using natural gas to generate electricity

[Andy Wood]

kreed <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:

.. . .

There is a building around the corner here which has a gas-fired
tri-generation plant - provides electricity, heating and cooling.

Andy Wood
woo...@trap.ozemail.com.au

How would they do it cheaper than the supply authority ?
or are there peak or excessive business tariffs there ?

I have no idea about the tariffs. They made a big thing about how
environmentally friendly it was but I assume they would not have done
it if it was not going to make some sort of economic sense.

It is in Mount street, North Sydney. I call it the "Special K"
building because when viewed from a distance from one side it shows an
enormous "K" shape, but it is really called Ark.

"The building’s primary source of power is an on-site trigeneration
plant that uses gas turbines to provide energy for electricity and
heating/cooling for the base building. Trigeneration reduces carbon
dioxide emissions by producing heat, cooling and power simultaneously
from a single energy source. Ark is among the first buildings ever to
be equipped with a trigeneration system."

(From
http://www.thiess.com.au/tms/groups/public/documents/publication/027015.pdf
- Thiess were the guys that built it.)

Andy Wood
woodag@trap.ozemail.com.au

 

[Mr Mac]

"Andy Wood" <woodag@trap.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:IcOdnb5gquv2HgTQnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

kreed <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:

. . .

There is a building around the corner here which has a gas-fired
tri-generation plant - provides electricity, heating and cooling.

Andy Wood
woo...@trap.ozemail.com.au

How would they do it cheaper than the supply authority ?
or are there peak or excessive business tariffs there ?

I have no idea about the tariffs. They made a big thing about how
environmentally friendly it was but I assume they would not have done
it if it was not going to make some sort of economic sense.

It is in Mount street, North Sydney. I call it the "Special K"
building because when viewed from a distance from one side it shows an
enormous "K" shape, but it is really called Ark.

"The building's primary source of power is an on-site trigeneration
plant that uses gas turbines to provide energy for electricity and
heating/cooling for the base building. Trigeneration reduces carbon
dioxide emissions by producing heat, cooling and power simultaneously
from a single energy source. Ark is among the first buildings ever to
be equipped with a trigeneration system."

(From
http://www.thiess.com.au/tms/groups/public/documents/publication/027015.pdf
- Thiess were the guys that built it.)

Andy Wood
woodag@trap.ozemail.com.au

That's a very interesting building. I had no idea what cogeneration was.
This is more or less where my "invention" was heading in my head.

The electricity factories burn coal, and are probably around 50% efficient
at best (I bet its more like 40). The waste heat is dumped into lakes and
ponds. Google Hazelwood pondage in Melbourne, I waterski there during
winter! The lake is heated by the adjacent power factory, and is too hot to
use in summer.

So when we heat our houses with electricity, after conversion from coal,
then transmission losses, we are probably only using 20% of the original
energy found in the original coal. In many ways we are much less efficient
at heating our houses than the poorest houses in China, where they use coal
directly in the home. That's a pretty sad fact.

The issue of noise and pollution is nothing. My math shows that a single V6
engine is enough for a group of 10 to 20 houses. A suitably built and
suitably placed generator will be less noisy than passing cars on the roads
outside. Cars are very quiet these days. All I hear from the road outside is
tyre and wind noise, I only hear engine noise from older cars.

 

[philx1]

Hey Mr Mac,

OK probably not worth the trouble. Never mind, carry on, nothing to see
here.

Thanks for the posting, also the previous 'disclaimer' which was
pretty intuitive as to the resultant replies.

It seems ideas are not worth posting lately as people to to take ideas
out to a back alley
and beat them up

I'd like to suggest that you continue thinking and posting ideas
because at least
some people may be able to offer constructive criticism.

The replies you received could have been a tiny bit more positive I
think...

 

[kreed]

On Apr 4, 6:38 pm, woo...@trap.ozemail.com.au (Andy Wood) wrote:

kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

. . .



There is a building around the corner here which has a gas-fired
tri-generation plant - provides electricity, heating and cooling.

Andy Wood
woo...@trap.ozemail.com.au

How would they do it cheaper than the supply authority ?
or are there peak or excessive business tariffs there ?

I have no idea about the tariffs. They made a big thing about how
environmentally friendly it was but I assume they would not have done
it if it was not going to make some sort of economic sense.

Environmentalism rarely makes economic sense.

It is in Mount street, North Sydney. I call it the "Special K"
building because when viewed from a distance from one side it shows an
enormous "K" shape, but it is really called Ark.

"The building s primary source of power is an on-site trigeneration
plant that uses gas turbines to provide energy for electricity and
heating/cooling for the base building. Trigeneration reduces carbon
dioxide emissions by producing heat, cooling and power simultaneously
from a single energy source. Ark is among the first buildings ever to
be equipped with a trigeneration system."

(Fromhttp://www.thiess.com.au/tms/groups/public/documents/publication/0270...
- Thiess were the guys that built it.)

Andy Wood
woo...@trap.ozemail.com.au

 

[Doug Jewell]

On 3/04/2011 2:30 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"Mr Mac"

Here is an idea,

** Completely nuts.

If you have gas available - then so do all your neighbours.

They will already be using it DIRECTLY it for hot water, cooking and home
heating - which are the 3 major consumers of energy in a home. Only their
fridges, CFL lights and small appliances use electricity - plus air con if
they have any.

Gas homes generally have rather small electric bills.
Last time I was in a house with gas hot water, cooking and

heating, my gas bills every month were the minimum charge,
which was about $60. I used less electricity than the
previous all-electric house, but not $180 less per quarter.
The gas I _actually used_ was far less than the elctricity I
would have used, but the minimum charge was the killer. If
the gas-co only charged for usage, gas would have been far
cheaper, but because of their billing model electricity was
still cheaper. I don't know if all gas suppliers have the
same fucked pricing model, but this was my only choice of
supplier where I was.

BTW:

Gas appliances are rather inefficient as much waste heat energy goes up
flues etc.


.... Phil

--
What is the difference between a duck?

