Author Topic: mitigating exhaust and epa concerns  (Read 18613 times)

rmchambers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
    • View Profile
Re: mitigating exhaust and epa concerns
« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2007, 04:08:36 AM »
Just wash your hands after shaking his.

Doug

  • Guest
Re: mitigating exhaust and epa concerns
« Reply #31 on: January 15, 2007, 03:10:28 PM »
True enough ha!

But seriously, this old guy in California built a trash can gassifier designed by Harry Delefontian ( probably mesed the name ) for FEMA. Its a simple crude gassifier that has some issues like high tar and dust load.

His Idea was to use the microbes in the poop and straw along with water misting system to clean the producer gas and help break down many of the undesirable rpoducts.

Clever as hell actualy, I've never heard of any other attempt made to clean a gas with bugs.....

Doug

rpg52

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
    • View Profile
Re: mitigating exhaust and epa concerns
« Reply #32 on: January 15, 2007, 11:29:51 PM »
Mobile_bob,
What I tried to say, (likely poorly) is that you don't need any special plants, grow what ever you like (flowers are fine, trees are much better at carbon storage). If you feed and water the soil bacteria, fungi, etc. they will pretty much eat what ever you throw at them. 

 Here is another interesting example, a guy who is really into growing mushrooms did a comparison test with his mushrooms against special bio-engineered bacteria at cleaning up diesel soaked soil for the Washington State DOT.  He innoculated his pile of dirt with his mushrooms, the other guys poured their special bacteria on their piles.  After 6 months, his soil showed no detectable hydrocarbons, plus there were lots of edible mushrooms.  The other piles were better but not as good as his.  Last I heard, he was still waiting for some kind of certification for his mushroom spawn.  Government entities don't really know what to do with this kind of test.  It works, but if it can't be patented, there really isn't much commercial interest.  Not to say that you can't do it yourself, just no incentive for a company to take responsibility for it.  I wouldn't tell epa about it though, but it would be great if someone documented what it could do.  Go for it!
Ray
PS Listeroid 6/1, 5 kW ST, Detroit Diesel 3-71, Belsaw sawmill, 12 kW ST head, '71 GMC 3/4 T, '79 GMC 1T, '59 IH T-340

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2787
    • View Profile
Re: mitigating exhaust and epa concerns
« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2007, 02:41:34 AM »
rpg52:

most interesting indeed :)

this certainly brings back options at a time when the government seems intent on removing options.

this adds another piece to the puzzle indeed

thanks for the info, mushrooms? hmmmm neat!
tree's,, ornamentals, that would lock up carbon for a very long time, and if you were burning vegie oil you could make a case for a
truely carbon neutral system.
and if there are other  microbes that have an appetite for the other byproducts, then you have a relatively clean system.
might be hard to prove out, but certainly hard to prove it isn't working

the bottom line is you have a system that is very low noise, no smoke, and probably nearly indetectable in other gasses that are emitted.

i like it!

dig a bunker into the side of my hill, set up the generation room (research facility) underground and all the waste products are managed onsite.
it is doubtful anyone would have a clue what was happening.
dovetail that with the rest of the plan and i think i can cover the EPA problem quite handlily.

interesting indeed

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

hotater

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1557
    • View Profile
Re: mitigating exhaust and epa concerns
« Reply #34 on: January 16, 2007, 02:51:34 AM »
Quote
dig a bunker into the side of my hill, set up the generation room (research facility) underground and all the waste products are managed onsite.
it is doubtful anyone would have a clue what was happening.

.......UNtil the black helicopters land with a load of DEA guys busting an underground 'grow' lab.   :o

I've ridden the FLIR flights looking for odd  'warm places' ...   ;)
« Last Edit: January 16, 2007, 02:53:39 AM by hotater »
7200 hrs on 6-1/5Kw, FuKing Listeroid,
Currently running PS-Kit 6-1/5Kw...and some MPs and Chanfas and diesel snowplows and trucks and stuff.

Doug

  • Guest
Re: mitigating exhaust and epa concerns
« Reply #35 on: January 16, 2007, 02:58:53 AM »
Actualy the Canadian Gov decided to grow some dope in a mine near Flin Flon Manitoba.

