Precisely my point: read what he says, then look at what he quotes as an actual example of torrefied fuel catching fire...

<crickets chirping>

then see what he actually describes as the 'danger' from those 12,000 units or whatever of emitted CO2 from the oxidizing fuel. (It was not fire.)

I usually do make it a point to RTFA before commenting. In my opinion, he is vastly overstating the danger of actual spontaneous ignition of torrefied biocoal. While I am thankful to him for pointing out the increased hazard the enhanced CO2 generation produces in enclosed spaces, it is a great stretch to extrapolate that to the sort of prompt-ignition danger I associate with the term 'pyrophoric' in general chemical practice.


RME

He raises the worries of spontaneous combustion and asphyxiation. I don’t see where he discounts the former and emphasizes the latter, if that is what you mean. Maybe there has not been an accidental fire yet. Why do you believe spontaneous ignition would not be a significant problem?

For reference--coal heating values:

http://www.ket.org/trips/coal/agsmm/agsmmtypes.html

Anthracite: 15,000 BTUs per pound

Bituminous: 10,500 to 15,500 BTUs per pound

Sub-bituminous: 8,300 to 13,000 BTUs per pound

Lignite: 4,000 to 8,300 BTUs per pound

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bituminous_coal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-bituminous_coal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignite

Anthracite is famously from parts of Pennsylvania and New York, bituminous is largely from the Appalachian region, sub-bituminous is what's in the Powder River basin, and lignite or "brown coal" was that Rosebud stuff the Northern Pacific used.

Northern Pacific's best known locomotives may have been its Z-5 "Yellowstones," the first engines of the 2-8-8-4 wheel arrangement, and until the construction of the Big Boys years later, were the largest locomotives in the world. They also had the largest grate areas in the world to deal with that Rosebud coal--184 square feet!

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/yellowstone/?page=np

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/yellowstone/np5000.jpg

http://www.yesteryeardepot.com/NP5004.JPG

NP's Challenger types also had outsized grate areas--152 square feet. The 3985 has only 132 square feet:

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/challenger/?page=np

http://www.yesteryeardepot.com/NP5108X2.JPG

http://www.yesteryeardepot.com/NP5125.JPG

Have fun.

The ability of a biomass, grate-fired steam locomotive to meet any of the EPA Tier 0, I, II, III, or IV emissions standards for NOx or other pollutants is questionable. This would likely kill any alternative fuel steam locomotive project even if one was to accept the logistics and capital costs of handling boiler quality treated water and ash disposal.

In reading that link posted above on producing torrefied biocoal, and other references, I get the impression that this technology is only in the R&D stage with the only production being done in small laboratory-size, experimental torrefaction plants. Overall, this suggests that there simply is no data on commercial production costs. However, regarding biocoal, the available information does give insight into the larger market context of which the modernized locomotive is a part.

Normally, with product development, the cost is issue number one in determining the product marketability. However, in the case of this biocoal product, a ready-made market is waiting for it, and cost is not a critical factor. It is truly a golden opportunity for inventors because it only requires perfection of the biocoal product. This is because the ready-made market is being created by regulatory fiat rather than by free-market demand.

Power generating utilities are facing mandates or the prospect of mandates to start producing a portion of the power they generate from renewable resources such as wind, solar, and biomass. Biomass is the most attractive option because it can be made into biocoal, which can be burned in existing coal-fired plants with very little capital costs for plant modification, and no new transmission lines. Whereas, the other renewable energy options require massive new infrastructure investment in plants and transmission lines. So electric utilities are intensely interested in biocoal.

Therefore, since this new market for biocoal will not be an economic market, there will be very little price competition with fossil fuels currently in use. What is important is to simply create a workable product at whatever cost is necessary. So this is truly an inventors' sweepstakes on a grand scale.

They always say that if you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door. Well, maybe so, but the new mousetrap had better not cost any more than the old one. That is, unless you can get the old mousetrap banned.