 

[Doug Jewell]

On 2/04/2011 9:46 PM, Mr Mac wrote:

Here is an idea, get a regular (say) Holden V6 engine, convert it to natural
gas, and connect it to a 100KW electricity generator. You should be able to
find something from an army disposal sale. Total cost, say $2000 for the
engine and $3000 for the generator for a total of $5000 plus a bit of elbow
grease.
A couple of thoughts about your idea. Don't want to knock it

totally on the head as it has some merit, but just a few
pluses and minues to consider.

A genny needs a constant speed input, most designs require
3000RPM to deliver 50Hz output. You can of course gear up or
down the engine so the engine doesn't need to operate at
exactly 3000RPM (although gearing will introduce losses),
but unless you have a CVT (ie more losses), the engine will
need to stay at a constant speed. Higher speed = higher
output, but the engine will die faster. Lower speed it will
last longer, but won't have as much power. I'd suggest that
those taxis with 1,000,000km on the clock mostly run at
around the 1500-2000rpm range, where 50-60kW will be all
you'll get out of a holden V6 on petrol, less on gas. To get
the 100kW out of it, you'd need to lift your speed to around
3000rpm, which would shorten life.

Alternatively, given that you'd need to be able to take the
engine offline for servicing, you could have 2 engines but
have them running at eg 2000RPM. Your thermodynamic
efficiency would drop, but at the lower RPM you'd get much
better engine life, and you'd now have some level of
redundancy (albeit only at off-peak loads).

As a plus, by running at a constant speed, you can do things
like altering the camshaft for optimal tuning which will get
a bit more power and efficiency. Startup and warming up are
the worst times for engine wear, so with that reduced the
engine will last longer. So I reckon if you ran at 2000RPM,
with regular maintenance, good quality oils etc, you
probably would get the equivalent of 1,000,000km @ 60km/hr
(16000hrs).

As for overall cost effectiveness, well if you were doing
this on a commune or something where you could keep the
government at bay, then it probably would be viable. As soon
as you start involving regulation, your costs will skyrocket.

Looking at regular electricity, the cost per MWH of coal
generated electricity is around 3c. Some of the 20+c that we
pay retail is used up in distribution costs, but the vast
majority of it is eaten up in bullshit like "green energy
targets", lining the pockets of fatcat retail suppliers, and
buying electricity off the people who got govt subsidised
solar system under the upper-middle class welfare scheme.

Then get all your neighbours (preferably the whole street) to sign up to
your "electricity company" and make money!

Let's do the math to see if it is viable:

According to Origin Energy, gas is 1.1021 cents per Megajoule (in Melbourne
metropolitan area, Australia)


So One Watt (W) is 1 Joule per second, 1W=1J/s. So a kW=1000W=1000J/s. There
are 60*60 seconds in an hour, so a Kilowatt hour is
3600*1000 J=3.6*10^6 J. One mega-joule is 1 million Joules, 1MJ=10^6 J, so 1
kWh=3.6 MJ.

So with gas, 3.6MJ, or 1KWh will cost 3.3 cents.

But 1KWh of electricity from that greedy electricity company costs around
$0.18 to $0.20 so what is your break even point?

Now lets say you sell electricity to your neighbours for 18.3 cents per KWh,
so you are competitive.... your running profit per KWh is 18.3 - 3.3 = 15
cents.

How long will it take to get that $5000 investment back?

Well you will need to sell 5000/0.15 = 33333KWh to break even. Now how much
does the average house use????? That is a big question. My use is around
10KWh per day but the figure seems to vary widely from house to house.

http://www.abcdiamond.com/australia/average-household-electricity-consumption/


Now I will use an average of 10KWh per day per house. Say you have 10 houses
connected to your little scheme, just to keep the numbers round. The 10
houses shouldn't overload the 20KW generator, with 100KW peak capacity, so I
think that is a realistic number anyway.

So at 100KWh generated per day, it will take 333.3 days, or just under a
year, to get your money back.

Will the engine run for a year, non stop? I would say yes. Plenty of taxis
clock up millions of km.... and apparently running an engine on natural gas
is good for it.

From Wikipedia:
Due to the absence of any lead or benzene content in CNG, the lead fouling
of spark plugs is eliminated. CNG-powered vehicles have lower maintenance
costs when compared with other fuel-powered vehicles. CNG fuel systems are
sealed, which prevents any spill or evaporation losses. Another practical
advantage observed is the increased life of lubricating oils, as CNG does
not contaminate and dilute the crankcase oil. CNG mixes easily and evenly in
air being a gaseous fuel. CNG is less likely to auto-ignite on hot surfaces,
since it has a high auto-ignition temperature (540 °C) and a narrow range
(5%-15%) of flammability.[6]

CNG emits significantly less pollutants such as carbon dioxide (CO2),
hydrocarbons (UHC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur
oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM), compared to petrol. For example,
an engine running on petrol for 100 km emits 22,000 grams of CO2, while
covering the same distance on CNG emits only 16,275 grams of CO2. [CNG is
essentially methane, i.e. CH4 with a calorific value of 900 Kj/mol. This
burns with Oxygen to produce 1 mol of CO2 and 2 mol of H2O. By comparison,
petrol can be regarded as essentially Benzene or similar, C6H6 with a
calorific value of about 3,300 Kj/mol and this burns to produce 6 mol of CO2
and 3 mol of H2O. From this it can be seen that per mol of CO2 produced, CNG
releases over 1.6 times as much energy as that released from petrol (or for
the same amount of energy, CNG produces nearly 40% less CO2).] The
corresponding figures are 78 and 25.8 grams respectively, for nitrogen
oxides. Carbon monoxide emissions are reduced even further. Due to lower
carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions, switching to CNG can help
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.[6] The ability of CNG to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions over the entire fuel lifecycle will depend on the
source of the natural gas and the fuel it is replacing. The lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions for CNG compressed from California's pipeline
natural gas is given a value of 67.70 grams of CO2-equivalent per megajoule
(gCO2e/MJ) by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), approximately 28%
lower than the average gasoline fuel in that market (95.86 gCO2e/MJ). CNG
produced from landfill biogas was found by ARB to have the lowest greenhouse
gas emissions of any fuel analyzed, with a value of 11.26 gCO2e/MJ (over 88%
lower than conventional gasoline) in the low-carbon fuel standard that went
into effect on January 12, 2010.[7]



BUT, Back to the story,.... how long will that Holden engine really last?
Hard to say, without actually giving it a go, but let's do some more
educated guesses.