Goverment even manages to screw up a hydroponic pot growing opperation....

Doug

We grow trees where I work on 4600 level....

Trees, you can't smoke them, eat them and they're not pretty to look at.


mactoollover2005

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Re: mitigating exhaust and epa concerns
« Reply #36 on: January 16, 2007, 03:14:10 AM »
Hi guys,this is my second post and will say i enjoy everyones posts and debates. As for the government well did u really think they wouldn,t start up their own growing of pot, probably ran out of dealers to supply the needs of parliament hill.lol
Derek
« Last Edit: January 16, 2007, 03:18:43 AM by mactoollover2005 »
Still working on finding a lister gennie.
Derek

mactoollover2005

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Re: mitigating exhaust and epa concerns
« Reply #37 on: January 16, 2007, 03:15:18 AM »
 oops,entered it twice
« Last Edit: January 16, 2007, 03:18:08 AM by mactoollover2005 »
Still working on finding a lister gennie.
Derek

rpg52

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
    • View Profile
Re: mitigating exhaust and epa concerns
« Reply #38 on: January 16, 2007, 03:25:25 AM »
Mobile_bob,
Maybe instead of "research facility" you could put a steeple on it and build the first "Church of Lister(oid)".  A cast iron flywheel on the peak?  Align the exhaust trench with the Summer (or Winter) solstice?  The possibilities are endless.  The tax advantages of the non-profit status offers interesting potential too.  Just don't go collecting lots of guns and ammo - the feds are kind of sensitive about that I hear.
Ray
PS Listeroid 6/1, 5 kW ST, Detroit Diesel 3-71, Belsaw sawmill, 12 kW ST head, '71 GMC 3/4 T, '79 GMC 1T, '59 IH T-340

rcavictim

  • Certified Generator Head and Grand Master Sparky
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1828
    • View Profile
Re: mitigating exhaust and epa concerns
« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2007, 03:29:29 AM »
The Canadian government attempt to grow dope didn`t have to be successful.  The government already is infested with a surplus of dopes.
-DIY 1.5L NA VW diesel genset - 9 kW 3-phase. Co-gen, dual  fuel
- 1966, Petter PJ-1, 5 kW air cooled diesel standby lighting plant
-DIY JD175A, minimum fuel research genset.
-Changfa 1115
-6 HP Launtop air cooled diesel
-Want Lister 6/1
-Large DIY VAWT nearing completion

hotater

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1557
    • View Profile
Re: mitigating exhaust and epa concerns
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2007, 03:53:18 AM »
Observation--  Has anyone noticed how on every discussion board *I've* ever read, anyhow,  if the conversation is about "Inefficiency" the topic soon becomes about "Government".  And if the topic is "Government" it soon turns into a discussion about "Inefficiency".

I'm thinking there's trend in the folk's thinking on both sides of the border.  It's a shame one side has to borrow something to fight with.   ;)
7200 hrs on 6-1/5Kw, FuKing Listeroid,
Currently running PS-Kit 6-1/5Kw...and some MPs and Chanfas and diesel snowplows and trucks and stuff.

rcavictim

  • Certified Generator Head and Grand Master Sparky
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1828
    • View Profile
Re: mitigating exhaust and epa concerns
« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2007, 07:34:36 AM »
Observation--  Has anyone noticed how on every discussion board *I've* ever read, anyhow,  if the conversation is about "Inefficiency" the topic soon becomes about "Government".  And if the topic is "Government" it soon turns into a discussion about "Inefficiency".

