Power Plant Fueled By Nut Shells

sbszine writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is running an article about a green power plant that runs on the discarded shells of macadamia nuts. The power plant, located in Gympie, Queensland, is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around 9500 tonnes in its first year of operation."

Comments

Some times you feel like a nut...

[Powercntrl]

...sometimes a volt.

waiting for the laptop version...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, all these sunflower seed husks must be good for something. I wonder if we'll get "Mr. Nuthusk" personal portable systems someday.

Reduction in Co2?

[zefod]

My guess is that they would burn the shells of these nuts, right? This produces carbondioxide, so how does this reduce CO2?

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[Dancin_Santa]

It's a trick. It reduces 'potential emissions'.

It's like when I break into your house and leave gifts. I could have robbed you blind. Aren't you glad I'm such a nice guy?

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[egghat]

Plants need CO2 while growing, so burning them is CO2 neutral.

Bye egghat.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[allanweber]

Because the Co2 in nutshells is "part of the Co2" in todays nature, unlike fossile fuel like oil, hvis is many years old, hence the Co2 contained i such fuels is added to the current amount of Co2 when burned, thus adding to the greenhouse effect.

Hope you understand

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[Redmega]

It doesn't. I think the idea is that the CO2 in the nut shells was fixed by the tree during the growing season - so when they're burnt again, only the same amount of CO2 will be released. As opposed to digging up Coal or Oil which was fixed possibly 1000's of years ago, and won't return by the same process for another 1000. Doesn't make much sense to me; I've always figured massive solar power farms on the moon would solve all of this. How hard can it actually be?

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[drsmithy]

I've always figured massive solar power farms on the moon would solve all of this.

Yeah, so would cold fusion :)

How hard can it actually be?

Very. Not to mention expensive, with a break-even point probably measured in *hundreds* of years.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[gl4ss]

those same nuts needed the co2 when growing.

so there's no 'extra' co2 introduced from millions of years back like when you burn oil/coal.

so it does reduce the total amount of co2 coming to the atmosphere, provided that somebody plants some more of those nuts(and doesn't chop some rainforest/something else that binds huge amounts of it to plant those nuts for few seasons and then chop more of rainforest).

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[Nihilanth]

how would you transmit the power back to earth? Pay to have batteries shipped over? Or maybe invent that wireless power supply that i've been hankering for all these years?

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[zmooc]

Wrong. The only thing that matters in this context, is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. While in the long term, burning plants would indeed not introduce any new CO2 into the biosystem. The only problem is that it is generally assumed it takes about 100 years for nature to create a balance between CO2-production ans CO2-consumption by plants. Just compare it to a closed system in a box with a plant and a device burning it's seeds; the plant will consume the CO2 a lot slower than the device can produce it so the CO2-level in the box will definately go up just like a sink will fill when the tap runs faster than the drain can put up with.

But in the long term it's always better to burn plants instead of oil since burning oil introduces new C into our biosystem while burning plants only raises the C-level in the atmosphere but not in the biosystem.

By the way, this only works if you assume each burned plant will be replaced by a equivalent plant. Burning more plants means the average age and therefore size of plants will decrease and therefore the amount of C these plants can hold will also decrease. And then even the space that's available for plants is declining.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[Anonymous Coward]

how would you transmit the power back to earth? Pay to have batteries shipped over? Or maybe invent that wireless power supply that i've been hankering for all these years?

Microwaves..... and im not talking about ovens.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[Redmega]

Although it obviously does, money shouldn't really come into it. I reckon a pretty good start could have been made with the cash wasted on the recent iraq war. Considering that was all about oil (and by extension - energy), it would have been an attempt to serve the same purpose anyway. Getting the panels over there is clearly tough, but getting the energy back again would be a piece of piss.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[bernywork]

It also reduces the requirement on burning coal something we do WAY to much of here in Aus.

Basically it would also be a comparison in producing the same amount of energy from burning coal vs. macadamia shells.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[misterpies]

Wrong wrong wrong. A nut grows in a single season. The carbon in the nut can only come from CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore burning nuts is carbon neutral over a single nut-growing season.

Similarly, I fail to follow your example of a plant in a box. OK, while the seeds are actually aflame CO2 will be produced faster than it's being absorbed. But overall, the amount of carbon in the system is constant: anything which is not in the plant is in the atmosphere. Therefore so long as you burn the plant no more quickly than it grows, you'll never end up with a higher CO2 concentration than when you started.

Your argument only applies if you start burning something which has been growing for decades -- eg old-growth forest -- in which case you're releasing CO2 that took decades to remove from the atmosphere. But so long as you burn material grown only over, say, the last year -- eg fast-growing bamboo -- then the net amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere over that year must be zero.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[cfan]

Matter cannot be created or destroyed by chemical reactions:
so the amount of CO2 produced by combustion is the same that the trees used for photosyntesis in the production of the nuts.

(Sorry for my english, it is not my natural lenguage, but i hope the things i have written are clear).

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[Disevidence]

I hate to tell you this, but the shells of the nuts are going to decay anyway, releasing the carbon into the biosphere. So why not speed the process up, and generate some cheap electricity.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and have a group of experimental robots to keep the beam on target - but watch out when they get religion!

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[zmooc]

Because, like I said, it's about the % of CO2 in the biosystem which will stay lower if the C is kept in the biomass longer. You're not looking at it as if it's a closed system, while it is (with regard to C, at least).

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even easier would be massive solar power farms in Earth orbit.

What people seem to forget, though, is that this adds extra energy to Earth, which would otherwise not have been here. Granted, this "thermal contamination" also occurs with fossil and nuclear fuels, and granted, the effect may be "too low to notice". It's still there.

I wish people would at least think about the fact that they are disrupting the natural energy balance, even by low amounts. That's one of the reasons I prefer biomass (e.g. nuts), solar, or wind power: they are actually energy neutral, at least on a global scale.

Re:Reduction in CO2?

[Frans Faase]

What is meant is reduction from CO2 gasses produced by burning fossile fuels. Everytime when you burn something that comes from deep beneath the ground the CO2 (and also H20) is added to the biosphere (atmosphere, soil and oceans) of the earth. Plants, trees, and algea use C02 to grow. If you burn them, you do not add CO2 to the biosphere. It is assumed that the increase in CO2 in the biosphere will also lead to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is a green-house gas, which is believed to increase the temperature of the earth. Burning of fossile fuels should thus be reduced.

The real problem is that fossile fuels are very cheap compared to non-fossile fuels, such as solar, wind, and hydro energy. Although these are free, large installations are needed to harvest them. And to construct those installation you need energy. And most of the time this energy comes from fossile fuels. These kind of installations are often more like batteries than like clean sources of energy, because often it cost more energy to produce them than that they will produce during their lifetimes, otherwise alternative sources of energy would have been cheaper than fossile energies.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[famebait]

Just compare it to a closed system in a box with a plant and a device burning it's seeds; the plant will consume the CO2 a lot slower than the device can produce it

What makes you believe that? Are you assuming that the plant produces seeds at a diminishing rate, or that burning a seed releases more carbon than was put into building it? Because something doesn't add up here.

You are describing a closed system with a net production of carbon. If you have one of those you could be very rich indeed.

Just like a sink will fill when the tap runs faster than the drain can put up with.

That's not a closed system.

The only problem is that it is generally assumed it takes about 100 years for nature to create a balance between CO2-production ans CO2-consumption by plants.

That's a little out of context. Yes, if you completely cut down a forest, it takes a long time until there is once again the same amount of biomass contained on that area. But we're not _removing_ the ecosystem and waiting for it to return here, we're burning a nutshell in stead of allowing it to rot. The tree is still there, and it doesn't take a 100 years to replace a nutshell. If you burn a billion shells a year and produce a billion too, you have a net emission of zero. You're basically just extracting solar energy, the shells and the carbon are just carriers in the process.

There would be an minor initial 'cost' in that you're shortening the cycle a little, releasing the carbon more shortly after it's trapped compared to natural decomposition. So you get an initial emission over the first year or two after start up, as the 'cache' of decomposing shells releases its carbon at the same time as new shells are burnt immediately. But after they're gone you'll be running in balance. Or you could avoid that too by imitating nature and storing the shells a couple of years before burning them.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[Disevidence]

Ok let me ask a more simple question. Would you prefer energy to be produced from nut shells, or coal?

I certainly know what I would prefer.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[James 007 Bond]

I've always figured massive solar power farms on the moon would solve all of this.

There is no unsolvable problems putting the solar panels up there, the issue is how to route the power cable back to earth.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[elvum]

Something we call a "laser".

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[Aussie]

Yeah, and have a group of experimental robots to keep the beam on target - but watch out when they get religion!

Ah, Asimov. That was an excellent short. Anyone remember the name ?

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[DrXym]

Potentially it is carbon neutral, but presumably the nuts need transporting, processing etc. so it isn't really. Still, it is miles better than burning fossil fuels.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[spektr]

Just compare it to a closed system in a box with a plant and a device burning it's seeds; the plant will consume the CO2 a lot slower than the device can produce it

What makes you believe that? Are you assuming that the plant produces seeds at a diminishing rate, or that burning a seed releases more carbon than was put into building it? Because something doesn't add up here.

There are two coupled systems: the solid biomass in the soil and the CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is transported in both directions at a *slow* rate. Decaying biomass releases a modest amount of carbon into the atmosphere, while most of it is recycled directly by plants and microorganisms. In the same way the plants absorb a modest amount of CO2 back from the atmosphere.

If we burn biomass then we accelerate the transfer of carbon into the atmosphere. The transport from the atmosphere to the solid biomass is mostly unaffected by this instantaneously (though a higher CO2 concentration may let plants grow faster).

So, in a short frame of time, burning biomass has the potential to increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. In the long run, the ecosystem will reach a new equilibrium. This equilibrium doesn't necessarily possess the same climatic properties of the equilibrium we experience today.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[flyneye]

Whats the difference anyway? Our atmosphere gets scorched by solar flares,broken up by farts,deozoned by volcanos and regularly doomed by hippie environuts.
If queenslanders somehow clear their superstitious consciences by burning their nuts,how is it somehow interesting or newsworthy?

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[zmooc]

Please take a look at this image in which I represent two situations in which an equal amount of plants is grown during a season in a closed system. In situation 1 we burn the plants, in situation 2 we just let them be. I assumed the rotting time for such a plant to be 2 years. This clearly shows that the average amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be lower when the plant-to-CO2-process takes longer. I think it's fair to assume rotting takes longer than storing and burning. If it'd be the other way around, burning (and especially storing) would be even better for the environment and could be compared to the storing of C in oil but then on a small scale.

Another example would be to compare C to money and the biosystem to the economy. The atmosphere is where we save our money when we don't use it. Now the end-result can easily be zero while the average amount of money we've saved in the "atmosphere" completely depends on how fast we can spend it.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[zmooc]

I would prefer energy to be produced from sunrays and wind because burning C for energy will allways raise the CO2-level in the atmosphere as I've shown a bit higher in this thread. Since we don't have enough data to know what will happen when we do this, I consider this a risk and try to use as less energy produced from C as possible.

But when I have to choose from nut shells or coal, the choice is easy but in fact there's a lot more options to choose from and ignoring them - is utterly stupid.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[spektr]

I think the idea is that the CO2 in the nut shells was fixed by the tree during the growing season - so when they're burnt again, only the same amount of CO2 will be released.

You silently assume that all the carbon the nut is made of came from the atmosphere. Is this necessarily true? Trees are growing on top of dead trees.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[WolfWithoutAClause]

The atmosphere and biosphere is not a closed system, because the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by weathering (CO2 and limestone forms carbonate rocks) and added to the system predominately by volcanic activity and only very much secondarily from human activity (by nearly two orders of magnitude). In addition CO2 is not the primary greenhouse gas, water vapour is far more significant.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.