A regular Holden Commodore is pretty shagged with 300 000 km on the
odometer. So lets use that as a base. How many hours of operation would that
be?

Now if we use the engine as a generator, it's fair to say that we are
treating the engine nicely. There are no cold starts, the acceleration is
smooth, there is no stop-start traffic like you have on a real road, so you
could maybe assume that if it was compared to a car driven carefully and
nicely on the road, and you treated it right, it could make the 1 million km
mark without having to be re-built. OK OK, I know what you're thinking,
overly optimistic, let's make it more like 500 000 km. How many ***hours***
of operation is that. Well assuming 60 km per hour average, that's 8333
hours of operation.

Now we broke even after 333 days of operation, which is 7992 hours, so
8333-7992 = 341 glorious hours of selling electricity at 100% profit.

341/24 = 14.2 days, and with 100KWh sold per day, thats 14.2x100x0.183=
$259.86 dollars of cold hard profit, before the engine gets changed over.

OK probably not worth the trouble. Never mind, carry on, nothing to see
here.

--
What is the difference between a duck?

 

[atec77]

On 9/04/2011 9:19 AM, kreed wrote:

On Apr 9, 7:52 am, Doug Jewell<a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote:
On 3/04/2011 2:30 PM, Phil Allison wrote:> "Mr Mac"

Here is an idea,

** Completely nuts.

If you have gas available - then so do all your neighbours.

They will already be using it DIRECTLY it for hot water, cooking and home
heating - which are the 3 major consumers of energy in a home. Only their
fridges, CFL lights and small appliances use electricity - plus air con if
they have any.

Gas homes generally have rather small electric bills.

Last time I was in a house with gas hot water, cooking and
heating, my gas bills every month were the minimum charge,
which was about $60. I used less electricity than the
previous all-electric house, but not $180 less per quarter.
The gas I _actually used_ was far less than the elctricity I
would have used, but the minimum charge was the killer. If
the gas-co only charged for usage, gas would have been far
cheaper, but because of their billing model electricity was
still cheaper. I don't know if all gas suppliers have the
same fucked pricing model, but this was my only choice of
supplier where I was.



BTW:

Gas appliances are rather inefficient as much waste heat energy goes up
flues etc.

.... Phil

--
What is the difference between a duck?


In that case, running a gas powered generator (at least up to the
minimum monthly charge for gas supply) to generate electricity may be
viable. (if it is worth the hassle) One of those small and quiet
yamaha / honda inverter units might be the go.
A small turbine genny set is viable and atm actually affordable

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[kreed]

On Apr 9, 7:52 am, Doug Jewell <a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote:

On 3/04/2011 2:30 PM, Phil Allison wrote:> "Mr Mac"

Here is an idea,

** Completely nuts.

If you have gas available  -  then so do all your neighbours.

They will already be using it DIRECTLY it for hot water, cooking and home
heating  - which are the 3 major consumers of energy in a home.  Only their
fridges, CFL lights and small appliances use electricity -  plus air con if
they have any.

Gas homes generally have rather small electric bills.

Last time I was in a house with gas hot water, cooking and
heating, my gas bills every month were the minimum charge,
which was about $60. I used less electricity than the
previous all-electric house, but not $180 less per quarter.
The gas I _actually used_ was far less than the elctricity I
would have used, but the minimum charge was the killer. If
the gas-co only charged for usage, gas would have been far
cheaper, but because of their billing model electricity was
still cheaper. I don't know if all gas suppliers have the
same fucked pricing model, but this was my only choice of
supplier where I was.



BTW:

Gas appliances are rather inefficient as much waste heat energy goes up
flues etc.

....  Phil

--
What is the difference between a duck?

In that case, running a gas powered generator (at least up to the
minimum monthly charge for gas supply) to generate electricity may be
viable. (if it is worth the hassle) One of those small and quiet
yamaha / honda inverter units might be the go.

 

[Mr Mac]

"atec77" <atec77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ino7ht$rqt$1@dont-email.me...

On 9/04/2011 9:19 AM, kreed wrote:
On Apr 9, 7:52 am, Doug Jewell<a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote:
On 3/04/2011 2:30 PM, Phil Allison wrote:> "Mr Mac"

Here is an idea,

** Completely nuts.

If you have gas available - then so do all your neighbours.

They will already be using it DIRECTLY it for hot water, cooking and
home
heating - which are the 3 major consumers of energy in a home. Only
their
fridges, CFL lights and small appliances use electricity - plus air
con if
they have any.

Gas homes generally have rather small electric bills.

Last time I was in a house with gas hot water, cooking and
heating, my gas bills every month were the minimum charge,
which was about $60. I used less electricity than the
previous all-electric house, but not $180 less per quarter.
The gas I _actually used_ was far less than the elctricity I
would have used, but the minimum charge was the killer. If
the gas-co only charged for usage, gas would have been far
cheaper, but because of their billing model electricity was
still cheaper. I don't know if all gas suppliers have the
same fucked pricing model, but this was my only choice of
supplier where I was.



BTW:

Gas appliances are rather inefficient as much waste heat energy goes up
flues etc.

.... Phil

--
What is the difference between a duck?


In that case, running a gas powered generator (at least up to the
minimum monthly charge for gas supply) to generate electricity may be
viable. (if it is worth the hassle) One of those small and quiet
yamaha / honda inverter units might be the go.
A small turbine genny set is viable and atm actually affordable

Where did you find a turbine genny that was affordable?

