Garn WHS3200 & Wood Gun E500 – Another Night Out [Part 7]

This too is on the list, but staff likely will need to take the lead on this. Already 100's, if not 1000's, of people have toured the energy centers at Deep Portage, which include the Wood Gun/Garn main wood energy facility, the Froling installation, two solar hot air furnaces, an evacuated tube solar hot water system, 10 kw wind turbine, and 12 kw solar electric arrays. If any of you get into Minnesota, you may want to put this on your list of things to see and do. Staff is happy to provide tours at any nearly any time, and with advance notice I likely can join the tour. You also would be welcome to visit my humble Tarm installation. Welcome!

The WG/Garn system alone has resulted in savings of $50,000/yr as compared to energy cost when LP is at $2.00 gallon. As bpirger said,

-- that would be a good description of the energy mission at DP.

I also was going to get a wood gun but with my research on gasifiers I saw the need for storage. The manufacturer keep saying it wasn't need or recomended. That was a major mistake I feel on there part but was done because adding storage added a large cost to the mix. Other dealers here said the same thing because if they started talking storage they backed away because of cost. Can you get by with out it. YES BUT the advantages far out weighed the added cost. But with new ways of doing things it's not easy to get people to understand. Cost WAS a very big factor in my getting the eko.
leaddog

I completely agree that AHS is making a mistake by saying storage is not necessary. Yes, they can be run without storage. But it is not the best way to run them. They should manufacture tanks and offer them to the customer as an added benefit. Something they could buy with the boiler, or add on in the future. I think more manufacturers should sell small, pressurized tanks to go with their boiler. Ones that can fit through a normal size, 36" exterior door way. Even if they were 250 gallons each, people could buy what they could afford at the time and add on later by plumbing them together if they needed to. For many small to medium size homes it would seem like 500-750, well insulated gallons, would be a tremendous benefit to their system. I know the cost would go up. But system efficiency and environmental pollution would be so much better with that storage. I would hate to see how much my Wood Gun would idle without my 400 gallon buffer tank.

Jim, if DP ever wants to get away from cordwood I'll get them one of these. Drew and I will come up there and spend a month with you installing it. Provided of course that we can get in some fishing action. ;

http://www.viessmann.ca/en/products/wood/Pyrot.html

click on the pdf brochure.

Heaterman....how much does one of those Viessman's set one back? Say for a system equivalent to a Garn 2000? My brother has a tree business, sadly he lives a couple of hours away....but he does keep my Dad in wood. He chips so much wood and then tries to give the stuff away. I remember back when I was building the house and on heatinghelp.com (a fabulous HVAC place by the way, not wood focused) and was turned onto Viessman, likely by hot rod (in hot water..same guy I think). Great stuff.... I found Buderus as well, I think regarded as #2, and people actually had heard of them here in the States in 2001.

The Viessmann could have been in the running 3 years ago. From the brochure and for use of chips I see 35% max MC, which adds some flexibility, but still requires some drying before use. Storage, freezing, handling, would be quick items of concern. Also the added processing and transportation. DP is in a heavily forested area, round wood is readily available from local loggers at semi-load cord prices, and local labor bucks, splits, delivers and stacks to requirements, 24" for the Wood Gun and Garn, 18" for the Froling (smaller splits).

I would really enjoy seeing a Pyrot in action and talk to operators on their experience. Bio-energy is and will remain an exciting area of renewable energy.

Thanks for the link.

The smallest model in that particular line would be around 600,000btu if I remember right. I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to what a system including automated chip feed would run but I would bet you would crack 6 figures.
I have yet to see any real movement from Viessmann on their residential sized boilers but if they did it would change the playing field here. They have an outstanding line of product ranging from standard style boilers to "creme de la creme" computer controlled, O2 sensing, variable firing rate for both cord wood and manufactured wood products. Like these...... http://www.viessmann.com/com/en/products/Wood_heating_systems.html click on the 35-170kw pdf if you want to drool on your keyboard. Those will be in the range of a Froling if they ever get here.

From what I have been told the regulatory agency climate here (EPA) and its total lack of clear direction is the main impediment to bringing them here. The other issue that Viessmann has is the ASME certification that other manufacturers choose to ignore. .....You have to be around the Viessmann people and their organization to understand the mentality. Nothing happens, nothing moves, nothing is introduced until every last detail is 100% handled. They will never change as long as that family owns the company.