Oh yeah? Those revolving doors? They're rubbish they are! :-)

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[PD]

Mod that guy up. Not enough people know about this.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[aastanna]

Ah, but what if we grow extra nuts specifically for burning?

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[zmooc]

That's a partially good point; if we'd grow extra nuts and just stored them, that'd be a real good compensation for the amount of carbon we extract from the earth in the form of oil and coles. In a way we're doing this already by using wood for houses etc. but I fear that's not even remotely enough to compensate for the total amount of biomass we keep destroing every year...

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[shokk]

So if I burn up half the forests right now you would not mind; the other half will use it anyway, right? I doubt this is true, or the tree huggers would not be hugging so many trees. The fact is, if they are burning they are still causing damage. It's not a "good thing" just because it's "not oil". Don't mix geopolitical with environmental.

This is like pure electrical cars...someone is burning something somewhere to produce that electricity!! Hyric cars have it right, but we can do better.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[shokk]

Keep in mind that at one point that C *was* in the biosystem, if it's the pressurized remains of precambrian forests and animals. It's just that the C belongs in compressed contained form on the surface rather than scattered across the atmosphere. Just like O3 is good in the upper atmosphere but bad in the lower atmosphere.

But the planet itself doesn't care about C or O3 levels...it only matters to the things living on it.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[shokk]

Who is regulating how many nuts are burned in these plants? Is this a real limit, or just some pie in the sky model the proponents use? Burning is burning. Are you actually saying that plants absorb no carbon from the ground? That is carbon that was locked in rock form and not spread across the atmosphere. And it *is* absorbed by plants. From http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/earth/natura lenvironment/e00077d.html:

The greatest stores of carbon are believed to be the world's oceans and fossil fuel reserves. On land, carbon is stored in ground litter, soils and plants. Forests are thought to contain about 80% of all above-ground and 40% of all below-ground terrestrial organic carbon.

This is a good read on carbon issues.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[shokk]

Bullshit. Plants absorb quite a bit of carbon from the ground. That's a lot of old carbon that's released there. They estimate about 30% of the plant is old carbon.

http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/earth/natura lenvironment/e00077d.html

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are that Santa fellow

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[bhima]

Actually there is a reall cool revolving door down the street at the Ikea. It speeds up or slows down depending on how many people are about.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is clear you are an idiot. All that carbon doesn't need to be in the atmosphere all at once.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[PD]

The article that you gave doesn't say that at all. Do you have another source?

From tracing radioactive carbon isotopes, we know where the carbon comes from. You claim that there's an estimate of 30%, but we don't have to estimate. We can know for certain where the carbon comes from.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[CrashPanic]

Thats not quite right. Although the vast majority of matter is conserved in a chemical reaction, the energy released is attributable to converted matter.
Remember: E=(m)(c)(c)
This does not amount to much matter converted, however. I once read that all of the gasoline burned globally in one year releases an amount of energy equivalent to what is locked into a single gram of matter.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[WolfWithoutAClause]

If there were enough people, they would get fired into the building at high speed; I suppose you could employ bouncers to deflect them into elevators.

I don't think these kinds of things are a good idea. If there is a big enough crowd the door would speed up until people would get liquidised by the whirling door of death.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[gl4ss]

so what you're saying is that we should kill all the plants, stop them from growing, dying? or use fossil fuels instead of something available?

yeah. that's the ticket.

from your link:
" The most important points to draw out from this briefing are as follows:

* Fossil fuel consumption is the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions.
* Deforestation in the tropics is the second most important source of greenhouse gas emissions.
* Forests are net absorbers of CO2 while they are growing (which is stored as carbon) but then release the accumulated carbon when they die.
* Young forests absorb more CO2 than old forests, but old forests have much greater stores of carbon.It is widely recognised that old forests are valuable storehouses of carbon and should be protected.
* Logging old-growth forests and replacing them with plantations intended for timber/paper production results in a net loss of carbon which is released into the atmosphere. This is especially relevant in Canada, Russia and the Baltic States where this is most widespread, and also in Scandinavia. "

however the whole text was fairly anti-paper industry disquised as something scientific and relevant(there's barely any logging of _old_ forests in finland anyways, and the total yearly growth is _more_ than what we cut down yearly).

sure the russians do log real old forests.. but they do lots of other stuff too(bad for the environment) that is seriously in need of more attention.

i've planted ~500+ trees myself(in last 2 years, double the amount for total during my life and i'm 22), so i'm not worrying too much about our forests being robbed as forests are seen as a source of income that needs to be taken care of, not just exploited silly. the worrying thing is that people in (for example) amazonia just burn down some area of forest and farm on it for few years and then just move on, to burn more forest to be used for farming.

anything to cut down on fossil fuels is good anyways, at least as an alternative. what the article says is that old forests bind more co2 than young forests, which has nothing to do with it 'coming from dimension x' or something.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[shokk]

Forests contain 80% of the atmospheric carbon and 40% of the ground carbon. Is there some math we can do there? Mine is obviously off because I had quickly assumed they were both the same quantity, which is not the case at all.

If we're interested in maintaining status quo:
This leaves 60% of the ground carbon which should stay locked in the ground. This leaves 20% of atmospheric carbon which should not be added to. Additionally, carbon added to the high atmosphere will never be touched by plants, just like carbon deep deep down in the earth would never be absorbed by them.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[SEWilco]

But in the long term it's always better to burn plants instead of oil since burning oil introduces new C into our biosystem while burning plants only raises the C-level in the atmosphere but not in the biosystem.

In the long term, the carbon in petroleum and natural gas would end up in the air and land anyway. The stuff does leak upward -- that's how it was first noticed. The liquid leakage is called "seep oil".

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[drinkypoo]

I think it's fair to assume rotting takes longer than storing and burning.

This is not necessarily a reasonable assumption. It depends on the burn rate. If they are depending entirely on these shells for their power source, for example, then the burn rate cannot exceed the growth rate, and equilibrium is maintained. Things do burn more rapidly than they grow, as a rule, but you can control the amount of oxygen fed into the reaction fairly trivially (the more fuel you burn at once, the more precise control you have over the air/fuel ratio with simple means like dampers) and if you are adding a storage stage in there, you can store the fuel as long as you like in most cases. Actually, storing the shells longer is probably beneficial because they will dry, though perhaps you want wet shells so that the liquid water trapped in the shells will undergo a phase change as you burn the shells, which results in a great deal of energy being available due to the expansion of the water.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[drinkypoo]

It's not necessary to invent anything. We can use laser or microwave transmission to return the power to earth. However it is far more advantageous to use satellites for this purpose than to put the solar fields on the moon, because being closer to earth allows you to have multiple satellites converge their beams on a single point, and the amount of power delivered per square inch of overhead exposure only becomes dangerous very close to the collector, but achieving the same effect from the moon implies a certain minimum size of the installation in order to get a decent spread on it. Also, the moon occasionally is eclipsed, and you have to compensate for that, but all the satellites around the world will never be eclipsed at the same time. Granted at this time we do not have a global power grid, but what with developments in superconductors continuing along at a merry pace, it is surely possible that we will one day.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[egghat]

Oh come on!

The article (you've read it, right?) was about burning macadamia nut shells. Which means "waste" used for CO2 neutral energy production.

What's wrong about that?

Bye egghat.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[b-baggins]

Not necessarily. You see, the CO2 in the coal or oil was in the biosphere at one time. Putting it back in a million years later environmental catastrophe, since the climate seemed quite capable of supporting a tremendous biodiversity in the time of the Dinosaurs when this stuff was first made.

Secondly, you are operating from the premise of a static model. Gaia theory holds that putting extra CO2 into the atmosphere would trigger a plant growth bloom, that would pull the CO2 back out again, pushing the system back to it's current equilibrium. Kind of like dumping fertilizer on your yard and having to mow the grass three times a week instead of once a week.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[stephenbooth]

I think you're missing a fairly big hole in your arguement. Burning the nut shells will release C into the atmosphere, so will the rotting process. However burning the shells will mean that you will need to burn less oil and coal (C removed a very long time ago when there was a greenhouse effect in place due to the high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere) so you are reducing the overall amount of C released by putting the inevitable release of C due to the nut shells to use and reducing or eliminating the need to burn oil and coal.

If we assume that qualtity of C released from the nut shells (N) is the same for both burning and rotting, that the quantity of C removed from the atmosphere growing the nuts (P) is costant in both cases (we are talking about using a waste product of an existing industry here, not about growing the nuts as a fuel source) and the the burning of the nuts will provide the same energy as burning oil and coal that would release a quantity of C we label F then the quantity of C released to the atmosphere (A) will be for each scenario):

Rotting: A=(N+F)-P

Burning: A=N-P

Stephen

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[zmooc]

I consider coal and oil in the ground to still be part of the biosphere; it's not like rotting plants deep under earth's surface suddendly no longer are a part of the biosphere, they're just locked in for quite long. And about the plant growth bloom: the individual plants do indeed grow faster but the total mass just keeps decreasing as we cut down forests etc. Furthermore as we've said before in this thread, plants are slow to adapt to changes in the atmosphere; they do grow faster but that's only marginally.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[famebait]

Decaying biomass releases a modest amount of carbon into the atmosphere, while most of it is recycled directly by plants and microorganisms. In the same way the plants absorb a modest amount of CO2 back from the atmosphere.

Virtually all the carbon in plant material, including nutshells, is absorbed directly from the atmosphere by the plant. For a nutshell it (or an equivalent amount) was probably absorbed during the last year or less before the nut was picked.

It is a fair assumption that a power plant like this is based on the premise that nuts are produced at at least the same rate as their shells are burnt.

So you only get the single release resulting from shortening the cycle, no continuous net flow of carbon to the atmosphere.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[zmooc]

What makes you believe that? Are you assuming that the plant produces seeds at a diminishing rate, or that burning a seed releases more carbon than was put into building it? Because something doesn't add up here.

The simple fact that it takes at most a day to burn a plant that took half a year to grow in combinatioin with the other simple fact that storing things is expensive, makes me indeed believe that.

If you burn a billion shells a year and produce a billion too, you have a net emission of zero. You're basically just extracting solar energy, the shells and the carbon are just carriers in the process.

There would be an minor initial 'cost' in that you're shortening the cycle a little, releasing the carbon more shortly after it's trapped compared to natural decomposition. So you get an initial emission over the first year or two after start up, as the 'cache' of decomposing shells releases its carbon at the same time as new shells are burnt immediately. But after they're gone you'll be running in balance. Or you could avoid that too by imitating nature and storing the shells a couple of years before burning them.

I'm sorry but you're making exactly the same mistake as many others in this thread to; you're looking at the net production/emission of CO2. But that's not at all what I'm interested in nor is it what decision-makers should be interested in since the only thing that really matters it the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. You're saying "at the end of this year, I've produced a net amount of 0,0 CO2 in my system" while in fact you should be saying "look... over the past year I have raised the average amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and since everybody else is doing so as well and our cycles are out of sync the netto percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere must have been raised by my actions".

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[zmooc]

Yeah and gasses are lost from the top of our atmosphere, but I think you'd agree with me that thinking of our planet as a closed system in this specific case is a pretty good model.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[famebait]

it [carbon in the ground] *is* absorbed by plants

Nope, not in significant amounts, anyway.

This is a good read on carbon issues

Sure is. Where exactly does it say plants absorb carbon from the ground?