 

[atec77]

On 10/04/2011 7:50 AM, Mr Mac wrote:

"atec77"<atec77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ino7ht$rqt$1@dont-email.me...
On 9/04/2011 9:19 AM, kreed wrote:
On Apr 9, 7:52 am, Doug Jewell<a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote:
On 3/04/2011 2:30 PM, Phil Allison wrote:> "Mr Mac"

Here is an idea,

** Completely nuts.

If you have gas available - then so do all your neighbours.

They will already be using it DIRECTLY it for hot water, cooking and
home
heating - which are the 3 major consumers of energy in a home. Only
their
fridges, CFL lights and small appliances use electricity - plus air
con if
they have any.

Gas homes generally have rather small electric bills.

Last time I was in a house with gas hot water, cooking and
heating, my gas bills every month were the minimum charge,
which was about $60. I used less electricity than the
previous all-electric house, but not $180 less per quarter.
The gas I _actually used_ was far less than the elctricity I
would have used, but the minimum charge was the killer. If
the gas-co only charged for usage, gas would have been far
cheaper, but because of their billing model electricity was
still cheaper. I don't know if all gas suppliers have the
same fucked pricing model, but this was my only choice of
supplier where I was.



BTW:

Gas appliances are rather inefficient as much waste heat energy goes up
flues etc.

.... Phil

--
What is the difference between a duck?


In that case, running a gas powered generator (at least up to the
minimum monthly charge for gas supply) to generate electricity may be
viable. (if it is worth the hassle) One of those small and quiet
yamaha / honda inverter units might be the go.
A small turbine genny set is viable and atm actually affordable

Where did you find a turbine genny that was affordable?


China of course , you don't get those emails I think

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[no one]

$ 2000 for holden v6 ?? u gotta be kidding , !!! you can get a whole vn
v6 auto complete / defected maybe/rough for $800 or under !!!



"Mr Mac" <sadfs@apsafdas.com.au> wrote in message
news:4d970c80$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

Here is an idea, get a regular (say) Holden V6 engine, convert it to
natural gas, and connect it to a 100KW electricity generator. You should
be able to find something from an army disposal sale. Total cost, say
$2000 for the engine and $3000 for the generator for a total of $5000 plus
a bit of elbow grease.
Make sure the genny can supply a peak of 100KW, but typically put out say
20KW of constant reliable power.

Then get all your neighbours (preferably the whole street) to sign up to
your "electricity company" and make money!

Let's do the math to see if it is viable:

According to Origin Energy, gas is 1.1021 cents per Megajoule (in
Melbourne metropolitan area, Australia)


So One Watt (W) is 1 Joule per second, 1W=1J/s. So a kW=1000W=1000J/s.
There are 60*60 seconds in an hour, so a Kilowatt hour is
3600*1000 J=3.6*10^6 J. One mega-joule is 1 million Joules, 1MJ=10^6 J, so
1 kWh=3.6 MJ.

So with gas, 3.6MJ, or 1KWh will cost 3.3 cents.

But 1KWh of electricity from that greedy electricity company costs around
$0.18 to $0.20 so what is your break even point?

Now lets say you sell electricity to your neighbours for 18.3 cents per
KWh, so you are competitive.... your running profit per KWh is 18.3 - 3.3
= 15 cents.

How long will it take to get that $5000 investment back?

Well you will need to sell 5000/0.15 = 33333KWh to break even. Now how
much does the average house use????? That is a big question. My use is
around 10KWh per day but the figure seems to vary widely from house to
house.

http://www.abcdiamond.com/australia/average-household-electricity-consumption/


Now I will use an average of 10KWh per day per house. Say you have 10
houses connected to your little scheme, just to keep the numbers round.
The 10 houses shouldn't overload the 20KW generator, with 100KW peak
capacity, so I think that is a realistic number anyway.

So at 100KWh generated per day, it will take 333.3 days, or just under a
year, to get your money back.

Will the engine run for a year, non stop? I would say yes. Plenty of taxis
clock up millions of km.... and apparently running an engine on natural
gas is good for it.

From Wikipedia:
Due to the absence of any lead or benzene content in CNG, the lead fouling
of spark plugs is eliminated. CNG-powered vehicles have lower maintenance
costs when compared with other fuel-powered vehicles. CNG fuel systems are
sealed, which prevents any spill or evaporation losses. Another practical
advantage observed is the increased life of lubricating oils, as CNG does
not contaminate and dilute the crankcase oil. CNG mixes easily and evenly
in air being a gaseous fuel. CNG is less likely to auto-ignite on hot
surfaces, since it has a high auto-ignition temperature (540 °C) and a
narrow range (5%-15%) of flammability.[6]

CNG emits significantly less pollutants such as carbon dioxide (CO2),
hydrocarbons (UHC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur
oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM), compared to petrol. For example,
an engine running on petrol for 100 km emits 22,000 grams of CO2, while
covering the same distance on CNG emits only 16,275 grams of CO2. [CNG is
essentially methane, i.e. CH4 with a calorific value of 900 Kj/mol. This
burns with Oxygen to produce 1 mol of CO2 and 2 mol of H2O. By comparison,
petrol can be regarded as essentially Benzene or similar, C6H6 with a
calorific value of about 3,300 Kj/mol and this burns to produce 6 mol of
CO2 and 3 mol of H2O. From this it can be seen that per mol of CO2
produced, CNG releases over 1.6 times as much energy as that released from
petrol (or for the same amount of energy, CNG produces nearly 40% less
CO2).] The corresponding figures are 78 and 25.8 grams respectively, for
nitrogen oxides. Carbon monoxide emissions are reduced even further. Due
to lower carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions, switching to CNG
can help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.[6] The ability of CNG to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the entire fuel lifecycle will depend
on the source of the natural gas and the fuel it is replacing. The
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for CNG compressed from California's
pipeline natural gas is given a value of 67.70 grams of CO2-equivalent per
megajoule (gCO2e/MJ) by the California Air Resources Board (ARB),
approximately 28% lower than the average gasoline fuel in that market
(95.86 gCO2e/MJ). CNG produced from landfill biogas was found by ARB to
have the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any fuel analyzed, with a
value of 11.26 gCO2e/MJ (over 88% lower than conventional gasoline) in the
low-carbon fuel standard that went into effect on January 12, 2010.[7]



BUT, Back to the story,.... how long will that Holden engine really last?
Hard to say, without actually giving it a go, but let's do some more
educated guesses.

