[Curmudgicus]

I'm introducing this as a separate topic to pfish for expertise and information regarding colloidal fuels.

The only one on the market I've been able to identify is Orimulsion, which is a 70/30 mix of Bitumen dust and water with additives to get it to behave like a non-Newtonian fluid. It's used as diesel fuel and fuel oil. Here's the website.

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/pub ... 2_1_06.asp

I don't like the environmental data on Orimulsion AT ALL, but the idea of high-energy solid fuels suspended in a colloid is a very intriguing notion. There are a lot of nitrates that could be efficiently synthesized that might conceivably serve in such a capacity. I would appreciate any information that anyone has concerning the field.

[Devil]

I suppose the technique has some relationship with fluidised bed combustion of coal in power stations. In this case, instead of water, the coal suspension is in air, which also provides the oxygen for combustion. If there is a reducing atmosphere, the water could serve the same purpose, simultaneously providing hydrogen from itself and releasing hydrogen from the bitumen.

In both cases, we are dealing with fossil fuels and oodles of GHG emissions + pollution galore.

[Curmudgicus]

In both cases, we are dealing with fossil fuels and oodles of GHG emissions + pollution galore.

Absolutely. So what could be substituted for coal in this picture that is renewable?

[Caoimhan]

In both cases, we are dealing with fossil fuels and oodles of GHG emissions + pollution galore.

Absolutely. So what could be substituted for coal in this picture that is renewable?

Grain chaff?

[Tanada]

Stumbled across this thread looking at Orimulsion and Coal Water Slurry threads and I am forced to admit this one hadn't occurred to me as a possibility.

Orimulsion and CWS both work as liquid fuels because they are colloidal in behavior. In this case particles of extra heavy oil or powdered coal are suspended in water which acts as a carrier fluid. This thread is about other possible colloidal fuels, the only one suggested was grain chaff.

If a smart inventor takes a hold of this concept what are the potential fuel sources that could be colloidal water solutions for use in our existing infrastructure? There is potential for grain byproducts, powdered sawdust from lumber operations, powdered waste plastic not suitable for recycling, powdered tire derived fuel...

The list could be quite long, I barely scratched the surface. Some of them would be far more environmentally friendly than others, basically anything that would be carted off to the landfill that could be converted into colloidal fuel would be a great candidate. Save landfill space and get energy out at the same time.

[ROCKMAN]

Tanada – Someone was thinking about a good while back. A patent application from 1979: http://www.google.com/patents/US4358292

Abstract: A method of preparing new compositions of stabilized suspensoids of hybrid fuel oils comprising varying mixtures of ultrafine coal, virus-size pure carbon particles, finely ground newsprint and sawdust. The resultant stabilized fuel slurries are mixed mechanically to produce pumpable new forms of fuels whereby conventionally available petroleum fuel oils can be extended.

[kuidaskassikaeb]

I learned my rheology from one of the original coal slurry guys. I believe the purpose was to send coal through pipelines, rather than trains. There is nothing good about it from an environmental standpoint, and coal contains way to much ash to be used as a liquid fuel substitute.

[Tanada]

I learned my rheology from one of the original coal slurry guys. I believe the purpose was to send coal through pipelines, rather than trains. There is nothing good about it from an environmental standpoint, and coal contains way to much ash to be used as a liquid fuel substitute.

Coal water slurries are a much more complex set of issues from the environmental standpoint, but the DOE did develop low ash versions of them for use in Locomotive and Marine diesel engines. However if you want to talk about that we should do it on the CWF threads, not here.

[Tanada]

Tanada – Someone was thinking about a good while back. A patent application from 1979: http://www.google.com/patents/US4358292

Abstract: A method of preparing new compositions of stabilized suspensoids of hybrid fuel oils comprising varying mixtures of ultrafine coal, virus-size pure carbon particles, finely ground newsprint and sawdust. The resultant stabilized fuel slurries are mixed mechanically to produce pumpable new forms of fuels whereby conventionally available petroleum fuel oils can be extended.

Hybrid petroleum colloidal fuels go back much further than that ROCKMAN, in World War I the UK and France used a mixture of Kerosene and coal powder in the boilers on their naval vessels because German U-Boot's sank too many of the tankers hauling oil in from America.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KikDAA ... &q&f=false
Popular Science Monthly, July 1919.

As a history buff I am always interested in idea's that keep coming around every so often that current generation people look at as a brand new idea/invention.

The thing that has been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

I do find it interesting that they were using ground news print and sawdust, that is just the kind of thing I am wondering about. Lots of tech was developed from the 73 and 79 oil shocks and then shelved when the price collapsed in 1986. Some of it should be viable at today's prices.