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[mengel]

That argument would hold water if we were burning the whole plant, or even the whole nut. Instead we're burning the shell, which is only a percentage of the carbon taken out of the air by the plant, which also grew the nut meat, some leaves, etc.

Also, if you read the article you refer to, they point out that letting stuff like this rot produces methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than the C02 is.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[WolfWithoutAClause]

The planet is approximately closed. But that's not important. We're only concerned with the biosphere, and that is not closed.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[mpe]

Plants absorb quite a bit of carbon from the ground. That's a lot of old carbon that's released there. They estimate about 30% of the plant is old carbon.

Strictly speaking all carbon except Carbon 14 is "old" carbon. Unless a plant is growing on a coal seam or has it's roots stuck in an oil well it will not be taking up fossil carbon.
Using any kind of farmed crop for fuel will tend towards a dynamic equilibrium WRT to carbon dioxide in the air.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[semanticgap]

This produces carbondioxide, so how does this reduce CO2

Not to mention Corbon Monoxide - CO

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[mpe]

By the way, this only works if you assume each burned plant will be replaced by a equivalent plant.

Thus the best option is a farmed plant.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[mpe]

Actually, storing the shells longer is probably beneficial because they will dry, though perhaps you want wet shells so that the liquid water trapped in the shells will undergo a phase change as you burn the shells, which results in a great deal of energy being available due to the expansion of the water.

The water boiling dosn't release any energy. In order to get the water to boil a lot of energy went into the water. Both to raise it to boiling point and to change it from a liquid to a gas.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[Desert Raven]

Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.

Ah, heck, that's easy.

Just wait for someone to get *partway* in or out of it. The sound is even more satisfying if it's someone you don't like.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[Lonesome Squash]

Still wrong! While complete biodegredation would release the C from the shells anyway, that's not what happens to them. Some of the C from the shells was getting buried in landfills, running off into rivers and thence to the ocean, etc. Growing the nuts used to cause a net C loss from the atmosphere. Now it's neutral. So the power plant represents a net gain of atmospheric C.

Finally, I have to wonder whether those shells burn as clean as, say, natural gas.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[spektr]

Virtually all the carbon in plant material, including nutshells, is absorbed directly from the atmosphere by the plant.

The validity of my argument depends entirely on whether this is true or not. I found no good reference, but I think you are right.

So you only get the single release resulting from shortening the cycle, no continuous net flow of carbon to the atmosphere.

I tend to agree with that now.

Re:Reduction in Co2?

[GnarlyNome]

Are we talking Adverages here?
A man with one foot on a hot stove and one foot in a bucket of icy salt water is on the adverage comfortable.

Nuts

[CGP314]

The power plant, located in Gympie, Queensland, is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around 9500 tonnes in its first year of operation.

In an unrelated story, macadamia nut consumption is up 10,000%

Re:Nuts

[AndroidCat]

But has anyone checked the "greenhouse gas emissions" of the people eating all those nuts?

This is a failed experiment...

[shadowcabbit]

...after trying to harness the power of looney, wacky, zany, or crazy, they succeeded only in making use of nutty power.

The article doesn't say...

[CGP314]

But does anyone know why they chose macadamia nuts? Seems a very strange choice.

Re:The article doesn't say...

[bhima]

Because they are processing the nuts there and the shells are a waste product.

Also they are very tasty!

Re:The article doesn't say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Macadamia nuts are produced in great quantities in Queensland...

Re:The article doesn't say...

[Thomas M Hughes]

My understanding is they had an existing facility that shells and cans macadamia nuts, and previously the shells were just being discarded as waste product. Someone had the bright idea to use the waste shells as fuel for a power plant. Basically, they just turned an expense (waste disposal) into a profit (electricity generation). And the facility only cost $3 million to create. All in all, I think this was an absolutely brilliant move.

Re:The article doesn't say...

[madbastd]

But does anyone know why they chose macadamia nuts? Seems a very strange choice.

Macadamia trees are a native plant in that part of Australia, and grow very well. There's a large macadamia nut industry there, which was throwing out huge amounts of nutshell.

Re:The article doesn't say...

[pwagland]

But does anyone know why they chose macadamia nuts? Seems a very strange choice.

Probably because Macadamia nuts have a high oil content.

Re:The article doesn't say...

[h00pla]

I would assume there is a great abundance of them. In the region where I live, there is a lot of almond trees and production of candy primarily from these almonds. Of course, the shell is thrown away. Most of the metal, carpentry shops and other small warehouses burn the shell of the almond to heat these places in the winter. The setup is a very tall triangular shaped bin that lets the almond shells fall by gravity into a burner. The shells burn very hot and it's very efficient, or so I am told.

When I was living in the States, there was a commercial with almond growers literally swimming in almonds so I suppose that where there is a lot of growing of nuts (almond, macadamia etc) there is a potential small scale energy source there that is probably unexploited.

Re:The article doesn't say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because Macadamia nuts have a high oil content.

So when's the invasion scheduled?

Re:The article doesn't say...

[donbrock]

Sort of like burning chicken crap. http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/082503/new_200 30825022.shtml

Re:The article doesn't say...

[dvandok]

If you want to know the calorific value of these nuts, see www.ecn.nl/phyllis/
and do a search. OK, mod me down for a shameless plug!

Re:The article doesn't say...

[eclectro]

But does anyone know why they chose macadamia nuts? Seems a very strange choice

It's a better choice than using linux gnuts, as the smell of burning flesh isn't pleasant.

Re:The article doesn't say...

[drinkypoo]

I don't know about other places, but in the US we use a lot of ground up shells for "media blasting", which is just sandblasting with something other than sand. The shells are quite sharp and hard, but not quite so hard as sand which is after all made of silicates. As such, they remove both material and substrate more slowly. I have no idea of what percentage of our nut shell production is turned into media grit, however.

Now if only...

[thesuperjason]

we could develop a plant that converted empty XXXX (local QLD beer) cans into usable power. Now that'd be something! Well, it'd ease my concience anyway...

Re:Now if only...

[bhima]

How about burning the gas created after drinking the beerNow, how to collect it!

Re:Now if only...

[mcbridematt]

I live in Victoria where we drink VB (local Vic beer), you insensitive clod!

Mmm.. hard earned work.. deserves...a...hard...earned..beer.. - VB TV ad.

Re:Now if only...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pray tell how you plan to burn carbon dioxide?

Re:Now if only...

[c.emmertfoster]

Duh. It's called a Mr. Fusion.

Re:Now if only...

[Hittite Creosote]

> we could develop a plant that converted empty XXXX (local QLD beer) cans into usable power

It would finally give a reason for XXXX to exist. Unless the stuff you export to the UK is some sort of revenge tactic. 'I got it, Bruce! We'll put kangaroo piss in XXXX cans and send it to England! Those poms will never spot the difference...'

Re:Now if only...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's Wallaby piss (collected just before a big match against England)

Re:Now if only...

[Yanray]

Just don't start burning Bundy. SHIP IT TO THE USA you insensitive clods. Sorry I miss my overproof...

Can you see the O'Reilly user manual?

[WIAKywbfatw]

Nutshell Power in a Nutshell.

I'm guessing it'd have a monkey on the cover. Or perhaps, sticking with the power plant theme, a picture of Homer Simpson eating nuts.

I know I'd pay good money for that book.

Re:Can you see the O'Reilly user manual?

[Amomynos Coward]

> Or perhaps, sticking with the power plant theme, a picture of Homer Simpson eating nuts. Mmmmm, do-nut!

Re:Can you see the O'Reilly user manual?

[AndroidCat]

Hmm, my new .sig is actually relevent, who knew!

nice prediction

[loraksus]

yes, this assumes that the grid is not already running at close to capacity. . . As we know, it is pretty rare to start up another power plant if there is no need for it. . .
So the "savings" is kind of like the recording industry's / BSA's claims of "losses", a great way to get rid of nuts though. Has anyone seen "Equilibrium" by the way? ;)

Granted, it beats burning coal or the many other alternatives, but I suppose gold plating it makes the 3 mill a lot easier to swallow.

Re:nice prediction

[The Famous Druid]

Well, a few months ago, I was working in the electricity biz in QLD, and I can assure you that they are not nearing their generation limits at the moment.

However, the power grid is very long and thin (just about everyone lives on or near the coast) and most of the existing generators are not all that conveniently close to the main demand centres, so they sometimes have problems shuffling the power about to get to where it's needed.

My guess is that this new station will help aleviate that problem.

Re:nice prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

"Has anyone seen "Equilibrium" by the way? ;)"
Yup. orwellian movie. rent it don't buy it.

Re:nice prediction

[FroMan]

Farenheit 451 + Brave New World + 1984 + Matrix

It was entertaining enough.

Re:nice prediction

[batdog]

This plant will be more economical than other plants since the fuel cost is negative. Therefore it should be dispatched preferentially to fossil or even nukes.

Re:nice prediction

[ftzdomino]

Even if the grid wasn't near capacity, they would have to drop the power output of other plants to keep everything in phase. Assuming the other plants were coal fired, they would be able to burn less coal.

Re:nice prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a power grid running close to capacity out there? Many countries have laws forcing the utilities to buy power generated at cost, while the CO2 problems can be neglected.

Re:nice prediction

[Orne]

In a deregulated system, we build new power plants because they are more cost effective than old plants, not because we are short of capacity. You can then retire the old beast and produce same electricity for less cash = more profit. Most of the east coast USA is overcapacity anyways... it's transmission that's the problem. Go on the web and search for "new generation queue" and you'll see people are eager to build in deregulated markets.

Environmental safeguards at power plants are not trivial in cost (thanks EPA), so believe it or not, power companies are actually pro-enviroment when it comes to new generation... less toxins = less filters etc required = less cost = more profit. That's why you're seeing a big push in natural gas fuels, heat-capturing combined cycle plants, and a relative increase in non-traditional generation like windfarms and flywheels.

So, does this new plant reduce emissions? No, gasses are not sucked out of the atmosphere, what it should have said is that this type of generator produces fewer emissions than those produced by an equivalent sized fossil plant. Replacing the old with the new will be a net rate reduction.

Yeah, cos macademia nut shells are a big problem

[Moderation abuser]

Unlike the thousands of tonnes of domestic rubbish we throw into huge steaming pits every day.

Efficiency?

[brucmack]

It would be nice to know what the cost efficiency of this plant is... seeing as how this has always been the big problem with "green" power.

Also, is there any inherent advantage to using macadamia nuts rather than some other biomass?

Re:Efficiency?

[WebMasterP]

I'd like to know too.

This article is entirely too vague... frustratingly vague.

The first thing I thought was that they would burn the shells. But, how would that help? You're still putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Maybe the macadamia nuts burn clean?

Re:Efficiency?

[cruachan]

It doesn't matter if you put CO2 into the atmosphere with this process because it's the same CO2 the plant fixed from the atmosphere while it was growing. The net effect of the grow/burn cycle is zero, from our point of view.

Contrast with Oil and Coal where you're putting CO2 into the atmosphere that was fixed out millenia ago.

Re:Efficiency?

[Thomas M Hughes]

The main advantage in this case is that they were already growing the macadamia nuts in the area, and they were already shelling them. The shells were then, previously, just being discarded. Because the "fuel" for this power plant was previously considered "waste", the result is much more efficient economically then a lot of things.

Think of it like this:

macadamia = shell + nut

Old equasion:
profit = sale of nut - disposal of shell

New equasion:
profit = sale of nut + electricity generation from shell

This, of course, assumes that the electricity produced from the shells can be sold at a profit that is greater than the cost of disposing of the nuts. From everything I've heard here, the power plant is relatively inexpensive to construct ($3 million), as such, the cost of electricity generation probably won't be that great. However, we'd need more data to say that for sure.