A regular Holden Commodore is pretty shagged with 300 000 km on the
odometer. So lets use that as a base. How many hours of operation would
that be?

Now if we use the engine as a generator, it's fair to say that we are
treating the engine nicely. There are no cold starts, the acceleration is
smooth, there is no stop-start traffic like you have on a real road, so
you could maybe assume that if it was compared to a car driven carefully
and nicely on the road, and you treated it right, it could make the 1
million km mark without having to be re-built. OK OK, I know what you're
thinking, overly optimistic, let's make it more like 500 000 km. How many
***hours*** of operation is that. Well assuming 60 km per hour average,
that's 8333 hours of operation.

Now we broke even after 333 days of operation, which is 7992 hours, so
8333-7992 = 341 glorious hours of selling electricity at 100% profit.

341/24 = 14.2 days, and with 100KWh sold per day, thats 14.2x100x0.183=
$259.86 dollars of cold hard profit, before the engine gets changed over.

OK probably not worth the trouble. Never mind, carry on, nothing to see
here.

 

[no one]

dont forget the v6 isnt pulling over a ton of steel , its just turning a
generator, ALOT less load SO SHOULD GET PRETTY good economy.

\

"Mr Mac" <sadfs@apsafdas.com.au> wrote in message
news:4d970c80$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

Here is an idea, get a regular (say) Holden V6 engine, convert it to
natural gas, and connect it to a 100KW electricity generator. You should
be able to find something from an army disposal sale. Total cost, say
$2000 for the engine and $3000 for the generator for a total of $5000 plus
a bit of elbow grease.
Make sure the genny can supply a peak of 100KW, but typically put out say
20KW of constant reliable power.

Then get all your neighbours (preferably the whole street) to sign up to
your "electricity company" and make money!

Let's do the math to see if it is viable:

According to Origin Energy, gas is 1.1021 cents per Megajoule (in
Melbourne metropolitan area, Australia)


So One Watt (W) is 1 Joule per second, 1W=1J/s. So a kW=1000W=1000J/s.
There are 60*60 seconds in an hour, so a Kilowatt hour is
3600*1000 J=3.6*10^6 J. One mega-joule is 1 million Joules, 1MJ=10^6 J, so
1 kWh=3.6 MJ.

So with gas, 3.6MJ, or 1KWh will cost 3.3 cents.

But 1KWh of electricity from that greedy electricity company costs around
$0.18 to $0.20 so what is your break even point?

Now lets say you sell electricity to your neighbours for 18.3 cents per
KWh, so you are competitive.... your running profit per KWh is 18.3 - 3.3
= 15 cents.

How long will it take to get that $5000 investment back?

Well you will need to sell 5000/0.15 = 33333KWh to break even. Now how
much does the average house use????? That is a big question. My use is
around 10KWh per day but the figure seems to vary widely from house to
house.

http://www.abcdiamond.com/australia/average-household-electricity-consumption/


Now I will use an average of 10KWh per day per house. Say you have 10
houses connected to your little scheme, just to keep the numbers round.
The 10 houses shouldn't overload the 20KW generator, with 100KW peak
capacity, so I think that is a realistic number anyway.

So at 100KWh generated per day, it will take 333.3 days, or just under a
year, to get your money back.

Will the engine run for a year, non stop? I would say yes. Plenty of taxis
clock up millions of km.... and apparently running an engine on natural
gas is good for it.

From Wikipedia:
Due to the absence of any lead or benzene content in CNG, the lead fouling
of spark plugs is eliminated. CNG-powered vehicles have lower maintenance
costs when compared with other fuel-powered vehicles. CNG fuel systems are
sealed, which prevents any spill or evaporation losses. Another practical
advantage observed is the increased life of lubricating oils, as CNG does
not contaminate and dilute the crankcase oil. CNG mixes easily and evenly
in air being a gaseous fuel. CNG is less likely to auto-ignite on hot
surfaces, since it has a high auto-ignition temperature (540 °C) and a
narrow range (5%-15%) of flammability.[6]

CNG emits significantly less pollutants such as carbon dioxide (CO2),
hydrocarbons (UHC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur
oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM), compared to petrol. For example,
an engine running on petrol for 100 km emits 22,000 grams of CO2, while
covering the same distance on CNG emits only 16,275 grams of CO2. [CNG is
essentially methane, i.e. CH4 with a calorific value of 900 Kj/mol. This
burns with Oxygen to produce 1 mol of CO2 and 2 mol of H2O. By comparison,
petrol can be regarded as essentially Benzene or similar, C6H6 with a
calorific value of about 3,300 Kj/mol and this burns to produce 6 mol of
CO2 and 3 mol of H2O. From this it can be seen that per mol of CO2
produced, CNG releases over 1.6 times as much energy as that released from
petrol (or for the same amount of energy, CNG produces nearly 40% less
CO2).] The corresponding figures are 78 and 25.8 grams respectively, for
nitrogen oxides. Carbon monoxide emissions are reduced even further. Due
to lower carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions, switching to CNG
can help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.[6] The ability of CNG to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the entire fuel lifecycle will depend
on the source of the natural gas and the fuel it is replacing. The
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for CNG compressed from California's
pipeline natural gas is given a value of 67.70 grams of CO2-equivalent per
megajoule (gCO2e/MJ) by the California Air Resources Board (ARB),
approximately 28% lower than the average gasoline fuel in that market
(95.86 gCO2e/MJ). CNG produced from landfill biogas was found by ARB to
have the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any fuel analyzed, with a
value of 11.26 gCO2e/MJ (over 88% lower than conventional gasoline) in the
low-carbon fuel standard that went into effect on January 12, 2010.[7]



BUT, Back to the story,.... how long will that Holden engine really last?
Hard to say, without actually giving it a go, but let's do some more
educated guesses.

