[vtsnowedin]

http://www.vnews.com/12292008/5277722.htm
The local paper had this story. If you do the math he is getting the equivalent of ten gallons of gas from a cord of wood so that would be about $20.00/gallon.

"It makes huge sense for farming"

[yesplease]

You have an extra T at the beginning of your link. As for the owner, I doubt they're paying market value for a cord of wood, probably getting it for free or near free.

[vtsnowedin]

You have an extra T at the beginning of your link. As for the owner, I doubt they're paying market value for a cord of wood, probably getting it for free or near free.

I just cut and pasted it from my address line and it appears to be working so I don't follow you on that.But I'm not a compgeek.

He is using scrap wood from his business but like used fry oil there isn't enough for everyone to switch over. It might make a good agriculture fuel post peak. Farmers here burn 20 to 30 cords a year sugaring (maple syrup production). The same amount would give you enough tractor fuel to plant and harvest crops on a fair sized farm. But you are not going to commute 15,000 miles a year to work running on scrap wood.

[yesplease]

It looks like someone (which mod?) deleted the T.

I don't think the point of the article was that everyone could switch over, especially at a few pounds of wood per mile and only six people in the U.S. w/ setups, so I still don't see the point of comparing it to the cost of buying cords at market.

[vtsnowedin]

I was just considering the viability of the technology. The truck really runs so it is doable, Wood is available but not in unlimited quantities. At a real cost of $20.00 per gallon equivalent it might have its day sometime in the future. It would be a lot better than walking behind a yolk of oxen.

[mos6507]

I wonder what the VT DMV thinks about this...

[vtsnowedin]

I wonder what the VT DMV thinks about this...

Well there pretty crunchie up in Montpelier so they might let it slide as an experimental rig. They should anyway. But watch some bean counter from the tax department try to collect gas tax on the amount of wood he has used.

[kpeavey]

what will the EPA think about it? Lisa Jackson thread

[Gerben]

Wood is cheaper than gasoline, so it should be possible to run a car on wood gas for a lower price. The problem is that it's not easy to get the system to run efficiently. I doubt his system is very advanced.

[vtsnowedin]

Wood is cheaper than gasoline, so it should be possible to run a car on wood gas for a lower price. The problem is that it's not easy to get the system to run efficiently. I doubt his system is very advanced.

Here today gas is $1.75/ US gallon about 50 cents a liter. that includes the taxes. I sold a cord of hardwood wholesale yesterday for $150.00. Thats today and both will certainly change in the future but for now wood is not cheaper as an auto fuel.

[smallpoxgirl]

It's cheaper for the guy that the article is about. As stated in the article, he's in construction and uses construction debris. Maybe once he gets laid off he'll have to go back to gasoline (and get a smaller car.)

Ohh...and I removed the extra T. Sorry for the confusion.

[nocar]

This seems a lot like the 'generator-gas' thingies that were used in Sweden i WWII. Sweden was cut off from oil or gasoline imports, and also coal, but wood is everywhere. I was born right at the end on the war so I have not actually seen one in operation, but I have heard about them and seen pictures.

Clearly, the wood gas thingies could make cars or trucks go. But usually slower than with gasoline, and they appearently were not very reliable. Ever so often you had to stop and go out and stir the charcoal. And they produced carbonmonoxide - very unhealthy and lots of people were poisoned. When gasoline became available again, the wood gas thingies disappeared completely again. For some reason, they are never mentioned when alternative transport fuels are discussed. I have have just assumed that they were too impractical - but possible the idea can fly with improved technology.

[mos6507]

They burn carbon monoxide directly. CO might make a good fuel for humanity if it weren't so toxic. I think that whole invention in the news that claims to create "fuel" via solar thermal is in fact splitting CO2 into CO out of the air. They talk about using it to synthesize hydrocarbons but in theory you could just burn the CO directly.

[yesplease]

8) I was just considering the viability of the technology. The truck really runs so it is doable, Wood is available but not in unlimited quantities. At a real cost of $20.00 per gallon equivalent it might have its day sometime in the future. It would be a lot better than walking behind a yolk of oxen.

Emmm. Maybe. For most places I think growing an oil based crop would yield more energy per acre and the greater energy density (it appears wood is closer to LA batteries than fuel), which would allow for a smaller vehicle to be used, which again saves on fuel. Instead of hundreds, maybe thousands of pounds of wood/gasifier stuff, all that's needed is ~80-150lbs of fuel and an extra coolant to fuel heat exchanger. There may be some places it would work, but for the most part I think there are better "home grown" alternatives.

[vtsnowedin]

It's cheaper for the guy that the article is about. As stated in the article, he's in construction and uses construction debris. Maybe once he gets laid off he'll have to go back to gasoline (and get a smaller car.)

Ohh...and I removed the extra T. Sorry for the confusion.

Thank you.

[vtsnowedin]

8) I was just considering the viability of the technology. The truck really runs so it is doable, Wood is available but not in unlimited quantities. At a real cost of $20.00 per gallon equivalent it might have its day sometime in the future. It would be a lot better than walking behind a yolk of oxen.