Ron,

Please be cautious in some of your thoughts on the viability of biocoal for power generation. Although Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) vary from state to state, they typically distinguish between 'Class I' (solar/wind) and 'Class II' (biomass/municipal solid waste (MSW)) renewables with different percentage requirements for each. Using NJ as an example, the 2021 requirements are 17.9% Class I and 2.5% for Class II. And the Class II requirement is already covered by existing MSW and small hydroelectric generators. Thus, the demand for a biocoal electric generator in at least one state is zero.

More info found here:
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/ince ... Code=NJ05R

Also be cautious in stating biocoal can be burned in existing coal fired plants with only small modification cost. While plants equipped with circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers may be able to handle the fuel as is, these types of boilers are typically 100 MW or less, built after 1990, only found in waste coal or MSW plants, and a small portion of our solid fueled power generation. The more typical baseload coal plant has pulverized coal (PC) boilers which grind the coal and blow it into the furnace. These types of boilers have tight fuel specifications on heating value, grindability, ash fusion temperature, and other metrics that affect safe operation of the plant and ability to make full load. The installation of fuel handling equipment to co-fire biocoal with bituminous coal would like cost several million dollars.

More info on co-firing here:
http://www.nrbp.org/pdfs/pub12.pdf

Mr. Austin and Mr. Muldowney,

I had read, within the last few years, about the production of several biofuels in Europe. The consisted of briquetted wood waste, briquetted waste from water reclamation plants and I THINK biocoal. Have either of you heard about biocoal being produced in Europe?

Not that it would be applicable here, but in a similar article I had read about a tourist railroad utilizing water reclamation waste. The article was written at the beginning of the utilization of the product and I am yet to hear anything as to the success of the alternative fuel. Either of you have any knowledge of this?

Cheers, Jason

So, is anyone in railway preservation actually planning to do this stuff, or is this just an academic discussion on high steam theory? What makes that on-topic for this forum as opposed to, say, high electric motor theory?

Jason,

I can't say I am familiar. I hope all is well and enjoy the steam projects photos.

Well, I think that anyone running historic steam locomotives might be contemplating using this torrefied fuel product as an alternative to coal. So it would make sense to understand it in the most technical and practical terms possible. In that sense, it is highly pertinent to railway preservation.

I've heard from two potential users in tourist / preservation who want to know things that haven't been determined yet. When they are, I won't be the person to ask. I'm no expert in fuel chemistry or combustion technology. I expect the developers of the fuel will make information available once they have worked it out and tested it to their satisfaction before recommending it.

I have been told by an expert that the "recipe" for this fuel can be seasoned in different ways depending on desired results. There's a lot to work out. Markets with different critical needs might need different recipes. We're lucky if the first demonstration is in locomotives, since that recipe would then be among the first to be refined.

4 other people (to my knowledge) who post to RyPN have also been in contact with people directly involved and may if they choose share their impressions. I discourage posting speculative uninformed opinions as if they were fact or reacting to those that some people just can't help themselves from contributing from perspectives of ignorance or paranoia.....it is cluttering things up and getting us nowhere in terms of real understanding. This is complex and technical enough without adding more confusing misinformation to the mix.

dave

Well, the developers are telling us all about it. Maybe if we ask a few questions, it will help them clear up the confusion.

I am reminded of the time we tried firing NP 328 with wood.

Not just any old wood, kiln dried pine scraps from a window plant.

The engine had been parked in the window plant's fenced yard for the week between a couple of weekend excursions on the branchline.

We need some wood for the Friday fireup, so we talked to our contact at the window plant and a forklift showed up with a 5 yard dumpster of scraps, all kiln dried, about the size of your fist.

Built the fire, got it going, filled the front of the coal pile with wood (hey it was free!) and waited for things to warm up.

It went fine until they cracked the blower valve and just about sucked the fire up the stack.

The guy doing the fireing later claimed the the wood never hit the grate after that and he couldn't shovel fast enough to keep up, and this was standing still! He quickly realized what was happening and started shoveling coal and got his fire back.

-Hudson

P.S. then we had to unload all that wood from the tender, at least it was downhill back into the dumpster.