I'm thinking there's trend in the folk's thinking on both sides of the border.  It's a shame one side has to borrow something to fight with.   ;)


Well now that the lame Liberals are out our new Prime Minister Harper has authorized that we spend some money and buy our military some equipment!
-DIY 1.5L NA VW diesel genset - 9 kW 3-phase. Co-gen, dual  fuel
- 1966, Petter PJ-1, 5 kW air cooled diesel standby lighting plant
-DIY JD175A, minimum fuel research genset.
-Changfa 1115
-6 HP Launtop air cooled diesel
-Want Lister 6/1
-Large DIY VAWT nearing completion

mactoollover2005

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Re: mitigating exhaust and epa concerns
« Reply #42 on: January 16, 2007, 07:14:58 PM »
Didnt you know the " government" is the role model of inefficiency :D
I do hope the government gives the military more money to purchase equipment but they should leave the military to buy the stuff they need and want instead of deciding for us what and where we could get it. We have had a lot of things shoved down our throats just because the politicians wanted to appease their constituents,gggrrrrrrrr, and it turned out to be vastly inferior to what we were going to buy and only lasted half the time. >:(

Derek
Still working on finding a lister gennie.
Derek

bitsnpieces1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
    • View Profile
Re: mitigating exhaust and epa concerns
« Reply #43 on: January 16, 2007, 08:13:40 PM »
  Going back a page,  "Bio-Remediation" would be really nice.  The EPA can't do squat to you if you don't pollute.  You could dump every toxic substance you could find into a pit in your backyard and as long as NONE of it got into the air, ground, or water table surrounding your property, the EPA couldn't do anything to you.  It's called "ON-SITE CONTAINMENT". Think of it this way, they regulate pollution that escapes into the environment.  If it don't escape they cain't regulate. 
  The entire wastewater industry is based on using biological organisms to convert toxic things to nontoxic things.  Hard to do with radioactive elements, not really to hard to do with toxic metals.  Not at all hard to do with toxic chemicals.  My town has an EPA site that was a pole treatment site and coal gassification plant.  The creosote and phenols created from gassifying the coal was used to treat telephone poles for decades.  Excess creosote/phenol was dumped into pits in the ground.  It now threatens our water supply.  The solution is to carefully pump out the groundwater containing the toxins and send it to our municipal treatment plant.  The bugs there eat up every bit of it and convert it to CO2,H2O and N2 without a single complaint as long as they get enough oxygen.  As long as we do that the EPA is as happy as a bug in a rug. 
  The idea of using a trench to silence the exhaust and treat the gases in the exhaust is great.  If you can make it work your engine could be smoking like a banshee and they couldn't do a thing about it, as long as you sent it into the trench for treatment to clean air and water.  You would need to line the trench to catch any liquids and recirculate them into the air.  Depending on how much exhaust you needed to treat you might need to pump in extra air & water. 
  Remember, EPA and ANY OTHER government agency of ANY ILK can only regulate what gets outside you personal air, water and ground space. 
  You may need to have some sort of containment for liquids and solids such as water saturated with metals or ash full of metals.  It should take a really long time to accumulate a 55 gal. barrel of either and the cost to have it put into a hazardous wate landfill isn't that high.  With a Listeroid and a good system, say 1 - 55 gal. barrel every decade or two. 
« Last Edit: January 16, 2007, 08:16:54 PM by bitsnpieces1 »
Lister Petter AC1, Listeroid 12/1, Briggs & Stratton ZZ, various US Mil. surplus engines. Crosley (American) 4cyl marine engine(26hp).

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2787
    • View Profile
Re: mitigating exhaust and epa concerns
« Reply #44 on: January 17, 2007, 05:46:21 AM »
i found an article today, given to me by my business partner that outlined the following

a summary of the article follows

.. in canada, alberta if i remember there is a group of farmers that have received a 1.2 million dollar grant to test a process
where the exhaust from a diesel tractor is cooled to 150 degree F, and is then injected underground with the seeds during planting
the results are

approx 85% less need for nitrogen furtilizer, the nitrogen oxides from the exhaust have been shown to offset the need for the fertilizer
and the crop does just as well.
the carbon is taken up by the crop so there is no smoke, it is trapped in the soil and left for the plant to absorb
the CO2 and CO are also taken in by the plants and have been shown to be beneficial to the crop.

so it would appear that the farmers and the canadian government are running the "frontman" position and will prove out the concept.
certainly interesting and shows promise for broader application,, hmmmm perhaps stationary engines??

feed the garden? the green house? flowers?
makes for a carbon neutral system if using vegie fuels,

perhaps the side benefit will be proof of concept for mitigating polution admitted to the atmosphere,

i am likeing it more and more.

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info