As an added bonus, the CO2 output is neutral over a single year. Ie: shell takes 1 year's worth of CO2 in as it grows, we then burn it, and 1 years worth of CO2 is released. Comparatively, coal takes in X number of years (thousands of years ago), we burn it, and it releases it into the atmosphere now, resulting in a gain in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Keep in mind that this means we won't be powering the entire country with macadamia nut shells. This plant only powers 1200 homes. The brilliant aspect of this is that its powered off of waste that was already present in the region. This would be similar to a facility that produces corn creating a power plant next to it that is fueled by corn husks and the unedible parts of the corn. Its simply just a comparative advantage. Its fuel that you have here and now, so there are little to no transportation costs. Even if another biomass is more efficient, you'd have to transport it to the generation facility, decreasing its overall efficiency.

Ideally, for something like this, you'd build lots of smaller facilities, wherever burnable bio-waste is produced. 1200 homes here, 1200 homes there, mix it with some solar and wind generation, and other alternative energies, and eventually the fossil fuel habit might be kicked.

Re:Efficiency?

[ikeleib]

It would be nice to know what the cost efficiency of this plant is... seeing as how this has always been the big problem with "green" power.

Any data to back up this claim? Which green power is inefficient?

Re:Efficiency?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ideally, for something like this, you'd build lots of smaller facilities, wherever burnable bio-waste is produced. 1200 homes here, 1200 homes there, mix it with some solar and wind generation, and other alternative energies, and eventually the fossil fuel habit might be kicked.

Really, only water and wind power are ecologically sound. The other technologies may look good on paper, but they end up costing more even when lifecycle costs are computed (never mind the huge initial investment).

Re:Efficiency?

[gobbo]

It would be nice to know what the cost efficiency of this plant is

You'll probably never know, since economists don't practice whole-cost accounting, don't recognize the triple bottom line, and governments don't consider ecological footprints when doing environmental assessments.

As those grating wacky culture jammers at adbusters say, economists need to learn to subract!

Re:Efficiency?

[newhoggy]

The brilliant aspect of this is that its powered off of waste that was already present in the region.

I wonder what happens when the changing tastes of consumers abandon macadamia nuts? Or a drought hits local nut production? Could we be left a powerplant with no nuts? Can't be worse than depending on sunshine or the window though.

Ideally, for something like this, you'd build lots of smaller facilities, wherever burnable bio-waste is produced.

Good thing with building lots of small facilities is that they can be diverse. This way if one type becomes inactive for temporary reasons, they'd be other sources to take over the work.

Energy in/Energy out.

[CGP314]

How much energy goes into getting the nuts out of the shells in the first place? I remember going to a macadamia nut farm in Hawaii once. They had a prize of a lifetime supply of macadamias if you could get a nut out of a shell without using a saw. I tried smashing it with a rock with no luck. Apparently, no one had ever collected the prize.

Re:Energy in/Energy out.

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, it doesn't really matter. They're already extracting the nuts from the shells anyway; the shells are therefore a waste product of an existing process. Burning the shells may not return 100% of the energy required to extract the nut in the first place, but it certainly would offset the energy required to extract the nut. Which is nice.

Re:Energy in/Energy out.

[kinnell]

How much energy goes into getting the nuts out of the shells in the first place?

Presumably a lot less than the amount of energy the plant generates by extracting the energy from one, given their supplying energy to the grid, not the macademia nut company.

They had a prize of a lifetime supply of macadamias if you could get a nut out of a shell without using a saw

Maybe they use a saw?

Re:Energy in/Energy out.

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful?

So you folk (the person who posted the parent and the persons who modded the post up) actually think that they're going to set up a totally new process to grow the nuts, harvest them, transport them, hull them, shell them and then use the shells to generate power and throw the nuts away?

Common sense, like my 5th grade teacher used to say, is definately not very common.

Re:Energy in/Energy out.

[deek]

• How much energy goes into getting the nuts out of the shells in the first place?

I've visited a macadamia farm, and seen the machine that they use to remove the shells. It resembles something like an engine, with rows of levers catching the nut and compressing it just a few millimeters. The shell is very brittle and cracks completely if you can compress it just a little.

• They had a prize of a lifetime supply of macadamias if you could get a nut out of a shell without using a saw. I tried smashing it with a rock with no luck. Apparently, no one had ever collected the prize.

I can't say I'm surprised. I regularly crack open macadamia nuts. Handheld nutcrackers are useless. I've actually broken the nutcracker before I've broken the nut. My method involves an irresistable force and an immovable object (who said that theoretical physics wasn't practical?! 8)) . But seriously, I use a hammer and a rock slab. I literally have to pound the nut a good three or four times with the hammer. And I mean serious swings ... with the kind of force you need to drive a nail. But the nut always gives way, and on rare occasion, the finger too (ouch!).

Whoever came up with the phrase "a hard nut to crack", obviously worked in the macadamia business.

DeeK

Re:Energy in/Energy out.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to research at an English university, you cannot make energy from nothing.

Re:Energy in/Energy out.

[nacturation]

They had a prize of a lifetime supply of macadamias if you could get a nut out of a shell without using a saw. I tried smashing it with a rock with no luck. Apparently, no one had ever collected the prize.

Too easy. Just take it to Soviet Russia, where... ouch!

Re:Energy in/Energy out.

[ndogg]

See, that's why I'm not too fond of macadamia nuts. I'm not willing to suffer for my food.

Re:Energy in/Energy out.

[Walkiry]

Wow, I have to go there sometime. I actually HAVE opened Macadamia Nuts with a regular nutcracker. Although these were brazilian ones, maybe the ones in Hawaii are harder :D

Re:Energy in/Energy out.

[N Monkey]

I remember going to a macadamia nut farm in Hawaii once. They had a prize of a lifetime supply of macadamias if you could get a nut out of a shell without using a saw. I tried smashing it with a rock with no luck. Apparently, no one had ever collected the prize.

My primary school (in Brisbane, QLD) had Macadamia tree in the grounds so I got a lot of practice...

The shells are damned tough. You DON'T want to use a saw (too much work!). It's difficult to use a (lump/sledge) hammer because you can't hit it hard enough to break the shell and NOT pulverise the kernel. For a while I used a really big vice on my Dad's work bench. That way you could apply a huge force that would only operate over a very short distance.

Many of the commercial home nut crackers use a hammer and an anvil with a hole that the nut sits inside with only a small part protruding. That way the hammer cracks the shell and then is decelerated before destroying the kernel.

Simon

I'm moving to Australia...

[thracky]

...so I can start up my new macadamia nut shell recycling business! Seriously, I'll make a killing! I'll take away macadamia nut shells for a nominal fee every week and sell them to the plant. I mean come on, how hard can it be to cart 1680 kilograms of macadamia nut shells every hour?

I'll be rich I tell ya... rich like the planters peanut guy and such, although I hope they don't turn me into a macadamia nut... I don't think my monacle and top hat would fit me anymore. (Come on... everyone knows the planters peanut guy was the original creator of ridiculously priced tins of super salty peanuts and was genetically modified into a giant peanut snob)

Re:I'm moving to Australia...

[benzapp]

You may not make a killing recycling the shells, but farming Macadamia nuts or Avocados in Australia is perhaps one of the last ways you can make money in agriculture if you are so inclined.

Land is cheap in Australia, the country is huge, and there aren't too many people. Its really the last open frontier.

Rogue Nation

[Potor]

How did they get the technology to split the nut?

Re:Rogue Nation

[Mattcelt]

Well, basically, they take another nut and shoot it at high velocity at a group of nuts. (This group must be large enough to have a "critical mass".) When the accelerated nut hits the group of nuts, it breaks, sending portions of its innards (the meat, in technical terms) into the other nuts, which break open other nuts, which cause them to release their meat, with each nut releasing its potential energy in an ever-increasing "chain reaction".

But they need to control this highly dangerous process, so they use a fluid which surrounds the nuts to slow the reaction at the edges of the mass. They looked for a long time before they chose just the right formula, but they've settled on a standard, something physicists call "dark chocolate".

The major byproduct is a nutmeat-filled candy bar called "Hershey's", named after the scientist/confectioner who invented the process. While highly dangerous to a small portion of the population, most people are only subject to a small subset of detrimental effects.

In related news, recently the doorways in the plant had to be widened considerably to accomodate the plant's regular staff, who seem to have taken to eating the power plant's byproduct.

Thats nothing

[mphase]

Watch this process turn your garbage into oil.

Re:Thats nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap that's amazing. We need to push this technology forward!!

I wonder if their company is publicly traded...

Re:Thats nothing

[CrashPanic]

Thanks for the article link, That technology is absolutely amazing!

Is the concept really that unclear?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Macadamia nut power idea is cute, but I assume (missed it in the article) that they are just using the local excess biomass. Must be a big Macadamia industry nearby.

Re:Is the concept really that unclear?

[Disevidence]

Correct. QLD has a very large macadamia nut industry, as the plant is native and our climate well-suited to it.

Re:Is the concept really that unclear?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's nothing new. Here at the University of Iowa the power plant has been consuming excess oat husks for about 5 years now.

Reduction in CO2?

[flyingdisc]

This misses something. This must be a reduction in CO2 relative to conventional power generation. How else can a powerplant reduce CO2 when it is producing it.

No Simpsons joke yet?

[BenjyD]

Nearly thirty posts and no Simpsons joke yet? You guys are slipping.

Mmm ... macamadamia nuts

Re:No Simpsons joke yet?

[narkotix]

Homer: Awww... 20 dollars!? I wanted a peanut.
Homer's brain: 20 dollars can buy many peanuts!
Homer: Explain how.
Homer's brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services!
Homer: Woo hoo!

Higher usable energy

[moscow]

According to ABC Queensland , Macadamia shells are actually prime material for electricity generation - they burn more cleanly than coal, and produce more energy.

Of course, natural decay of the shells would release the CO2 in any case.

Re:Higher usable energy

[mpe]

Of course, natural decay of the shells would release the CO2 in any case.

The decay process can also produce methane. Which is worst "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide.

Hello, 1970?

[heironymouscoward]

This is the scene. I'm a young boy, 8 years old, in Dar-es-Salaam, capital of Tanzania. On the horizon sits a squat building with a tall tower, belching some kind of gray-white smoke.

"Mummy, what's that?"
"It's a power plant, Heirony"
"What does it burn, Mummy?"
"Caschew nut fruits, Heirony"

The caschew nut grows as a small nut on a huge fruit which is rich and oily. For each of those tiny caschew nuts, a fruit weighing perhaps 500gr is grown, harvested, and then discarded.

In Tanzania in 1970, and probably still today, these fruits were dried and then burnt for power. Glad to see that some third-world technology had finally made it to the rich west.

Re:Hello, 1970?

[thesuperjason]

Glad to see that some third-world technology had finally made it to the rich west.

You've obviously never been to Gympie...

Re:Hello, 1970?

[ortholattice]

In Brazil the cashew fruit juice is made into a somewhat mouth-puckering, pale yellow beverage called cajuada that is very popular. The juice is greatly watered down and heavily sugared, like making lemonade; it is typically sold in open diners from those lemonade dispensers that show the beverage constantly being circulated like a fountain. I was told that the caju (cashew) fruit is poisonous unless it is cooked first. (Other popular beverages are freshly pressed sugar cane juice served with ice, and the juice from freshly cut immature coconuts, usually drank from the coconut itself.)

