lot more options to choose from and ignoring them - is utterly stupid.
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:2, Funny)
I don't think these kinds of things are a good idea. If there is a big enough crowd the door would speed up until people would get liquidised by the whirling door of death.
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:5, Informative)
You are describing a closed system with a net production of carbon. If you have one of those you could be very rich indeed.That's not a closed system.That's a little out of context. Yes, if you completely cut down a forest, it takes a long time until there is once again the same amount of biomass contained on that area. But we're not _removing_ the ecosystem and waiting for it to return here, we're burning a nutshell in stead of allowing it to rot. The tree is still there, and it doesn't take a 100 years to replace a nutshell. If you burn a billion shells a year and produce a billion too, you have a net emission of zero. You're basically just extracting solar energy, the shells and the carbon are just carriers in the process.
There would be an minor initial 'cost' in that you're shortening the cycle a little, releasing the carbon more shortly after it's trapped compared to natural decomposition. So you get an initial emission over the first year or two after start up, as the 'cache' of decomposing shells releases its carbon at the same time as new shells are burnt immediately. But after they're gone you'll be running in balance. Or you could avoid that too by imitating nature and storing the shells a couple of years before burning them.
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:4, Interesting)
There are two coupled systems: the solid biomass in the soil and the CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is transported in both directions at a *slow* rate. Decaying biomass releases a modest amount of carbon into the atmosphere, while most of it is recycled directly by plants and microorganisms. In the same way the plants absorb a modest amount of CO2 back from the atmosphere.
If we burn biomass then we accelerate the transfer of carbon into the atmosphere. The transport from the atmosphere to the solid biomass is mostly unaffected by this instantaneously (though a higher CO2 concentration may let plants grow faster).
So, in a short frame of time, burning biomass has the potential to increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. In the long run, the ecosystem will reach a new equilibrium. This equilibrium doesn't necessarily possess the same climatic properties of the equilibrium we experience today.
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:2)
But the planet itself doesn't care about C or O3 levels...it only matters to the things living on it.
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:2)
This is like pure electrical cars...someone is burning something somewhere to produce that electricity!! Hyric cars have it right, but we can do better.
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:3, Insightful)
The article (you've read it, right?) was about burning macadamia nut shells. Which means "waste" used for CO2 neutral energy production.
What's wrong about that?
Bye egghat.
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:2)
Yeah, so would cold fusion :)
How hard can it actually be?
Very. Not to mention expensive, with a break-even point probably measured in *hundreds* of years.
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:2)
Ah, Asimov. That was an excellent short. Anyone remember the name ?
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:2)
You silently assume that all the carbon the nut is made of came from the atmosphere. Is this necessarily true? Trees are growing on top of dead trees.
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:5, Insightful)
so there's no 'extra' co2 introduced from millions of years back like when you burn oil/coal.
so it does reduce the total amount of co2 coming to the atmosphere, provided that somebody plants some more of those nuts(and doesn't chop some rainforest/something else that binds huge amounts of it to plant those nuts for few seasons and then chop more of rainforest).
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/earth/natur
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:5, Interesting)
yeah. that's the ticket.
from your link:
" The most important points to draw out from this briefing are as follows:
* Fossil fuel consumption is the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions.
* Deforestation in the tropics is the second most important source of greenhouse gas emissions.
* Forests are net absorbers of CO2 while they are growing (which is stored as carbon) but then release the accumulated carbon when they die.
* Young forests absorb more CO2 than old forests, but old forests have much greater stores of carbon.It is widely recognised that old forests are valuable storehouses of carbon and should be protected.
* Logging old-growth forests and replacing them with plantations intended for timber/paper production results in a net loss of carbon which is released into the atmosphere. This is especially relevant in Canada, Russia and the Baltic States where this is most widespread, and also in Scandinavia. "
however the whole text was fairly anti-paper industry disquised as something scientific and relevant(there's barely any logging of _old_ forests in finland anyways, and the total yearly growth is _more_ than what we cut down yearly).
sure the russians do log real old forests.. but they do lots of other stuff too(bad for the environment) that is seriously in need of more attention.
i've planted ~500+ trees myself(in last 2 years, double the amount for total during my life and i'm 22), so i'm not worrying too much about our forests being robbed as forests are seen as a source of income that needs to be taken care of, not just exploited silly. the worrying thing is that people in (for example) amazonia just burn down some area of forest and farm on it for few years and then just move on, to burn more forest to be used for farming.
anything to cut down on fossil fuels is good anyways, at least as an alternative. what the article says is that old forests bind more co2 than young forests, which has nothing to do with it 'coming from dimension x' or something.
Higher usable energy (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, natural decay of the shells would release the CO2 in any case.