HH.com is a fantastic place for info on hydronic and steam heating and Dan Holohan does a great job of keeping it fresh and current. You are correct in your assumption that "in hot water"="Hot Rod".....you'd have to see his cowboy boots with the red and yellow flames to see how he earned that nickname. He started out as a contractor in Colorado and as they say, the cream rises to the top. He's now the technical trainer for Caleffi and it's mighty gracious of him to drop in here from time to time.

Don't know if anyone has paid attention to this biomass burner out of Kentucky but it looks to be a game changer due to it's smaller size and reasonable cost. They make 100,000 and 500,000 btu models and soon will put out a 250,000 btu boiler. http://www.bioburner.com/

Heat, these are some awesome looking and sounding boilers that could find a home in many mid sized buildings up here in NNY. I've been involved in some larger wood burners over the years, but not with this kind of technology. Only thing I didn't "swallow" in the brochure was the claim about CO2 neutral. CO2 has been a favorite pain in my butt over the years and there is sooo much science indicating that CO2 has been the nemesis of mankind because of its connection to global warming. Good proof is that CO2 is an insignificant minor contributor to global warming that even NASA has determined in recent studies that even if the atmospheric CO2 were DOUBLED, the Earth's average temp might rise 1.6 degrees C. Brochure's great, except for!

JD

The Pyrot is 6 figures.

Doesn't "carbon neutral" with regard to bio-mass combustion refer to bio-mass which if not combusted normally would decompose in the environment and release its CO2 into the atmosphere over the decomposition period, which may be a period of years, and at the same time is bio-mass which is replaced by new growth bio-mass (sustainability) of at least equal carbon mass which then removes at least the same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere, thus "carbon neutral" over the cycle? In the short term there may be a net increase in CO2, but over the cycle CO2 is neutral.

I see that the Bio-Burner also states "carbon neutral." My wood usage and that of DP is carbon neutral because both of us use firewood that is grown in areas where as trees are removed, new trees are planted or regenerated to replace what was taken.

The Bio-Burner uses a single stage combustion process with temps 1000-1600F, not quite as high as gasification boilers. But temps in this range are sufficient to combust CO and hydrogen, and with the controlled burn of small feed/batch fuel it is plausible that the Bio-Burner can achieve the claimed efficiencies.

I think it is a credit that new ideas, designs and even technologies constantly come to market to better meet needs. These almost always are more expensive in up front $$$ cost because through efficiency they reduce the end social costs, which are not paid for in less efficient combustion processes. If users/consumers had to pay the social costs of their space heating appliances (such as costs from smoke, air pollution, combustion by-product chemicals, particulates, disease, medical care, tainted foods, birth defects, etc.), I would guess that the high efficiency appliances likely would be less expensive than the low efficiency appliances.

If users/consumers had to pay the social costs of their space heating appliances (such as costs from smoke, air pollution, combustion by-product chemicals, particulates, disease, medical care, tainted foods, birth defects, etc.), I would guess that the high efficiency appliances likely would be less expensive than the low efficiency appliances.

Preach it brother Jim!!

This is the side of the equation I have seen totally ignored by nearly all people when it comes down to initial cost of a boiler or project. It's really sad when you realize that discussions about "trade-offs even take place but I have heard them in meetings with boards, committees, GC's and engineers. We all wind up paying the price in the long run. It is also definitely not limited to wood burners. It holds true regardless of the choice of fuel.

Very interesting. I went back one page on the website to the wood fired boiler called the Pyrotec. One of the things I thought was interesting was that they say "For wood fuels with max. water content of 50%." And with the Pyrot, "For wood fuels with max. water content of 35%".

Why would they not advise the burning of wood with a lower moisture content? Is it because the customer, us, wants to be able to burn wood without having to wait for it to dry? Seems like many people do this. Burn higher moisture content wood for convenience. When all it takes is some planning, and one year to get ahead to burn wood with a lower moisture content. Why burn wood with more water in it? They put fires out with water.

I would support social costing of nearly everything. There is no free ride. The grim reaper waits in the shadows. If social costing was to start somewhere, fossil fuels would be my first choice because fossil fuels are a major input into almost everything.