As for the original topic, on a trip to St. Kitts I toured a large sugar-processing factory that was entirely self-sufficient simply out of necessity (electicity and oil supplies were unreliable). They generated the steam and electricity they needed by burning the hulks of the spent sugar cane after it was pressed. I saw the actual furnace - it was huge (and very hot) and fed directly from the conveyor belt that carryed the sugar cane through its various processing stages. The factory was quite old and apparently this was nothing novel; I think they had been doing this for decades as a matter of course. The factory as a whole was a sweltering, miserable place to work at in the tropical heat.

Re:Hello, 1970?

[ColaMan]

yeah , most sugar refineries have their own power system for the cane trash. In fact, one of the refineries locally to me (Mackay, Queensland) also has the capability to put it's excess power onto the grid. Don't know how often they do it though.

Re:Hello, 1970?

[TummyX]

I was told that the caju (cashew) fruit is poisonous unless it is cooked first


I've eaten cashew fruit fresh from the tree. It has a weird taste and texture and tends to stain clothing (similar to iodine) but it wasn't poisouness (not to me at least).

Re:Yeah, cos macademia nut shells are a big proble

[Spy Hunter]

You laugh. See this picture? See those long piles that look like dirt? Those are piles of almond hulls and shells. See those tiny box-like things lined up next to them? Those are trailers for big rigs. A person would be less than a pixel high in this picture.

I imagine a plant for processing macadamia nuts would have a similar pile. There is a huge amount of waste in this process. Every nut you've ever eaten was covered by a shell and hull at least as massive as the part you consumed. In large piles such as these, the pressure and temperature in the middle start to rise. Bacteria decompose the organic matter and produce gases which (when combined with the rising temperature) can cause the piles to spontaneously catch on fire or even explode under certain conditions. So yeah, generating power from them isn't so far-fetched.

Nutters!

[millwall]

Nobody is going to burn my peanuts for electricity! Nutters!!

Re:Nutters!

[gbjbaanb]

yeah, and they're not burning pistachio shells either. I think that'd be a great way of producing energy - after all, I eat a teeny weeny bag of pistachios, and I end up with a huge pile of shells afterwards!

Biomass solar power plant..

[adeyadey]

Nothing radical, but good to see another biomass plant online. Here its worth it because the nut is harvested for food anyway, but its role will probably be small in the global scale of things. Problem with biomass grown *just* for power is that the energy spent harvesting etc is a good proportion of what is gained by burning it. Solar/wind are still the best renewables long-term.

Re:i am an environmentalist

[mcpkaaos]

Bah, poser. I have peanuts for a salary.

Sounds like a...

[jabbadabbadoo]

...nut version of The Matrix.

Dumping and decomposition?

[Xconnect]

It could be relative to conventional power generation, or it could be "greener" since the waste doesn't need to be dumped, which will probably result in it (1) decomposing, (2) creating more greenhouse gases and (3) not being very productive as opposed to being fuel for power generation.

doesn't anything that you can burn...

[jlemmerer]

... produce energy. You can burn old tires, waste, nearly anything that doesn't explode, and you can gain energy out of it. So where is the breakthrough here? Of course it is amusing to produce power out of nuts and their shells (i think the only fraction against it are the squirrels). Is there any ecological or economical advantage over producing power out of other sources?

Re:doesn't anything that you can burn...

[ctid]

I think the point is that it has been built by a company that processes macadamia nuts. So they were producing the shells anyway. Now they are using the shells to power their plant and also to export power to the national grid. Seems very cool to me.

I'll be here all week.

[Docrates]

So, in a Nut shell, there's a lot of energy.

Re:I'll be here all week.

[Anonymous Coward]

New O'Reilly title out: Unlocking Biomass Energy in a Nutshell

NUTS? - I can go one better:

[Anonymous Coward]

World's oldest genitals found

LONDON (Reuters) - Scientists have discovered fossils of the world's oldest genitals -- belonging to 400 million-year-old insects -- in ancient rocks in Scotland.

The penis of the ancient harvestmen insects, commonly known as a daddy-long-legs, was two-thirds the length of the body and remarkably similar to the modern-day species, New Scientist magazine said on Wednesday.

"The discovery of the world's oldest genitals proves that little has changed over the last 400 million years -- at least for daddy-long-legs," the magazine said.

Jason Dunlop and a team of researchers from Humbolt University in Berlin, Germany, who will present their findings at a conference in Aberdeen, also uncovered a long egg-laying organ called an ovipositor from a female.

"As well as genitals, the fossils have the oldest known arachnid respiratory system, suggesting harvestmen's ancestors had long since crawled out of the sea and learned to breathe," the magazine said.

Harvestmen arachnids are sometimes mistaken for spiders but they are more closely related to ticks or mites because they do not spin webs.

The previous oldest penis, which dated back 100 million years and was found in Brazil, belonged to an ostracod, an early crustacean related to crabs, shrimps and water fleas.

Look you can't get energy out of water..

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, you were talking about empty cans..

Toxic Fog

[tjc0]

Anyone know if the compounds that people are allergic to in nuts will be destroyed when burnt?
Otherwise it could be pretty serious for people suffering from it with local water supplies and atmosphere contaminated.

Re:Toxic Fog

[ajs318]

The poisonous stuff in hazelnuts and peanuts is an oil-soluble protein, so unlikely to affect water supplies. Proteins tend to decompose at low temperatures {which is why biological washing powder is only good up to 40 degrees; but if your washing machine has an integral water heater, you can safely set the 'stat for 60 and the powder will behave biologically till the water gets too hot. After that, the enzymes are destroyed and only the conventional detergent action remains; but at 60 degrees it will have significantly more cleaning power than at 40}.

I'd say tentatively that it would be unlikely to have adverse health effects. Beside which, presumably they must have been burning the nutshells anyway beforehand, just not doing anything useful with the heat, otherwise they would have drowned under a sea of the things. So if nutshell bonfires {aim: get rid of nutshells} were harmless, one can suppose a purpose-designed furnace {aim: turn as much fuel as possible into heat} would ensure better chemical decomposition.

Powered by Deez Nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if they have one of those bumper stickers? That would rule!

New Scientist reported...

[Dr. Cody]

on Wednesday that in the future, cars could be powered by hazelnuts. That's encouraging, considering an eight-ounce jar of hazelnuts costs about nine dollars. Yeah, I've got an idea for a car that runs on bald eagle heads and Faberge eggs.
Source

Re:comp.sys.amiga.games

[Anonymous Coward]

I beg of you, all you trolls out there, please start posting to this forum. There are too few trolls! Help destroy what was once a thriving amiga community, help please!

No problem, I'm there.

Are suirrels marsupials?

[turgid]

Well are they? I need to know.

Re:Are suirrels marsupials?

[Lord Puppet]

Squirrels are rodents.

"It's interesting to note, that the whale is not actually a fish. It's and insect." -- Monty Python

Re:Are suirrels marsupials?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a Pete & Dud quote, not the Pythons.
Peter Cook in the guise of E.L. Wisty, IIRC.

And there is indeed a marsupial version of the squirrel. So there.

Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

A hard earned thirst needs a big cold beer, and the best cold beer is Vic. Victorrrrria Bitter.

And you call yourself a Victorian! Shame on you! ;-)

Re:Actually...

[mcbridematt]

Bugger... I should watch TV a lot more.

The Fallacy of "Green" power

[Frans Faase]

A problem with many "green" power plants is that they are constructed with materials that were produced burning fossile fuels. If this were not the case, "green" power would be cheaper than "fossile/dirty" power. It often comes down to the point that "green" power plants are just very expensive batteries, and it would not surprise me, if in many cases the are actually wasting energy.

Re:The Fallacy of "Green" power

[Anonymous Coward]

But in this case, fossil fuels were used to obtain the nutshells, sure. But this energy would have been expended anyway. So this green source of energy is not about providing power, but reducing loss. Which is almost as important. And I think you mean 'operated' as opposed to 'constructed'.

Re:The Fallacy of "Green" power

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Frans. The cheque's in the post, and I'm just off to buy a few more Exxon shares.

George

Re:The Fallacy of "Green" power

[Frans Faase]

Good remark! I do not know what is the balance in with this power plant. For sure it is better to burn nutshells than oil, but one should also take in account that the nutshells need to be transported by trucks (which likely will run on fossile fuels), and that the ashes need to be dealt with as well. Only if one calculates the whole energy balance, one can determine the "greenness" of a power plant. And "construction", making brick, producing steel, requires a lot of energy. And the energy to produce the trucks should also be included. I once heard that an average car requires more energy for being constructed than it uses on fuel during its life time. (I once visited a steel factory, and I know about the huge amouths of energy that are used there.)

Re:The Fallacy of "Green" power

[ONOIML8]

"Only if one calculates the whole energy balance, one can determine the "greenness" of a power plant."

Actually you can just use a light meter or similar photographic device aimed at the power plant. Or you could hire one of those gay decorators off of TLC and have him tell you how green it is.

Re:The Fallacy of "Green" power

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point...but this has been addressed by industry (in enlighted cases). I'm somewhat familiar with Diamond Walnut's processing plant in Ripon, California. The plant's primary function is to take whole walnuts, fresh from the orchard, and produce cans of saleable product (walnut meats) packaged for shipping (e.g. in boxes).

The plant requires steam to power various operations. To provide the steam, they have a boiler. They have also installed a steam turbine, with which they can produce electricity to power the plant - and some excess to sell to PG&E. (The steam turbine, of course, uses steam from the boiler.) The boiler is heated by burning walnut shells. The burned walnut shells are then saleable as activated carbon (a prime component of many water filtration systems).

Co-gen is cool! Use all of the buffalo!

Of course, the cloud that goes with this silver lining is that Diamond didn't negotiate a very good contract with PG&E. PG&E can shutdown the processing plant during peak usage hours, for example, so that they can sell _all_ the power plant's output to other users. Read the fine print!

Re:The Fallacy of "Green" power

[at_kernel_99]

A problem with many "green" power plants is that they are constructed with materials that were produced burning fossile fuels. If this were not the case, "green" power would be cheaper than "fossile/dirty" power. It often comes down to the point that "green" power plants are just very expensive batteries, and it would not surprise me, if in many cases the are actually wasting energy.

I'm not sure if I understand your point. Are you saying "Well, you can't build a green power plant without using dirty materials, so fuckit, just build an oil/coal plant"? Seems to me that if a guy can make a couple bucks selling electricity from burning nut shells that used to go to a landfill, that maybe - just maybe - there's a net benefit somewhere.

Where I live, some folks put a furnace made from a 55 gallon drum in their homes & burn corn cobs in the winter for supplemental heating. Seems great to me. You're not sending a drum to the landfill & you're burning the cobs - probably acquired for free - instead of paying someone else for fuel. Maybe that drum was used before to haul around toxic sludge & maybe it was built in an inefficient high energy steel plant & maybe a huge mining pit was dug into the earth to extract the ore in the first place, but don't you think that throwing it in the basement & using it as a furnace is better than rolling it into a ravine somewhere to keep an old car & washing machine company?

otherwise, could you elaborate on your point on how the "green" power plants are somehow actually wasting energy?

Re:The Fallacy of "Green" power

[Frans Faase]

My experience is that in some countries green power initiatives are promoted by special tax laws, which make it cheaper to run such alternative power plants. Although some energy source seem cheaper, it actually might not add much to conserving fossile fuels.

It is also not always the case that switching to a "freely" available, means that less fossile fuels are used. Often the energy density of these fuels is lower, and they may produce more polutants which have to be removed afterwards. Lower density means higher volume. Higher volume means more transportation. Transportation needs energy in both the usage and the construction. (Steel factories use a lot of energy!)

What worries me most is that most people don't realize our dependency on fossile fuels. People think we are wealthy because we are smart. No it is only because we have access to cheap energy. I fear that our era may once become known as "the golden age of oil", and that our decendants will look down on us, because we emptied all the cheap sources of oil in a very short time.