Re:Higher usable energy (Score:3, Informative)
The decay process can also produce methane. Which is worst "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide.
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:2, Informative)
Basically it would also be a comparison in producing the same amount of energy from burning coal vs. macadamia shells.
Re:Reduction in Co2? (Score:3, Informative)
Nuts (Score:5, Funny)
In an unrelated story, macadamia nut consumption is up 10,000%
This is a failed experiment... (Score:5, Funny)
The article doesn't say... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The article doesn't say... (Score:3, Informative)
Also they are very tasty!
Re:The article doesn't say... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The article doesn't say... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The article doesn't say... (Score:3, Interesting)
When I was
Now if only... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Now if only... (Score:2)
Re:Now if only... (Score:3, Funny)
It would finally give a reason for XXXX to exist. Unless the stuff you export to the UK is some sort of revenge tactic. 'I got it, Bruce! We'll put kangaroo piss in XXXX cans and send it to England! Those poms will never spot the difference...'
Can you see the O'Reilly user manual? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm guessing it'd have a monkey on the cover. Or perhaps, sticking with the power plant theme, a picture of Homer Simpson eating nuts.
I know I'd pay good money for that book.
nice prediction (Score:4, Interesting)
So the "savings" is kind of like the recording industry's / BSA's claims of "losses", a great way to get rid of nuts though. Has anyone seen "Equilibrium" by the way?
Granted, it beats burning coal or the many other alternatives, but I suppose gold plating it makes the 3 mill a lot easier to swallow.
Re:nice prediction (Score:3, Informative)
However, the power grid is very long and thin (just about everyone lives on or near the coast) and most of the existing generators are not all that conveniently close to the main demand centres, so they sometimes have problems shuffling the power about to get to where it's needed.
My guess is that this new station will help aleviate that problem.
Yeah, cos macademia nut shells are a big problem (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, cos macademia nut shells are a big proble (Score:2)
I imagine a plant for processing macadamia nuts would have a similar pile. There is a huge amount of waste in this process. Every nut you've ever eaten was covered by a shell and hull at least as massive as the part you consumed. In large pi
Are you suggesting burning rubbish? (Score:2)
It also produces dioxins and a cocktail of other highly toxic chemicals. There are many studies showing that people who live near w
Re:Are you suggesting burning rubbish? (Score:4, Informative)
Now, in a bonfire or badly-designed furnace, the pyrolysis products cool and recombine into literally goodness-knows-what and escape before they get a chance to combine with oxygen. This is where incineration can fail. Large lumps of fuel, and mixed fuels, all exacerbate the problems.
In a well-designed furnace, the fuel is finely-divided and the air supply forced {an unattended fire will tend to produce only as much energy as it needs to stay alight; this may mean partial combustion with great quantities of chemicals being released. A fan requires energy, but MOTN the energy gain from fetter combustion is greater than the consumption of the motor}. If the fuel is very heterogeneous, the pyrolysis phase of the reaction can be completed separately in by heating the fuel in an airless chamber {consuming energy} and the pyrolysis products burned later {releasing more energy than it took to do the pyrolysis}. By adjusting the temperature and pressure you can select whether the intermediate product is a gas, a light liquid like petrol or a heavy liquid like diesel fuel. This has the advantage that you know how long is the longest carbon chain in the fuel for the next stage, and there is no way that the products can contain sny longer carbon chains. The disadvantage is that it distributes the high-temperature processes, thereby creating more opportunities for heat leakage.
As for the "plastics" argument, it's a red herring. Upstream segregation could be used to separate plastic from the waste being used for energy recovery, if you were really concerned. But I can't see how it would not be better to extract energy from plastic that has already been used for something, than to use up energy burying that plastic in landfill and digging up more fossil fuel just to burn for energy. Over time, as fossil fuels became more expensive, plastics would begin to be made from plants anyway. Not to mention that lanfills also produce dioxins, albeit more slowly, and organic matter in landfill decays to CH4, which, molecule-for-molecule, is a better heat trap than CO2. The real problem is ignorance of the First Law of Thermodynamics. We've already had people bitching about CO2 emissions like they don't know where the carbon in a plant comes from, and if people can't appreciate the First Law as it applies to the tangible form of matter, how can we suppose they can appreciate it as applied to energy?
Of course, I'm with you about reduction. My ex's daughter was raised in reusable cotton nappies, so will be my niece at least while she is stopping with me. I avoid single-serving packs whenever possible. I wipe my nose on yesterday's T-shirt, and I put my sandwiches straight in my lunchbox without using a polybag {in the absence of a satisfactory explanation as to how wrapping food in plastic saves me from risking cancer by letting it touch plastic}. I don't use sanitary towels either, but only for The Reason That Does Not Count.
What article are you reading? (Score:2)
Efficiency? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, is there any inherent advantage to using macadamia nuts rather than some other biomass?