[kuidaskassikaeb]

However if you want to talk about that we should do it on the CWF threads, not here.

You actually have a coal water slurry thread. Who's a thunk it.

[Subjectivist]

I couldn't find a thread about coal water diesel fuel but I did find
http://www.ccsd.biz/publications/files/ ... 0final.pdf

What do you think, is it a valid system?

[kuidaskassikaeb]

Yeah Mr. Subjectivist, I didn't find any thread either.

I read about half of the your post and found another project that ended in 2007 by the US. Evidently this idea is almost a hundred years old, and although the executive summaries claim success, I don't think there will be a lot of these around. The problem with these solid fuel internal combustion engines is ash and the abrasiveness of the solids, and neither project solved this problem. Your project ground the coal to five microns and used advanced flotation technologies to reduce the ash to what they called ultra low. That turns out to be about .14% (I assume by weight), but look at their process. Even getting to 2% required dumping haIf the coal. I think that it would be impossible to go below this because some of the ash is chemically bound, but I do admit I was impressed. The U.S project redesigned the diesel engine with swinging pistons, and a tungsten carbide injector, and after 41 million dollars ran an engine for an hour and claimed success. These engines have reasonable efficiency, but think about putting a pound of sand in your car every time you fill up.

The other problem with them is that they almost all use coal, and clean coal is an oxymoron. It will still emit just as much carbon dioxide. You'll have to mine twice as much of it, and coal mining is way bad.

[Subjectivist]

I was looking for more info on those coal water slurry liquids and the only other thread I could find about them is really old,
resurrection-peak-oil-doesn-t-equal-energy-scarcity-t9786-40.html

Can someone point me to the thread dedicated to coal water slurry fuels? It seems like they would work great for things like fuel oil burning furnaces providing a much cheaper fuel alternative to people not on the natural gas customer pipelines.

[Tanada]

I know there was a thread a while back but it seems to have gotten lost in the various site upgrades over the years. I diligently searched and can no longer find it in the memory banks either in the active forums or in the archives. I might suggest starting a new thread based on the Wikipedia and other articles you can find with internet search engines.

As most members know I am a big believer in 'go with what works' when it comes to energy amongst other things. As such I am a firm believer that Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) are not the end all and be all of technology. This is particularly true when it comes to converting energy sources into useful work.

Steam gets discounted widely by some persons on this website because the system of double expansion cylinder based engines were/are only about 10 percent efficient in converting heat from the fuel source into useful work. This was very well known by the late 1800's and lead to a revolution in how steam power was used. Instead of direct drive steam engines that only return 10 to 25 percent of the heat energy as useful work a system of steam turbines was developed that converts 25-40 percent of the energy into useful work. As such a geared steam turbine or a turbine-electric generator-motor set have pretty close to the same efficiency ratings as you get from ICE motors running through a geared transmission set.

This means that by utilizing the complexity of a steam turbo-alternator and electric drive motors a modern steam plant can run a ship or locomotive or very large vehicle like those mega mover mining trucks with the same fire to wheel efficiency ratings as the best of the ICE motors now on the market.

Unlike an ICE motor a steam firebox doesn't require an ash free low sulfur fuel, it can burn solids, liquids or colloidal fuels with equal efficiency. This opens a whole new range of possible biofuels far beyond the clumsy derivative products of alcohols or vegetable oils.

You can make a colloidal fuel from darn near any biomass from yard waste, farm waste, or industrially from coal dust, woody waste, powdered plastics, extra heavy oils and tars. And colloidal fuels can be shipped by pipeline, stored in tanks like regular liquid fuels and sprayed into fire boxes on both steam equipment like those named above or in industrial or home furnace applications where heated air is the goal.

The Peak Oil crisis is not a lack of energy crisis, it is a lack of imagination used to deal with the peak of oil liquids crisis. We adopted oil because it was more convenient that coal as an energy source from the transportation and acquisition point of view. Colloidal fuels handle the transportation aspect quite nicely. Acquisition of liquid petroleum fuels is becoming more and more difficult every year, hence our turning to fracking and increasingly difficult ultra deep water and ultra cold Arctic sources.

With a modest amount of planning we could get a lot of our primary energy for say electricity from colloidal fuels, both biofuels and wastes. Will we be smart enough to do so? I certainly hope so.

[Subjectivist]

It seems like this is the perpetual argument. On the one hand every time someone points out any potential step to keep things muddling along the doom chorus discards it without serious consideration.

There are a lot of things that could be done, it boils down to what will actually get implemented if every suggestion gets ignored?