Sorry Mr. Holmes

[damnthetide]

You failed to realize that squirrels are allergic to Macadamia nuts.

Failure, Mr. Holmes, is not a new idea.

(Sorry Mr. Breathed...)

Ow my gawd!

[varjag]

Do they really burn O'Reilly Nutshell series there? Fascist pigs! As if they couldn't power it with 'The Road Ahead', 'Mein Kampf' or Clancy books instead..

Re:Ow my gawd!

[ptr2void]

May I suggest to add James Bond tapes and books?

You are dim.

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, we invaded Iraq so that we could have some cheap gas for the ol' Hummer right before re-election season.

That's why gas is $1.68 a gallon. Fuckface.

Other biomass/CO2 neutral examples

[Zog The Undeniable]

There are biomass power stations in Europe that use willow as a fuel. Willow trees grow very quickly and, as has been done for centuries, can be "pollarded" to remove the last year's growth for fuel without killing the tree. These plants are CO2 neutral. over the timespan of a year. Biodiesel, which works in the majority of new diesel cars, is also CO2 neutral because it comes from quick-growing crops such as soya beans.

All this makes more sense than GWB's hydrogen economy, which needs electricity to make the hydrogen. As electricity generation is about 30% efficient, there's not much point in using biomass to produce hydrogen for fuel cells - you might as well stick biodiesel straight in the car.

Re:Other biomass/CO2 neutral examples

[panurge]

In fact, why aren't we trying to replace 3rd world drug crops with biomass fuel crops? Support poor farmers, reduce dependence on imported oil, benefit the population as a whole rather than the drug cartels and the oil company executives...oops, there went the economies of Florida and Texas. Why don't I think it's going to happen? Because biomass is good for the public, but it's bad for the bushes.

Re:Other biomass/CO2 neutral examples

[ONOIML8]

And here I thought biodiesel wasn't efficient because of the land mass involved to produce enough of it. I was told that was just for fueling the cars and didn't take into account the energy to create the cars.

You're telling us that it's more efficient to create the cars and then fuel them directly with biodiesel. Someone is way off on their efficiency figures here.

Re:Other biomass/CO2 neutral examples

[pavon]

No, like most things blamed on conspiricies, the real reason is that it's simply not economical. It is cheaper to use oil out of the ground than out of plants, more than 2x as cheap in fact, and biodeisel is likely to get more expensive.

Biodiesal always seemed like a great idea to me, since plants still to do a much better job of storing energy from the sun than we have been able to. Unfortunately, as Jeremi recently pointed out to me, the sun is only half the picture when dealing with plants. The other half is soil. Since plants extract nutrients from the soil, we need to replenish those if we want the soil to continue to be usefull. Nature's mechanism for this primarily involves dead plants. However, since we want to consume all the plants we grow, we have to find another source. Currently fertilizers are primarily produced from fossil fuels, which makes sense - it's concentrated dead plant goodness. Therefore when fossil fuels run out, so does our fertilizer. Suddenly biodiesel isn't quite so cheap.

My estimation (ie I'm pulling this out of my ass - if there are any argriculture experts out there who could provide more solid numbers, I would be very interested in hearing them) is that using only sustable soil replenishment, such as crop cycling, compost fertilization (partly from garbage and partly from holding back some of the crops) would result in about 1/4 the crop yeild/$ compared to what we can get today. Therefore sustainable biodiesal would be almost 10 times the cost of gasoline today. Even with significant improvements in biodeisel effeciency, it would still not be economical to consume biodeisel at the rates we consume fossil fuels today.

Unless we have some massive breakthroughs in some type of sun energy harvesting, the only real option we have for creating energy at expected levels of consumption is nuclear power. So our choices are to find some way to store energy from nuclear power (ie, batteries or fuel cell) for use in mobile applications like vehicles, or use less energy. Which do you think will happen?

Re:Other biomass/CO2 neutral examples

[ajs318]

It is cheaper to use oil out of the ground than out of plants, more than 2x as cheap in fact

Yes ..... stealing something {fossil fuels belong to future generations, if you think about it} usually does work out cheaper than earning it by your own hard graft. Especially if the person you stole it off is never going to meet you to ask for it back.

I've heard it said {but from a biased source} that Britain alone could produce enough food to feed the whole of the rest of the world on a Vegan diet, with appropriate management. IMHO that's far fetched, and anyway I'm no mortality-denialist, but bad logistics do cause many of the problems.

Re:Other biomass/CO2 neutral examples

[let_freedom_ring]

"All this makes more sense than GWB's hydrogen economy, which needs electricity to make the hydrogen. As electricity generation is about 30% efficient, there's not much point in using biomass to produce hydrogen for fuel cells - you might as well stick biodiesel straight in the car."

Who can resist the opportunity to slam GWB and Big Oil? Look. Not all biomass is suitable for biodiesel production. The advantage of Hydrogen is that ANY electricity source can be used to produce it. Therefore, you can use nuclear power, peat bogs or wind power. If you go w/biodiesel then you are stuck with the subset of crops that can produce oil. Hydrogen and Oil are two competing storage mediums for energy. Having said that biodiesel may actually be the way to go, as always the market can and should decide this issue.

Re:Other biomass/CO2 neutral examples

[smithmc]

In fact, why aren't we trying to replace 3rd world drug crops with biomass fuel crops?

Because no one is going to pay hundreds of dollars for a gram of macadamia nut shells.

Re:Other biomass/CO2 neutral examples

[zummit]

> In fact, why aren't we trying to replace 3rd world drug crops with biomass fuel crops?

Time out! The hemp plant may be the optimal plant for biomass.

From The Emporer Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer:
www.jackherer.com/chapters.html

In most places, hemp can be harvested twice a year and, in warmer areas such as Southern California, Texas, Florida and the like, it could be a year-round crop. Hemp has a short growing season and can be planted after food crops have been harvested.

... and ...

Each acre of hemp would yield 1,000 gallons of methanol. Fuels from hemp, along with the recyclingof paper, etc., would be enough to run American virtually without oil.

... and ...

Hemp is Earth's number one biomass resource; it is capable of producing 10 tons per acre in four months. Hemp is easy on the soil,* sheds its lush foliage throughout the season, adding mulch to the soil and helping retain moisture. Hemp is an ideal crop for the semi-arid West and open range land.

Oh, just go read the whole page - I'm getting tired of cutting and pasting ...

Chapter 9: Economics: Energy, Environment and Commerce
www.jackherer.com/book/ch09.html

Re:Other biomass/CO2 neutral examples

[Anonymous Coward]

This meshes perfectly with a hydrogen economy. Rather than burn the shells, you reform out the hydrogen, just like with any other hydrocarbon. You don't need to get hydrogen only from splitting water with electricity.

Now if only GWB really mean it.

Re:Other biomass/CO2 neutral examples

[panurge]

Completely agree. But then I would. Look at my handle.

I'm a great fan of Rabelais, among whose interests was the usefulness of hemp. It gets an extensive mention in Gargantua et Pantagruel under the name of Pantagruelion, where he points out, inter alia, its use for making superior ropes - which, at the time he wrote, were crucial to marine technology, the only realistic way of moving heavy payloads long distances.

Re:Other biomass/CO2 neutral examples

[butane_bob2003]

I totally agree. I have run across big hemp fields in Illinois, the ones I've seen are owned by the federal govt. Im guessing these are either left over fields that are not being harvested (left over from what, I dont know) or they are being used for energy research. (ok, I have no idea what they are used for) Hemp has a billion and a half uses, its suprising to see that it's mostly used in overpriced 'hippy' products. I'd like to see if I could run my 2 stroke motorcycle on hemp oil and methanol.

Re:Other biomass/CO2 neutral examples

[dharmawan]

"Since plants extract nutrients from the soil, we need to replenish those if we want the soil to continue to be usefull. Nature's mechanism for this primarily involves dead plants. However, since we want to consume all the plants we grow, we have to find another source. Currently fertilizers are primarily produced from fossil fuels, which makes sense - it's concentrated dead plant goodness"

well the nutrients dont really disappear anywhere, because they are mainly elements like nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur etc

they probably get distributed unevenly, though

Re:Other biomass/CO2 neutral examples

[spaceboy525]

I think its all matters about how efficient we can generate electricity. We can have higher efficiency of the plants by having local storage of electricity in off peak hours through the use of battery, fuel cells, and in the future massive flywheels which is promising because of its high specific energy using composite made from carbon nanotubes. (Personally, I like the idea of flywheel because of its extreme round trip efficiency and its small size compared to other solutions) If we can generate electricity more efficiently, then we can reduce the C02 more, and furthermore save $$ which will go instead to building power plants which only serves the need of peak demand. For example, by installing those energy storage system, it is possible that one can buy electricity through the grid in off peak hour when the price is cheap. And release the energy when u will need that energy during peak rate. Not only that will save money for the customers, the electric companies will need less money to build those high capacity power lines tailored for peak demand, and the generators can be run more smoothly for the whole day, instead of switching them off in off peak hours. I think this a much more short term solution which can have immediate beneficial result.

Are you suggesting burning rubbish?

[jarran]

Such "energy from waste" plants do exist and are often touted as "green" energy. There are a couple of problems with this. First, when you burn rubbish, most of the heat generated comes from the plastic in the rubbish. Plastic is ultimately made from fossil fuels, so burning rubbish is just a really innefficient way of burning oil, and does nothing to reduce CO2 emmissions.

It also produces dioxins and a cocktail of other highly toxic chemicals. There are many studies showing that people who live near waste incinerators are more likely to suffer birth defects, respiratory illnesses and all sorts of other nasties. Filtering systems for incinerators are getting better, but this doesn't really help. What happens to the toxins that are filtered? They are landfilled, or used for road aggregate or material for bricks. This ties the toxins up for a while, but often brings them nearer to people.

The real solution to household rubbish is to reduce the amount we produce and recycle/compost the rest. If it really turns out that we can't get to a zero waste situation, or it's too expensive, we can use MBT to stabilise the residual waste so it can be safeley landfilled without the toxins leaching out and causing cancer and birth defects.

Nut shells are of course a different matter to household waste. Generating energy by burning something that grew in one season and would otherwise be thrown away is almost always a winner in terms of CO2 production. If those shells weren't burnt for energy, they would be landfilled where they would rot and release their CO2 anyway, or they would be incinerated,

Re:Are you suggesting burning rubbish?

[ajs318]

Not true. Extreme heat destroys dioxins. They are often created by partial combustion {think bonfire}. What is basically going on in a fire is two processes. Pyrolysis is the fuel being decomposed into simpler chemicals, almost always incomplete fragments {sometimes even individual atoms} which will bond with whatever is nearest to hand {strictly speaking, nearest to valence electron?} as soon as they cool down enough. Pyrolysis consumes energy in breaking chemical bonds. Oxidation is the simpler chemicals reacting with oxygen. This gives out energy. Oxygen is chemically very horny and also will try very hard to avoid having to share with anything else. The pyrolysis products undergo some further decomposition as the oxygen atoms each try to grab something for themselves. Since the oxidation puts out more energy than the pyrolysis required, the fire stays alight. But you have to put some energy in {typically from a match} to start the pyrolysis, otherwise you would get spontaneous combustion.

Now, in a bonfire or badly-designed furnace, the pyrolysis products cool and recombine into literally goodness-knows-what and escape before they get a chance to combine with oxygen. This is where incineration can fail. Large lumps of fuel, and mixed fuels, all exacerbate the problems.