True, "carbon neutral" means exactly that. Living green organisms, herbaceous and woody, along with others, all use CO2 to build sugars and ultimately proteins and other plant material. If burned or decomposed the same CO2 is released. Some CO2 doesn't immediately get to the CO2 stage in combustion because of, for some reason or other, doesn't completely combine with enough oxygen. We then refer to this a CO emissions and because of its chemical and physical properties consider it to be a "pollutant" which is a contributor to smog, creosote, health problems due to its toxicity and etc. My effort was to announce that CO2, a very different substance, is quite innocuous. CO2, is not a pollutant, not toxic (poisionous), but can cause suffocation because it's dense and can "push" oxygen out of the way, is a very ineffectual greenhouse gas, though millions (billions) of us think not, and is a growth stimulant for all green plants. In fact, many greenhouse operators increase the amount of CO2 in the greenhouse atmosphere up to about 2000 ppm to enhance biogrowth. I guess that I get annoyed when companies, governments, faux climate scientists try to scare us over our emissions of CO2 and attempt to convince us that it is the root cause of global warming.

100,000 BTU would be to small for me on desighn day and 250,000 is to big even with storage.

SmokeEater - you and I will disagree on the long term effect of fossil fuel contributed CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. This thread does not need to rehash that here. In the current living things carbon cycle we agree that CO2 is neutral.

Agreed, but note that, although nothing should not be studied and discussed, CO2 can be "put on the back burner" as being a major contributor to our concerns about our use of plant derived fuels their effect on warming.

Yours is the last word. Will not engage in the discussion on CO2.

They will do very well with lower MC fuel but the reality of chips is that they are nearly impossible to"dry" without mechanical means of tumbling/aerating. Hence the necessity of designing boilers with grate and combustion technology that can deal with the fuel as it is presented. Basically the drying process happens in the boiler. I have heard that the chip production companies are working with 2 local co-gen power producers to design a pay scale based not only on tonnage but also MC. The boiler operators realize they have much less ash, cleaner combustion and less problems overall with drier fuel.

Understood. Thanks heaterman. Now. Why "For wood fuels with max. water content of 50%." on the cordwood boiler Pyrotec then? Does it have to do with business? In other words, you will attract more customers if they see they can burn wood from very low moisture content to 50% m.c. ?

"100,000 BTU would be to small for me on design day and 250,000 is to big even with storage. "

I recently visited the factory and they're actually using the Bio-Burner 100 to heat their 6,000 sq. insulated industrial building in Madisonville Kentucky so the output may be a little deceiving when compared to a wood burner. It's producing a true 100,000 btu's per hour, every hour or less if you chose, unlike a wood boiler the output and burn process is quite precise and controllable. By controlling the fuel feed rate and air input the combustion process can be monitored and adjusted using the input from the combustion, stack and water out temps. very cool. As a bonus it has a propane or NG igniter and backup burner built right in.

If you suspect I have a bias you would be correct...but I have also recently looked down the throat of the Pyrot machine and concluded that although nice it is just too expensive to be a viable option for anything other than projects funded with government (FREE) money.

How else can we move forward in achieving a sustainable future for the children? Clearly relying on the bankrupt capitalist paradigm has brought us to the brink of disaster. Hope for the future lies in community action in partnership with enlightened governmental oversight to promote sustainable initiatives that demonstrate our commitment to implementation of tomorrow's solutions today through global synergistic empowerment.

We need to step forward and take up the challenge to be a part of global solutions that invite the participation of all the stakeholders. It has never been more true that success in reducing our carbon footprints will require great strides in increased government funding. And if this means more free money for you, me, lolly, dolly, and everybody then what are we waiting for?

--ewd

MC and transportation costs are the gorillas in the room for wood chips. Unmerchantable timber can be chipped at the logging site, which is economical, but then transportation to the user site gets prohibitive, as compared to the delivered cost of other fuels, at somewhere between 40-100 miles, depending on the local economics.

But what a "waste" to dry the chips using btu's from the combustion process or other energy than letting the sun and wind dry for free. I can only imagine how much worse the economics are when transportation to a drying site, handling, and the transportation to a user site are involved. In my area unmerchantable leftover from logging is either given without additional charge to the logger (built into the logger's bid price for the timber) or at a very small surcharge.

For residential use especially other issues are storage and freezing. High MC chips could become a hard, frozen mass when needed most.

Warning, we are teetering on the precipice of a dangerously hot topic! My take is that governments are prone to spending without regard to economic principle, ignoring the bottom line or the payback schedule. Private industry can not afford to do this.