Re:Efficiency? (Score:2, Insightful)
This article is entirely too vague... frustratingly vague.
The first thing I thought was that they would burn the shells. But, how would that help? You're still putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Maybe the macadamia nuts burn clean?
Re:Efficiency? (Score:3, Insightful)
Contrast with Oil and Coal where you're putting CO2 into the atmosphere that was fixed out millenia ago.
Re:Efficiency? (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of it like this:
macadamia = shell + nut
Old equasion:
profit = sale of nut - disposal of shell
New equasion:
profit = sale of nut + electricity generation from shell
This, of course, assumes that the electricity produced from the shells can be sold at a profit that is greater than the cost of disposing of the nuts. From everything I've heard here, the power plant is relatively inexpensive to construct ($3 million), as such, the cost of electricity generation probably won't be that great. However, we'd need more data to say that for sure.
As an added bonus, the CO2 output is neutral over a single year. Ie: shell takes 1 year's worth of CO2 in as it grows, we then burn it, and 1 years worth of CO2 is released. Comparatively, coal takes in X number of years (thousands of years ago), we burn it, and it releases it into the atmosphere now, resulting in a gain in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Keep in mind that this means we won't be powering the entire country with macadamia nut shells. This plant only powers 1200 homes. The brilliant aspect of this is that its powered off of waste that was already present in the region. This would be similar to a facility that produces corn creating a power plant next to it that is fueled by corn husks and the unedible parts of the corn. Its simply just a comparative advantage. Its fuel that you have here and now, so there are little to no transportation costs. Even if another biomass is more efficient, you'd have to transport it to the generation facility, decreasing its overall efficiency.
Ideally, for something like this, you'd build lots of smaller facilities, wherever burnable bio-waste is produced. 1200 homes here, 1200 homes there, mix it with some solar and wind generation, and other alternative energies, and eventually the fossil fuel habit might be kicked.
Energy in/Energy out. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Energy in/Energy out. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Energy in/Energy out. (Score:2)
Presumably a lot less than the amount of energy the plant generates by extracting the energy from one, given their supplying energy to the grid, not the macademia nut company.
They had a prize of a lifetime supply of macadamias if you could get a nut out of a shell without using a saw
Maybe they use a saw?
Re:Energy in/Energy out. (Score:5, Interesting)
- How much energy goes into getting the nuts out of the shells in the first place?
I've visited a macadamia farm, and seen the machine that they use to remove the shells. It resembles something like an engine, with rows of levers catching the nut and compressing it just a few millimeters. The shell is very brittle and cracks completely if you can compress it just a little.- They had a prize of a lifetime supply of macadamias if you could get a nut out of a shell without using a saw. I tried smashing it with a rock with no luck. Apparently, no one had ever collected the prize.
I can't say I'm surprised. I regularly crack open macadamia nuts. Handheld nutcrackers are useless. I've actually broken the nutcracker before I've broken the nut. My method involves an irresistable force and an immovable object (who said that theoretical physics wasn't practical?! 8)) . But seriously, I use a hammer and a rock slab. I literally have to pound the nut a good three or four times with the hammer. And I mean serious swingsWhoever came up with the phrase "a hard nut to crack", obviously worked in the macadamia business.
DeeK
Re:Energy in/Energy out. (Score:2)
Seriously Off Topic Now... (Score:2)
Chuck Nolan would disagree... (Score:2)
Just ask Chuck Nolan [apple.com] and he will tell you that the coconut is the hardest nut to crack on the planet. Heck you can even ask Wilson...
Re:Energy in/Energy out. (Score:3, Informative)
My primary school (in Brisbane, QLD) had Macadamia tree in the grounds so I got a lot of practice...
The shells are damned tough. You DON'T want to use a saw (too much work!). It's difficult to use a (lump/sledge) hammer because you can't hit it ha
Rogue Nation (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Rogue Nation (Score:5, Funny)
But they need to control this highly dangerous process, so they use a fluid which surrounds the nuts to slow the reaction at the edges of the mass. They looked for a long time before they chose just the right formula, but they've settled on a standard, something physicists call "dark chocolate".
The major byproduct is a nutmeat-filled candy bar called "Hershey's", named after the scientist/confectioner who invented the process. While highly dangerous to a small portion of the population, most people are only subject to a small subset of detrimental effects.
In related news, recently the doorways in the plant had to be widened considerably to accomodate the plant's regular staff, who seem to have taken to eating the power plant's byproduct.
Thats nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
Quoting the article... (Score:3, Funny)
Is the concept really that unclear? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is the concept really that unclear? (Score:2, Informative)
Reduction in CO2? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Reduction in CO2? (Score:3, Insightful)
No Simpsons joke yet? (Score:4, Funny)
Mmm
Re:No Simpsons joke yet? (Score:2, Funny)
Homer's brain: 20 dollars can buy many peanuts!