In a well-designed furnace, the fuel is finely-divided and the air supply forced {an unattended fire will tend to produce only as much energy as it needs to stay alight; this may mean partial combustion with great quantities of chemicals being released. A fan requires energy, but MOTN the energy gain from fetter combustion is greater than the consumption of the motor}. If the fuel is very heterogeneous, the pyrolysis phase of the reaction can be completed separately in by heating the fuel in an airless chamber {consuming energy} and the pyrolysis products burned later {releasing more energy than it took to do the pyrolysis}. By adjusting the temperature and pressure you can select whether the intermediate product is a gas, a light liquid like petrol or a heavy liquid like diesel fuel. This has the advantage that you know how long is the longest carbon chain in the fuel for the next stage, and there is no way that the products can contain sny longer carbon chains. The disadvantage is that it distributes the high-temperature processes, thereby creating more opportunities for heat leakage.

As for the "plastics" argument, it's a red herring. Upstream segregation could be used to separate plastic from the waste being used for energy recovery, if you were really concerned. But I can't see how it would not be better to extract energy from plastic that has already been used for something, than to use up energy burying that plastic in landfill and digging up more fossil fuel just to burn for energy. Over time, as fossil fuels became more expensive, plastics would begin to be made from plants anyway. Not to mention that lanfills also produce dioxins, albeit more slowly, and organic matter in landfill decays to CH4, which, molecule-for-molecule, is a better heat trap than CO2. The real problem is ignorance of the First Law of Thermodynamics. We've already had people bitching about CO2 emissions like they don't know where the carbon in a plant comes from, and if people can't appreciate the First Law as it applies to the tangible form of matter, how can we suppose they can appreciate it as applied to energy?

Of course, I'm with you about reduction. My ex's daughter was raised in reusable cotton nappies, so will be my niece at least while she is stopping with me. I avoid single-serving packs whenever possible. I wipe my nose on yesterday's T-shirt, and I put my sandwiches straight in my lunchbox without using a polybag {in the absence of a satisfactory explanation as to how wrapping food in plastic saves me from risking cancer by letting it touch plastic}. I don't use sanitary towels either, but only for The Reason That Does Not Count.

Re:Are you suggesting burning rubbish?

[darth_muzo]

Local (Brisbane, Australia) paper yesterday mentioned plans to burn gasses generated in rubbish landfill piles for power.

Re:Are you suggesting burning rubbish?

[jarran]

Well, I don't think we are really in much disagreement here. The dioxyns argument does apply against poorly mass burn incinerators, which is the type I've spent time campaigning against. It's certainly possible to make incineration less environmentally damaging, but their are much better alternatives.

I don't think the plastics argument is a red herring. It's important because energy from waste is promoted as "green" energy, and as a replacement to recycling. But burning plastic is not green, it's even worse (in terms of CO2) than burning fossil fuels, and you didn't present any argument against that. Your argument sounds reasonable, because you say the alternative is to landfil it, but that's not the case. Landfilling is one, poor alternative. The other options are not to use that plastic in the first place, or to reuse or recycle it.

As you mention, it's entirely possible to remove the plastic before burning. But then, once you start seperating the burnable and non-burnable stuff, you might as well just seperate it for recycling, rather than for burning.

Good work on the nappies and sanitary towels, BTW. :)

What article are you reading?

[p3d0]

Insightful? This is about reducing CO2 emmissions using fuel that was previously waste material. How did you come to think it was about mitigating domestic rubbish?

Seriously Off Topic Now...

[TheRaven64]

I don't know what kind of nutcracker you use, but mine works fine. It looks a lot like a thumb-screw, and you can gradually increase the force until the shell breaks.

Re:Seriously Off Topic Now...

[deek]

• I don't know what kind of nutcracker you use, but mine works fine. It looks a lot like a thumb-screw, and you can gradually increase the force until the shell breaks

I've never actually seen those types of nutcrackers before. They sound like a good idea, but you'd still want to hope the nutcracker was made out of something very solid.

The 'useless' nutcrackers are the typical fulcrum designed ones. I have sheared the pin at the fulcrum in the past, trying to crack macadamia nuts. Seriously!

Infrastructure

[bludstone]

Im suprised noone has mentioned this yet.

America and the worlds infrastucture is currently dependant on oil production. This allows the individuals who have the oil to gain tons of power through the sales of billions of dollars worth of black sludge.

We dont generally like these people much. (Racism not-withstanding, politics in the middle east are a huge mess.. but we all knew this)

Why dont we just sweep the rug out from under them and switch our infrastructure to something like this? I mean, america already produces enough food to feed the world, the waste of this production is a byproduct that, basically, goes to waste.

Build these power plants in America. The oil companies can do it, profit greatly, and at the same time, destroy the source of funds for our "Rivals."

This post is from a compleatly political perspective, and many of the ideals do not exactly reflect my own beliefs.

Re:Infrastructure

[ONOIML8]

Food production is one thing in terms of land mass efficiency, production of fuel is another. I have been told that if we didn't do anything with the USA except grow stuff for fuel we might possibly be able to produce enough for Europe to use. But that assumes we don't use any ourself (no room for roads or cities, it would all be farm land).

Is this what you propose?

Re:Infrastructure

[pleasetryanotherchoi]

Much as I hate to defend the man, GWB is actually fairly supportive of alternative energy, although as an earlier poster mentioned, the H economy is not the way to go.

IIRC the congressional Hearing on Solar Power from Space estimated construction of a space based, solar powered energy system would run about (places pinky to corner of mouth) $20 billion dollars.

While this is no doubt an extremely conservative estimate, we've currently spend 75 billion on Gulf War II already, and if you add the 87 billion additional funds GWB wants, . . . why that's billions and billions (my apologies to Carl Sagan), certainly enough money to make this feasible.

Re:Infrastructure

[webpilot]

Actually there are several projects like this under way in the US. My father has been involved with two projects to burn oat hulls in power plants.

The University of Iowa power plant is already using oat hulls:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~ournews/2003/march/0 30603oat s-burn.html

And I know that the University of Minnesota is looking into it as well.

Re:Infrastructure

[wojie]

..mostly because spending 87 billion in iraq has very little to do with power sources. Althouhg Iraq has the second largest untapped reserves, they are just that, untapped. It will take decades for production in iraq to reach levels where it will become an oil power -- or even influence oil prices in a large way. Saudi Arabia currently holds that title, and the U.S. already has a sweet deal with them ($1 off every barrel).

Most of the justification for the large expense of reconstruction has to do with a large chunk of that money coming right back to the US. A vast majority of the initial sum went to foreign, mostly dutch and french, subsidiaries of companies like Haliburton (feeding and housing the army). This demands a second spending spree to compensate the jurisdictions whose votes allowed such a large sum of money to leave in the first place.

Every endeavour requires a bankroll, and money doesn't come freely.

Getting back to the point. A $20 billion expense on an orbiting power plant (that probably would only be used to test the efficiency of solar panels in space for the first 20 years), would benefit a very small number contractors. Something not too many states would be willing to pay for. And few members of government are ex-execs of aerospace firms -- a la haliburton and the entire republican staff -- so butt kissing isn't even a possible motive for spending the money.

On the other hand, Democrats would never support such an expense because the money would inevitably land in the hands of non-unionised, non-governmental organisations.

So without benefiting the godfathers of either party, it's not a likely bill to ever be passed.

Re:Infrastructure

[pmz]

Build these power plants in America.

You don't need powerplants. Just start sewing fuel cells into men's underwear.

otoh

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new Macadamian overlords.

Chuck Nolan would disagree...

[twoslice]

Whoever came up with the phrase "a hard nut to crack", obviously worked in the macadamia business. Or the coconut business.

Just ask Chuck Nolan and he will tell you that the coconut is the hardest nut to crack on the planet. Heck you can even ask Wilson...

Re:Chuck Nolan would disagree...

[R2.0]

We had a super-size machinist's vise in the garage. To open the coconut, we'd place it halfway in the vise and start squeezing. It would generally crack along the line of the vise jaws.

It was either that or the 10# sledge, and that's a little tough for a 10 year old kid to manage.

Re:Chuck Nolan would disagree...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're actually really easy to crack if you hold them in one hand and swing a hammer at them with the other. Don't put it on a table or anything, swing at the nut as you hold it in mid-air. You don't need a sledge either, just a regular claw hammer.

Re:Chuck Nolan would disagree...

[iggymanz]

the coconut technically isn't a nut, it's a dry nupe.

Papers on this subject

[Anonymous Coward]

A friend of mine, Phil Rutter, wrote a couple of papers on using "Woody Crops" instead of grains to tie up additional CO2.

• December 1988- Reducing Greenhouse CO2 Through Shifting Staples Production To Woody Plants
• December 1989, Cairo- Woody Agriculture: Increased Carbon Fixation and Co-Production of Food and Fuel.

His website is Badgersett

Wow 1.5MW

[edison490]

Holy cow! A whole 1.5MW. Lets see, thats about enough to power 100 homes!

Re:Wow 1.5MW

[ONOIML8]

Oh yeah, that's impressive. Then you have to figure in the energy required to gather the nuts and process them. I'm guessing this thing isn't nearly as efficient, clean and wonderful as they make it out to be.

Re:Wow 1.5MW

[Shadwhawk]

When you consider that the nuts are being harvested and processed regardless of what happens to the shells, your point becomes moot.
This plant simply burns the shells that would otherwise be dumped in a landfill. The energy balance sheet goes up, since the nuts are being used for energy production rather than decaying.

Sounds like...

[nate]

a bunch of nut cases...

(a power plant run by nut cases? :-)

Color

[ONOIML8]

"a green power plant"

How does it make any difference to the story what color the plant is?

Mega-Watts

[Anonymous Coward]

1.5MWh? Wow, that should really make this whole endeavor worthwild, without a doubt that might actually power my clock radio.... :-) Progress is progress though.

Realistic calculations....

[MadKeithV]

Using the data from a news article (http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2001/0 1/08/daily2.html), this is how many acres of macademia nuts you need to have to keep this power plant active:

50 million lbs is about 20 million kilos. For about 20.000 acres, that means you produce about 1000 kilos of nuts per acre per year. Assume that the shell is about the same weight as the nut (probably grossly overestimating, but can't find data on it), so you'd produce 1000 kilos of shell per acre, per year.

The article states they burn through 1680 kilos per hour. That's 1680*24*365 = 15 million kilos a year. That's 15.000 acres of trees to keep this powerplant running, or about the entire production of Hawaii in a bad year, for 1.5 megawatts.

Thumbs up? Methinks not.

Re:Realistic calculations....

[smithmc]

The article states they burn through 1680 kilos per hour. That's 1680*24*365 = 15 million kilos a year. That's 15.000 acres of trees to keep this powerplant running, or about the entire production of Hawaii in a bad year, for 1.5 megawatts.

So what? Isn't that still better than throwing away 15000 acres' worth of shells? Might as well use them for something, no?

Speaking as an engineer...

[fuzzylintman]

sorry did you say it consumed nuts or was designed by nuts???

Ah...Nuts...

[apt142]

Can you imagine their breakroom? There must be bowls and bowls of macadamia nuts. Heaping hoards of it just waiting to be eaten.


....And squirrels. There would probably be squirrels too!

The O'Reilly user manual ...

[quarkscat]

has a grey squirrel in a wheel on the cover.

Wonderfully cost effective

[meta-monkey]

"'New Scientist' magazine reported on Wednesday that in the future, cars could be powered by hazelnuts. That's encouraging, considering an eight-ounce jar of hazelnuts costs about nine dollars. Yeah, I've got an idea for a car that runs on bald eagle heads and Faberge eggs."

-- Jimmy Fallon, Weekend Update

Gympie damn near killed me...

[quinkin]

Seriously.

