Why are gasification boilers mostly found in the Northeast?

In the NY part of the NE, we pride ourselves in paying too much for everything. The simple fact that most of our homes have basements compared to the midwest/South/West lack thereof increases construction costs. It's actually funny to hear people from anywhere outside the NE complain about taxes. They'd die if they paid what we pay. And we just keep wearing it like a badge of honor.

Personally, I can't understand why houses in other regions - especially those built on slabs - have not gone to radiant heat. When we were under construction and only heating a ~1,200[] basement floor, all we used was a 40 gal propane hot water heater.

As far as politics go . . . anyone that thinks that this party, or that party, or this guy, or that gal, is gonna 'fix' anything is delusional. These people come from us. Generally selfish, proud dummies.

WoodNotOil said:

Birdman said:

I'm going to do a " write-in" for WoodnotOil for president. I wonder if the tree's are into politics? Grok on.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the vote of confidence I wonder if wood gasification is a broad enough platform to run an effective campaign...?

Click to expand...

I think if you use the word gasification much in your campaign it might be used against you, as in - don't vote him in he will stink up the white house.

[quote author="ihookem" date="1273643780"]In Wisconsin we make OWB all over. I know of one gassifier dealer in 100 mi. A Wood Gun dealer. I am most likely the only gasifier owner in in the county.








I feel your loneliness. Hey neighbor I am in Calumet county , heck we must only be about what 50-60 miles apart or about a hundred OWB's

WoodNotOil said:

benjamin said:

Piker said:

This thread has started down a course that could get out of hand very quickly.

Just sayin'

cheers

Click to expand...

They're still sore about Reagan (or was it some roofer schmuck) tearing the solar panels off the white house as soon as he got into office (or was it 1985). Carter's tax credits were the worst thing that ever happened to energy conservation and renewable energy, but now Obama has a chance to do one better.

Click to expand...

In all fairness IMHO it is the constant pendulum swing of our government from party to party that is responsible for our lack of progress in this area. From my understanding of it, the innovations of the late 70s, which were often funded by government dollars, were bought up by some of the Euro countries once the funding in the US dried up and they now lead the world in areas of like wind etc. Whether it was right or wrong to fund these innovations with government money to begin with in my mind is missing the point entirely. What we need is a consistent effort at this over time and not to lose momentum based on partisanship. The fear is not that we are investing in the wrong things right now, but rather that in another 3 or 7 years everything we have done will go to waste once again...

Click to expand...

Agreed, the pendulum swing of government is detrimental to progress. Also detrimental is the notoriously bad reputation for reliability, financial payback, and effectiveness of renewable energy that the Carter tax credit mania created. Aside from the politically vulnerable publicity stunt on Pennsylvania Avenue, I don't think government agents or political operatives were responsible for wasting the progress of the 70's, I think the technologies stood or failed on their own merit. This mania IS being repeated as we speak, and is an unavoidable consequence of government intervention. The credits go to complex, isolated systems because that's what is easiest for a bureaucrat to calculate the credit for, not because that is what is most cost effective, reliable or effective.

Bush and the Saudis were the best thing to happen to renewable energy (kinda like wolves and deer? or in this case fat cats and patchouli mice?). The renewable industry has had the time to evolve into something respectable, and more importantly EFFICIENT, because people were paying for it themselves. The worst systems of the 70's have disappeared and passive solar and conservation measures gained the respect they deserve, along with better solar hot water and PV systems.

Now we have a new mania in swing, with tax credits for new cars, new HYBRID cars, new homes, new fridges, high tech-low efficiency renewables and I can't wait to see what's next. I'm seeing more and more questionable solar systems being installed-shaded, way too long of runs, on houses with no hope. We'll see what this does to the industry long term.

This actually does relate to gasification boilers in that they are both a long term investment with a relatively low payback. Maybe Europeans and Northeasterners are just more willing to make these sort of investments. In seems that in this country since the late 90's most people have been more likely to invest in the 90's versions of shag carpeting and rec rooms than insulation or heating equipment, and the reason was pretty straightforward, payback. Throw down some shag, oops I mean granite and bamboo, and you get money from the fannie and freddie ATM, whereas money spent on efficiency was gone, only to be recovered at 5-20% a year. Pretty simple calculation right, 150% return on investment vs 20%.

There really were some good technologies to come out of the research of the 70's. If anyone is still reading and is not familiar with sand bed thermal storage, check out radiantec.com and find their DOE paper from that era. This is a solar heating scheme that is state of the art and could easily have a wood boiler tied into it. Also check out Annualized Geo Solar for something a little farther out there.

Thank God for Al Gore inventing the internet, eh? I say we throw him in a volcano in thanks.

Speaking of sand thermal storage, I've been thinking. What if I put a hx in the middle of a 55 gal. drum and filled it with sand? I wonder how that would work in the basement? How many btu's would it store? I don't know maybe I'm nuts.

Sand and pretty much everything else besides water has about one fifth or 20% of the heat capacity of water. Given the greater weight of sand that barrel would store about one quarter the equivelant amount of heat that water would store per degree temperature change. Now if you were going to heat the sand to 1000 degrees it would have an advantage over water, but the biggest advantage of the sandbed storage is that it is huge and cheap. There's no reason it has to be sand either, if your dirt compacts and doesn't smell when heated that would work also.