Homer: Explain how.
Homer's brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services!
Homer: Woo hoo!
Hello, 1970? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Mummy, what's that?"
"It's a power plant, Heirony"
"What does it burn, Mummy?"
"Caschew nut fruits, Heirony"
The caschew nut grows as a small nut on a huge fruit which is rich and oily. For each of those tiny caschew nuts, a fruit weighing perhaps 500gr is grown, harvested, and then discarded.
In Tanzania in 1970, and probably still today, these fruits were dried and then burnt for power. Glad to see that some third-world technology had finally made it to the rich west.
Re:Hello, 1970? (Score:2)
Re:Hello, 1970? (Score:3, Interesting)
doesn't anything that you can burn... (Score:2)
Re:doesn't anything that you can burn... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll be here all week. (Score:5, Funny)
New Scientist reported... (Score:2)
Source [saturday-night-live.com]
The Fallacy of "Green" power (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The Fallacy of "Green" power (Score:2, Funny)
Actually you can just use a light meter or similar photographic device aimed at the power plant. Or you could hire one of those gay decorators off of TLC and have him tell you how green it is.
Ow my gawd! (Score:3, Funny)
Other biomass/CO2 neutral examples (Score:5, Interesting)
All this makes more sense than GWB's hydrogen economy, which needs electricity to make the hydrogen. As electricity generation is about 30% efficient, there's not much point in using biomass to produce hydrogen for fuel cells - you might as well stick biodiesel straight in the car.
Re:Other biomass/CO2 neutral examples (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Other biomass/CO2 neutral examples (Score:2)
You're telling us that it's more efficient to create the cars and then fuel them directly with biodiesel. Someone is way off on their efficiency figures here.
Infrastructure (Score:3, Interesting)
America and the worlds infrastucture is currently dependant on oil production. This allows the individuals who have the oil to gain tons of power through the sales of billions of dollars worth of black sludge.
We dont generally like these people much. (Racism not-withstanding, politics in the middle east are a huge mess.. but we all knew this)
Why dont we just sweep the rug out from under them and switch our infrastructure to something like this? I mean, america already produces enough food to feed the world, the waste of this production is a byproduct that, basically, goes to waste.
Build these power plants in America. The oil companies can do it, profit greatly, and at the same time, destroy the source of funds for our "Rivals."
This post is from a compleatly political perspective, and many of the ideals do not exactly reflect my own beliefs.
Re:Infrastructure (Score:2)
Is this what you propose?
Wow 1.5MW (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wow 1.5MW (Score:2)
What on earth are you doing at home?! (Score:2)
Are you running your own aluminium smelting plant at your house or something?!!
Sounds like... (Score:2, Funny)
(a power plant run by nut cases?
Color (Score:2)
How does it make any difference to the story what color the plant is?
Realistic calculations.... (Score:2)
50 million lbs is about 20 million kilos. For about 20.000 acres, that means you produce about 1000 kilos of nuts per acre per year. Assume that the shell is about the same weight as the nut (probably grossly overestimating, but can't find data on it), so you'd produce 1000 kilos of shell per acre, per year.
The
Wonderfully cost effective (Score:2)
-- Jimmy Fallon, Weekend Update
Gympie damn near killed me... (Score:2)
My partner actually went to high school there, but the one time I went there (her school mate was getting married about 5 years ago) I got chickenpox from the brides kid brother... damn buffets...
I didn't get chickenpox like you presumably had as a kid. I was 22, and I got chickenpox so bad that I was covered inside and out.
After a few days getting rapidly worse, I ended up "drifting off" one evening over dinner while babbling incoherently, so my partner and friends thought they probably bet
Allergy concern? (Score:3, Insightful)
But I now know several people with fatal allergies to tree nuts. So I wonder - what is the effect on any allergic people nearby of vaporizing nut shells and injecting the vapor into the atmosphere?
sPh
Been there, done that... (Score:3, Informative)
I've had a stoker furnace in my home for 5 years now, and it has burned a variety of waste products with great success:
So in short, YOU can do this too - but probably not in metro areas. Get a stoker furnace, a form of storage, contact some of the local farming industries around and start heating your home with other people's waste products - safely and very economically.
Lots of farming industries produce big amounts of waste, and most of that can be converted into biofuel simply by drying and sometimes crushing/shredding.
Or get a wood shredder and go shred the wood from trees that have fallen down in storms/hurricanes/whatever hits your region the most - many people will gladly let you remove their fallen trees, and you can heat your house very economically in this way.
Re:i am an environmentalist (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Toxic Fog (Score:3, Interesting)