Emmm. Maybe. For most places I think growing an oil based crop would yield more energy per acre and the greater energy density (it appears wood is closer to LA batteries than fuel), which would allow for a smaller vehicle to be used, which again saves on fuel. Instead of hundreds, maybe thousands of pounds of wood/gasifier stuff, all that's needed is ~80-150lbs of fuel and an extra coolant to fuel heat exchanger. There may be some places it would work, but for the most part I think there are better "home grown" alternatives.

Maybe yes maybe no. This young fellow is tinkering around in the Vermont tradition and he doesn't claim to have it perfected or that he is saving the world. I'm looking at 50+/- acres of hardwood that is mine so this appeals to me. If I were to grow an oil crop my yield in VT might be pretty low and I would have to build an oil press and a biodiesel plant to convert it to diesel. Not sure I would get enough back to grow the next oil crop much less grow the food I will need post peak. I think I will look into what he has done and learn what I can about the process. I might need it someday.

[yesplease]

That depends on the trees you have on your land. If you're growing trees in a high yield area, then I think you could get a couple tons/acre/year, which would good for quite a bit of travel, but your range would blow due to the amount of wood needed. Depending on the type of wood on your property the yield may not get you any more than a few hundred or thousand miles per year if you just collect dead material. To put that into perspective just two acres of rapeseed would provide enough fuel to travel ten thousand miles in a small diesel car.

Far be it from me to tell ya what to do w/ your own land, but if I were in your shoes I'd look for a less labor intensive system. Having to deal w/ all 50 acres just to drive a fraction of the distance I would having to deal w/ a couple acres isn't something I'd go for. Besides, you could probably see some income selling the extra wood to others in a post apocalyptic zombie wonderland.

I'm still also confused about why you mentioned price. Were you going to charge yourself for your own cords of wood? It seems like something to do when price isn't an option, and ya don't mind lots of labor compared to alternatives, but not something for most.

[vtsnowedin]

That depends on the trees you have on your land. If you're growing trees in a high yield area, then I think you could get a couple tons/acre/year, which would good for quite a bit of travel, but your range would blow due to the amount of wood needed. Depending on the type of wood on your property the yield may not get you any more than a few hundred or thousand miles per year if you just collect dead material. To put that into perspective just two acres of rapeseed would provide enough fuel to travel ten thousand miles in a small diesel car.

Far be it from me to tell ya what to do w/ your own land, but if I were in your shoes I'd look for a less labor intensive system. Having to deal w/ all 50 acres just to drive a fraction of the distance I would having to deal w/ a couple acres isn't something I'd go for. Besides, you could probably see some income selling the extra wood to others in a post apocalyptic zombie wonderland.

I'm still also confused about why you mentioned price. Were you going to charge yourself for your own cords of wood? It seems like something to do when price isn't an option, and ya don't mind lots of labor compared to alternatives, but not something for most.

Most of the price of a cord of wood is the labor to cut it and the transportation to where it is needed. Even if you own the trees someone, yourself or someone you hired has to do the work. To think that any piece of wood is free when you put it into the stove or the gassafier is wrong and the current market price is a fair estimate of the time and effort required to obtain it at the point of use. I wont charge myself for my standing wood but my back muscles will charge me dearly for every cord.
If you consider the process of switching to an alternate fuel it can be helpful to break it down into phases. Phase one growing or acquiring the fuel feed stock. Phase two refining the feed stock into useable fuel, And phase three modifying the engine to run on the new fuel.
Phase one gets ruled by what you can actually grow to a useful stage on your land. I'm not going to be growing any palm oil in VT.

With biodiesel phase one and two are hard but little needs to be done in phase three. With 100% ethanol you have to build a very good still in phase two and modify your engine/carburation unless you own one of the newer dual fuel vehicles coming out.
With wood gas I own the feed stock and have the tools and knowhow to process it to the point of use. Phase three is considerable though as it looks like you are carrying your refinery on the vehicle along with some carburation modifications.
I haven't begun to do a complete comparison analysis and have no opinion which will be better for me on my location. This was just in the news and local and I thought it would be of interest to those here. Got to wonder if the guy is lurking here at PO. It sounds like he spends some time at the keyboard.

[mos6507]

If they ever come up with a way to do cellulosic ethanol then you could use the trees as a feedstock.

[cephalotus]

... For some reason, they are never mentioned when alternative transport fuels are discussed. I have have just assumed that they were too impractical - but possible the idea can fly with improved technology.

there have been many experiments with "wood gas" used as afuel in motors. The problem is the tar.

Another (high tech) option is to make fuel from wood via Fischer Tropsch synthesis (BTL), there is a 1 million tonne factory in Germany.

http://www.choren.com/en/choren_industr ... s/?nid=172

the efficiency is only around 40% (kWh input from wood vs. kWh output from diesel) and it takes huge amounts of wood, much more than it is available.
The fuel is excellent, better than diesel made from crude.