A regular Holden Commodore is pretty shagged with 300 000 km on the
odometer. So lets use that as a base. How many hours of operation would
that be?

Now if we use the engine as a generator, it's fair to say that we are
treating the engine nicely. There are no cold starts, the acceleration is
smooth, there is no stop-start traffic like you have on a real road, so
you could maybe assume that if it was compared to a car driven carefully
and nicely on the road, and you treated it right, it could make the 1
million km mark without having to be re-built. OK OK, I know what you're
thinking, overly optimistic, let's make it more like 500 000 km. How many
***hours*** of operation is that. Well assuming 60 km per hour average,
that's 8333 hours of operation.

Now we broke even after 333 days of operation, which is 7992 hours, so
8333-7992 = 341 glorious hours of selling electricity at 100% profit.

341/24 = 14.2 days, and with 100KWh sold per day, thats 14.2x100x0.183=
$259.86 dollars of cold hard profit, before the engine gets changed over.

OK probably not worth the trouble. Never mind, carry on, nothing to see
here.

 

[no one]

well , the noise from a v6 is a damn lot quieter than a rattly diesel. park
a v6 commodore next to ANY diesel , and tell me which one is louder...

diesel is



"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5bbd1dfc-9638-4aef-a577-86c1ccdf58b7@a19g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 2, 10:06 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 2/04/2011 10:46 PM, Mr Mac wrote:

Then get all your neighbours (preferably the whole street) to sign up to
your "electricity company" and make money!

Whose wiring were you proposing to use to do this?



Let's do the math to see if it is viable:

According to Origin Energy, gas is 1.1021 cents per Megajoule (in
Melbourne
metropolitan area, Australia)

So One Watt (W) is 1 Joule per second, 1W=1J/s. So a kW=1000W=1000J/s.
There
are 60*60 seconds in an hour, so a Kilowatt hour is
3600*1000 J=3.6*10^6 J. One mega-joule is 1 million Joules, 1MJ=10^6 J,
so 1
kWh=3.6 MJ.

So with gas, 3.6MJ, or 1KWh will cost 3.3 cents.

No it won't. You're running a heat engine. You cannot extract all the
energy from the gas. With your converted petrol engine, you cannot even
extract most of it. See

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

Imagine the noise with that running 24/7.


There are plenty of large KWH capacity diesel generator sets around,
(probably based on truck engines) that would be designed and built
precisely for this purpose
therefore much more efficient at doing this job, and designed to last
long under these conditions.


Finally, you would need to have 2 of them, or ability to switch back
over to
grid power, for when you have to do servicing, oil changes, spark
plugs and so on.


Unless you have the grid as backup a second unit would be needed as
backup in case of failure also.


You would be better off switching your stove, hot water system and
home heating (if any) over to gas
then you would achieve much closer to the levels of efficiency that
you claim that gas can deliver than
running these as electrical appliances via a gas powered generator. -
assuming you can get a supply of gas at the prices quoted.



I think Sylvia should know a bit about generators and running costs
lately, having become the recent proud owner of one.

 

[no one]

dont forget the load turning a generator is minimal compared to
lugging aroundover a ton of steel .



"Mr Mac" <sadfs@apsafdas.com.au> wrote in message
news:4d97c2d2$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:in87lf$8u0$2@dont-email.me...
Mr Mac wrote:

Let's do the math to see if it is viable:

According to Origin Energy, gas is 1.1021 cents per Megajoule (in
Melbourne metropolitan area, Australia)


So One Watt (W) is 1 Joule per second, 1W=1J/s. So a kW=1000W=1000J/s.
There are 60*60 seconds in an hour, so a Kilowatt hour is
3600*1000 J=3.6*10^6 J. One mega-joule is 1 million Joules, 1MJ=10^6 J,
so 1 kWh=3.6 MJ.

Now apply 5% efficency of conversion and see what you get.

Hint, go read the wikipedia article on the solar panel, especially the
bits on price parity.


5% sounds a bit low.

The Holden Omega V6 engine uses 10.9 litres per 100km, and is rated at
190KW at 6700RPM. I'll assume that it needs 20KW to cruise at 100km/h. (if
you have some real data, I would love to see it)

What is the real efficiency:

Well petrol has an energy of 32MJ per litre which is 8.89KWh per litre.
Multiplied by 10.9 (litres in one hour of the engine outputting 20KW)
gives 96.89KWh

So we burn close to 100KWh of petrol to get 20KWh of real work..... or
around 20% efficient.

So yes, not very good figures. But heat is the biggest by-product. If we
can use the heat to warm up our houses, and swimming pools, and hot water
systems, we can internalise most of the losses.

Say you have a group of 10 to 20 apartments in a cold climate, where the
heat is not wasted, but put to good use. It's conceivable that you will
get close to the system working out.

 

[no one]

"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:53f3b8fd-a115-4ad6-a0ef-1fe16a15eba8@a19g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 3, 10:44 am, "Mr Mac" <sa...@apsafdas.com.au> wrote:

"terryc" <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote in message

news:in87lf$8u0$2@dont-email.me...



Mr Mac wrote:

Let's do the math to see if it is viable:

According to Origin Energy, gas is 1.1021 cents per Megajoule (in
Melbourne metropolitan area, Australia)

So One Watt (W) is 1 Joule per second, 1W=1J/s. So a kW=1000W=1000J/s.
There are 60*60 seconds in an hour, so a Kilowatt hour is
3600*1000 J=3.6*10^6 J. One mega-joule is 1 million Joules, 1MJ=10^6 J,
so 1 kWh=3.6 MJ.

Now apply 5% efficency of conversion and see what you get.

Hint, go read the wikipedia article on the solar panel, especially the
bits on price parity.

5% sounds a bit low.

The Holden Omega V6 engine uses 10.9 litres per 100km, and is rated at
190KW
at 6700RPM. I'll assume that it needs 20KW to cruise at 100km/h. (if you
have some real data, I would love to see it)

What is the real efficiency:

Well petrol has an energy of 32MJ per litre which is 8.89KWh per litre.
Multiplied by 10.9 (litres in one hour of the engine outputting 20KW)
gives
96.89KWh

So we burn close to 100KWh of petrol to get 20KWh of real work..... or
around 20% efficient.

So yes, not very good figures. But heat is the biggest by-product. If we
can
use the heat to warm up our houses, and swimming pools, and hot water
systems, we can internalise most of the losses.

A lot of the heat is lost out of the exhaust pipe, you would have fun
collecting it.

Say you have a group of 10 to 20 apartments in a cold climate, where the
heat is not wasted, but put to good use. It's conceivable that you will
get
close to the system working out.

You could put the engine in the basement, and run the exhaust up
through each floor, with it running through
radiators in each apartment on the way .

God help you if it leaked Carbon monoxide and killed someone.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no differant that having natural gas coming into your home

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soviet apartments had arrangement like this, it even looked like a
giant exhaust system in some
units. (really excellent for drying out towels etc though)

They didn't use exhaust fumes though, steam was pumped around town
from suburban "heating stations". I don't know
what energy source ran these but it was probably one of the most
inefficient ideas ever thought up.
(hence the manholes seen often with steam escaping) That's socialism
for you.

 

[no one]

why is every one so worried about a v6 engine lasting ? NO ONE seems to
be worried about portable generators lasting and no one is worried about
power stations lasting.



"Doug Jewell" <ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in message
news:_7OdnYIBjK69EwLQnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

On 2/04/2011 9:46 PM, Mr Mac wrote:
Here is an idea, get a regular (say) Holden V6 engine, convert it to
natural
gas, and connect it to a 100KW electricity generator. You should be able
to
find something from an army disposal sale. Total cost, say $2000 for the
engine and $3000 for the generator for a total of $5000 plus a bit of
elbow
grease.
A couple of thoughts about your idea. Don't want to knock it totally on
the head as it has some merit, but just a few pluses and minues to
consider.

A genny needs a constant speed input, most designs require 3000RPM to
deliver 50Hz output. You can of course gear up or down the engine so the
engine doesn't need to operate at exactly 3000RPM (although gearing will
introduce losses), but unless you have a CVT (ie more losses), the engine
will need to stay at a constant speed. Higher speed = higher output, but
the engine will die faster. Lower speed it will last longer, but won't
have as much power. I'd suggest that those taxis with 1,000,000km on the
clock mostly run at around the 1500-2000rpm range, where 50-60kW will be
all you'll get out of a holden V6 on petrol, less on gas. To get the 100kW
out of it, you'd need to lift your speed to around 3000rpm, which would
shorten life.

Alternatively, given that you'd need to be able to take the engine offline
for servicing, you could have 2 engines but have them running at eg
2000RPM. Your thermodynamic efficiency would drop, but at the lower RPM
you'd get much better engine life, and you'd now have some level of
redundancy (albeit only at off-peak loads).

As a plus, by running at a constant speed, you can do things like altering
the camshaft for optimal tuning which will get a bit more power and
efficiency. Startup and warming up are the worst times for engine wear, so
with that reduced the engine will last longer. So I reckon if you ran at
2000RPM, with regular maintenance, good quality oils etc, you probably
would get the equivalent of 1,000,000km @ 60km/hr (16000hrs).

As for overall cost effectiveness, well if you were doing this on a
commune or something where you could keep the government at bay, then it
probably would be viable. As soon as you start involving regulation, your
costs will skyrocket.

Looking at regular electricity, the cost per MWH of coal generated
electricity is around 3c. Some of the 20+c that we pay retail is used up
in distribution costs, but the vast majority of it is eaten up in bullshit
like "green energy targets", lining the pockets of fatcat retail
suppliers, and buying electricity off the people who got govt subsidised
solar system under the upper-middle class welfare scheme.




Then get all your neighbours (preferably the whole street) to sign up to
your "electricity company" and make money!

Let's do the math to see if it is viable:

According to Origin Energy, gas is 1.1021 cents per Megajoule (in
Melbourne
metropolitan area, Australia)


So One Watt (W) is 1 Joule per second, 1W=1J/s. So a kW=1000W=1000J/s.
There
are 60*60 seconds in an hour, so a Kilowatt hour is
3600*1000 J=3.6*10^6 J. One mega-joule is 1 million Joules, 1MJ=10^6 J,
so 1
kWh=3.6 MJ.

So with gas, 3.6MJ, or 1KWh will cost 3.3 cents.

But 1KWh of electricity from that greedy electricity company costs around
$0.18 to $0.20 so what is your break even point?

Now lets say you sell electricity to your neighbours for 18.3 cents per
KWh,
so you are competitive.... your running profit per KWh is 18.3 - 3.3 = 15
cents.

How long will it take to get that $5000 investment back?

Well you will need to sell 5000/0.15 = 33333KWh to break even. Now how
much
does the average house use????? That is a big question. My use is around
10KWh per day but the figure seems to vary widely from house to house.

http://www.abcdiamond.com/australia/average-household-electricity-consumption/


Now I will use an average of 10KWh per day per house. Say you have 10
houses
connected to your little scheme, just to keep the numbers round. The 10
houses shouldn't overload the 20KW generator, with 100KW peak capacity,
so I
think that is a realistic number anyway.

So at 100KWh generated per day, it will take 333.3 days, or just under a
year, to get your money back.

Will the engine run for a year, non stop? I would say yes. Plenty of
taxis
clock up millions of km.... and apparently running an engine on natural
gas
is good for it.

From Wikipedia:
Due to the absence of any lead or benzene content in CNG, the lead
fouling
of spark plugs is eliminated. CNG-powered vehicles have lower maintenance
costs when compared with other fuel-powered vehicles. CNG fuel systems
are
sealed, which prevents any spill or evaporation losses. Another practical
advantage observed is the increased life of lubricating oils, as CNG does
not contaminate and dilute the crankcase oil. CNG mixes easily and evenly
in
air being a gaseous fuel. CNG is less likely to auto-ignite on hot
surfaces,
since it has a high auto-ignition temperature (540 °C) and a narrow range
(5%-15%) of flammability.[6]

CNG emits significantly less pollutants such as carbon dioxide (CO2),
hydrocarbons (UHC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur
oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM), compared to petrol. For
example,
an engine running on petrol for 100 km emits 22,000 grams of CO2, while
covering the same distance on CNG emits only 16,275 grams of CO2. [CNG is
essentially methane, i.e. CH4 with a calorific value of 900 Kj/mol. This
burns with Oxygen to produce 1 mol of CO2 and 2 mol of H2O. By
comparison,
petrol can be regarded as essentially Benzene or similar, C6H6 with a
calorific value of about 3,300 Kj/mol and this burns to produce 6 mol of
CO2
and 3 mol of H2O. From this it can be seen that per mol of CO2 produced,
CNG
releases over 1.6 times as much energy as that released from petrol (or
for
the same amount of energy, CNG produces nearly 40% less CO2).] The
corresponding figures are 78 and 25.8 grams respectively, for nitrogen
oxides. Carbon monoxide emissions are reduced even further. Due to lower
carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions, switching to CNG can help
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.[6] The ability of CNG to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions over the entire fuel lifecycle will depend on
the
source of the natural gas and the fuel it is replacing. The lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions for CNG compressed from California's pipeline
natural gas is given a value of 67.70 grams of CO2-equivalent per
megajoule
(gCO2e/MJ) by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), approximately 28%
lower than the average gasoline fuel in that market (95.86 gCO2e/MJ). CNG
produced from landfill biogas was found by ARB to have the lowest
greenhouse
gas emissions of any fuel analyzed, with a value of 11.26 gCO2e/MJ (over
88%
lower than conventional gasoline) in the low-carbon fuel standard that
went
into effect on January 12, 2010.[7]



BUT, Back to the story,.... how long will that Holden engine really last?
Hard to say, without actually giving it a go, but let's do some more
educated guesses.

A regular Holden Commodore is pretty shagged with 300 000 km on the
odometer. So lets use that as a base. How many hours of operation would
that
be?

Now if we use the engine as a generator, it's fair to say that we are
treating the engine nicely. There are no cold starts, the acceleration is
smooth, there is no stop-start traffic like you have on a real road, so
you
could maybe assume that if it was compared to a car driven carefully and
nicely on the road, and you treated it right, it could make the 1 million
km
mark without having to be re-built. OK OK, I know what you're thinking,
overly optimistic, let's make it more like 500 000 km. How many
***hours***
of operation is that. Well assuming 60 km per hour average, that's 8333
hours of operation.

Now we broke even after 333 days of operation, which is 7992 hours, so
8333-7992 = 341 glorious hours of selling electricity at 100% profit.

341/24 = 14.2 days, and with 100KWh sold per day, thats 14.2x100x0.183=
$259.86 dollars of cold hard profit, before the engine gets changed over.

OK probably not worth the trouble. Never mind, carry on, nothing to see
here.










--
What is the difference between a duck?

 

[terryc]

no one wrote:

dont forget the load turning a generator is minimal compared to
lugging aroundover a ton of steel .

Then you are just idling the engine. Ideally you set the engine revs at
the maximum efficency, then gear the generator to run at the required
cycles, also chosing the right size (power) generator. We are not
talking about sing the car alternator here.

 

[Grant]

On Mon, 16 May 2011 23:21:55 +1000, terryc <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

no one wrote:
dont forget the load turning a generator is minimal compared to
lugging aroundover a ton of steel .

Then you are just idling the engine. Ideally you set the engine revs at
the maximum efficency, then gear the generator to run at the required
cycles, also chosing the right size (power) generator. We are not
talking about sing the car alternator here.

Has anyone considering this done the math on cost of gas through the
25% efficiency of the motor and compared that to electricity charges?

If you could a) suck enough gas to run a motor, b) easily generate own
power, c) make an ROI, don't you think Honda and other generator makers
would be tapping this market to sell generator sets running off gas?

Do you recall any motors running off propane bottles? Where they're
used? Why?

Grant.

 

[terryc]

Grant wrote:

If you could a) suck enough gas to run a motor, b) easily generate own
power, c) make an ROI, don't you think Honda and other generator makers
would be tapping this market to sell generator sets running off gas?

Large scale, plenty of underground coal mines look at it and quite a few
have high enough gas concentrations in their exhaust vents to do so.
A few rubbish pits have now also been tapped for gas powered generation.

Do you recall any motors running off propane bottles? Where they're
used? Why?

At one stage, it home-bloke wanted to used LPG, you purchased a petrol
powered generator and had it converted to lpg. It cost about $400

Now, you can buy a range of lpg powered generators. Do a web search.

Why? Petrol is explosive, hard to store, convenience, etc.

Note, i'm not the person promoting the enginer conversion.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2011-05-16, Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 23:21:55 +1000, terryc <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

no one wrote:
dont forget the load turning a generator is minimal compared to
lugging aroundover a ton of steel .

Then you are just idling the engine. Ideally you set the engine revs at
the maximum efficency, then gear the generator to run at the required
cycles, also chosing the right size (power) generator. We are not
talking about sing the car alternator here.

Has anyone considering this done the math on cost of gas through the
25% efficiency of the motor and compared that to electricity charges?

If you could a) suck enough gas to run a motor, b) easily generate own
power, c) make an ROI, don't you think Honda and other generator makers
would be tapping this market to sell generator sets running off gas?

Do you recall any motors running off propane bottles?

yes.

Where they're used?

a: standby generators, other standby uses
b: some forklifts

Why?

a: the shelf-life of petrol is a few months unless kept in a sealed container.
b: not sure, perhaps it's cheaper?

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---