My partner actually went to high school there, but the one time I went there (her school mate was getting married about 5 years ago) I got chickenpox from the brides kid brother... damn buffets...

I didn't get chickenpox like you presumably had as a kid. I was 22, and I got chickenpox so bad that I was covered inside and out.

After a few days getting rapidly worse, I ended up "drifting off" one evening over dinner while babbling incoherently, so my partner and friends thought they probably better get me to a hospital.

Apparently my lungs were so covered with pox there wasn't a lot left to breathe with. The oxygen kept me alive while the steroids kicked in.

The wierdest part of the whole affair was that it was known to be a very virulent strain of chicken pox and there was a large number of kids with it in the hospital, so I ended up in the Oncology (cancer) ward strangely enough. So I'm delerious, in a room made for death, and all nurses and visitors had to wear large yellow "duck" masks on their faces and sit on seats way over the other side of the room. Kinda makes you clutch at the straws of your sanity...

Apart from that Gympies lovely... oh no it's not, it's a shithole. The 17 pubs in the main street have a cumulative IQ of 23. Which is 3 higher than the number of teeth...

Okay so it's a bit offtopic... but I did live on a macadamia farm near the Queensland border for a while. :)

Q.

Environment friendly, and all that stuff.

[gregopad39]

Everything you have and consume is either

MINED or
FARMED.

Re:Environment friendly, and all that stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong - I think the technical name for your logical fallacy is a "hasty generalization."
What about water? (Most bodies of water are not mined ;-)
Seafood? (Not everyone catches fish with dynamite.)
Venison (deer meat), or bear meat?
That swamp rat I ate in New Guinea?

So...

[johnwyles]

So that's where all the old O'reilly Nutshell books go when people are done with them...

Quoting the article...

[big.ears]

...If a 175-pound man fell into one end, he would come out the other end as 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, 12 pounds of nutritious green wafers, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water.

Re:Quoting the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

Soylens Viridis Homines Est...

Re:Quoting the article...

[pmz]

7 pounds of gas

Why, I can give you that right now! Okay, brace yourselves...

Re:Quoting the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, we can break the First Law of Thermodynamics with this!!
175 pound man becomes 187 pounds of constituent parts! Neat!!!
As the excess 12 pounds are those nutritious wafers, we can feed the poor! Line up, all you 175 pound men, line up to volunteer!

What on earth are you doing at home?!

[N Monkey]

Holy cow! A whole 1.5MW. Lets see, thats about enough to power 100 homes!

Are you running your own aluminium smelting plant at your house or something?!!

More nuts per square kilometre...

[Anonymous Coward]

This power plant is perfectly situated. As all Queenslanders know, there are more nuts per square kilometre in Gympie than anywhere else in the state. In fact, Gympie is runner up to Canberra which has the highest population of nuts in Australia.

Seriously, as SE Queensland / NE New South Wales is the original home of the macadamia there are huge plantations in the region. Sourcing enough waste shells to run this plant will NOT be a problem.

The local TV reports about this power plant stated that the energy output from macadamia shells was roughly equivalent to coal, weight for weight.

Finally, responding to the posts about just how to open these nuts. A vice is the best. Apply a large amount of pressure, slowly, and the shell cracks neatly in half. Here in Oz we have hand held devices that allow us to open these beauties in the lounge chair, watching football, without disturbing the beer on the coffee table.

No wonder those Aussies can swim

[cakiwi]

I'd love to see the 5 olympic size swimming pools that can hold 10,000 tonnes of shells

Sacriledge!?!?!?!

[cascadefx]

That seems like an awful thing to do to such useful reference books.

Why can't they make a power plant that is powered by the "Pick your new technology" Unleashed books. There are more pages in them... so at least they would last longer, though we all know that they don't burn any brighter.

Gee, that's almost useless...

[Xaoswolf]

1200 homes. That's not a whole lot.

Especially when you consider that we have a current coal burning plant that said they could add 90,000 homes just by replacing some fan blades.

This may work for a small community, but unless every small community is planning on building a nutplant, they have a very long way to go.

CO2 is not the worst greenhouse gas.

[genegeek]

The reason why you can burn a nutshell and save greenhouse gases may be partly due to the fact that the alternative is to let it rot. Dozens of swimming pools worth of nutshells will produce tons of a different type of greenhouse gas, namely methane. According to energy.qld.gov.au methane has 21 times the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. (Nitrous oxide has 310 times the effect.) This is partly why there is an increasing interest in converting methane from dump sites into liquid natural gas or other types of convertible energy. According to the epa at yosemite, municipal solid waste amounted to 309 teragrams of methane in 1997 alone. What's a teragram? a trillion grams.

Re:CO2 is not the worst greenhouse gas.

[mpe]

This is partly why there is an increasing interest in converting methane from dump sites into liquid natural gas or other types of convertible energy

Why liquify it? Petro-methane is usually transported as a gas. Just feed it into the existing distribution system...

Re:CO2 is not the worst greenhouse gas.

[Tau Zero]

According to the epa at yosemite [epa.gov], municipal solid waste amounted to 309 teragrams of methane in 1997 alone. What's a teragram? a trillion grams.

Why the funky units? Everyone I know calls it a megatonne.

This is partly why there is an increasing interest in converting methane from dump sites into liquid natural gas or other types of convertible energy.

Transporting natural gas requires energy, and removing the CO2 and H2S to bring it up to pipeline quality requires more and costs money besides. The prevailing model seems to be to use it on-site, to produce electricity. As large landfills are typically located not far from municipalities which consume large amounts of electricity, this works well.

Sorry dude...

[SnappingTurtle]

... you're just plain nutty.

Mac nuts shells are HARD

[Rubel]

I wonder why they chose Mac nuts. those little buggers are hard...I remember having to use a hammer to crack them out on the porch as a kid.

THAT'S A LOTTA NUTS!

[Anonymous Coward]

weeoooweeoooweeooo

It's been done before

[Teknikill]

I worked for Cratech, they built the 'Green Machine', it takes (cotton) gin trash and converts into gases and activated carbon (for water filters) and the gases are burned in a generator to produce electricity. Here's a link to that very process and pictures of the machine I helped build. This process could be used to convert almost any biomass fuel into electricity.

Re:It's been done before

[Anonymous Coward]

"it takes (cotton) gin trash and converts into gases"

In Australia, the gin trash just lie there untill they're sober enough to stagger home.

Re:It's been done before

[rfrederi]

There's been a cogeneration plant in Sacramento, CA burning nutshells (almonds and walnuts mostly) near the Blue Diamond nut processing plant for many years.

An old computer saying goes to good use.

[jameskojiro]

The old adage "Garbage in, Garbage out" Was the first thing that came to mind for me. Garbage in: The nut shells. Garbage out: The CO2 gas. But I wouldn't call the Energy it produces garbage!

Only CO2 neutral if ...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

A nut grows in a single season. The carbon in the nut can only come from CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore burning nuts is carbon neutral over a single nut-growing season.

That depends on what would have happened to the nut if you DIDN'T burn it.

If some of it would have been, say, dumped in a landfill to rot, that carbon would be sequestered from the atmosphere for decades-to-millenia, depending on circumstances. Nutshells are HARD, and woody material a couple feet underground can easily last for archeological, occasionally geological, time. (That's where coal came from.)

On the other hand, if you would have burned it ANYHOW, making power from it may let you avoid burning some other carbon-containing fossil fuel in addition. The fossil-carbon you avoided burning is your gain.

Nut Shells?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like scrotums? Ewww.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

So will this reduce the cost of honey roasted macadamia nuts, yes or no?

That's Why Coal is the Answer (for now)

[Black-Man]

2,500MW versus 1.5MW Hmm... how many of those plants will you need to equal 1 large coal-fired plant.

Almonds are going to be pissed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, this is nuts!!!

The hell is this "insightful?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see, first we transport the crops around the world in our ships (which burn energy) then we use the fuel to make oil (currently this consumes more energy than the oil it produces yields.) Then, we watch as 3rd world countries use petroleum-based fertilizers to replenish the soils drained by the mass removal of biomass. Ingenious!

For a moment I was worried, then I realized ....

[maddogdelta]

They are burning nut shells

Nut cases like myself don't have to worry.

You asked for it:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I, for one, welcome our new nutty overlords...

Only a power plant?

[mudshark]

Bah. 'Tis nothing. I can show you a company, a government and a religion all powered by nutjobs. Just for starters.

You misunderstand

[Anonymous Coward]

"a green power plant"

"How does it make any difference to the story what color the plant is?"

No, what they meant was unexperienced.

Watch the bookstores...

[Blrfl]

...for a new book from O'Reilly called Electirc Power Generation in a Nutshell.

(Sorry. Somebody had to do it.)

well, still cheaper than cold fusion

[butane_bob2003]

At $3 Million, it beats the pants off a cold fusion plant, which would cost between 5 and 7 Billion (if we could figure out how to get one working)
Cold fusion aside, how does this measure up to currently available methods: Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average. (The Economics of Nuclear Power)
The article does not mention overall cost per kWh, nor does it say whether the plant will use the shells as biomass for gas production or if it will burn the shells directly. I think burning them would be more cost effective, the CO2 output would probably be roughly the same.

How abundant are macadamia nuts? I eat plenty of macadamia nuts and butters made from them, very nutritious. Good for athletes and people who need lots of fats/calories, but if you sit on your ass all day you probably want to avoid them.

Old news

[Anonymous Coward]

My Thermodynamics Professor gave us a lecture on using nut shells in a power plant twenty years ago. How is this news? Is there something new here?

Macadamia Husks Used As Charcoal

[G3CK0]

Since I live in Hilo Hawaii, I was very excited to hear several years ago about the different uses of Macadamia nut husks. As it is right now, outside of most of the Macadamia processing plants (Mauna Loa), there are huge piles of husks just rotting. One of the coolest uses to be announced is the ability to use the husks as charcoal. I am just waiting for the day I can go down to the local Wiki-Wiki and pick up a bag of Macadamia nut charcoal to cook my Huli-Huli chicken :)

Re:Macadamia Husks Used As Charcoal

[F34nor]

Or just use wood. You guys remember our jackass president's plan to stop wild fires. Its really a sham to get back to the bad old days of logging. Instead we should subsidize feller buncher heads on Tiberjacks to pull all the waste wood and fuel out of the understory and burn em in this type o plant.

http://www.covantaenergy.com/energy/biomass.php4

Or use Turkey guts and pig shit. You know all that waste that runs into our rivers currently? Well this company says they can turn it into c6 carbon chains e.g. propane. They claim they can meet our domestic gasoline needs using current bio waste generated by our farms.

http://www.changingworldtech.com/

Or use Gyromills. These things kick ass.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1248068.stm

The sun is the source of almost all of our energy in one form or another. It so f'n simple it hurts but no only seems to really get it. It really makes me sad that we are the only animal that shits in our own nest.

slashdot discovers cogen

[dschl]

Co-generation is quite common in industry. It involves the reuse of waste materials to generate heat, steam, or electricity, and can also be used to describe use of heat from one process to drive another. Many pulp mills and sawmills run cogen plants, most refineries and chemical producers also do this to some extent, and it is also called CHP, or combined heat and power. While it is good to turn a waste stream or unused resource into revenue, it is nothing new. I'm sitting within about 1km of a large woodwaste cogen plant at a nearby sawmill.

• MIT does it
• Cogen Europe
• EC / ASEAN Cogen site

Tons more links on Google - try looking for cogen, cogeneration, biomass, chp.

Allergy concern?

[sphealey]

I used to clean out gas turbine engines by dumping ground walnut shells in the air intake. Loads of fun, and it smelled like Good Humor Toasted Almond Bar in the vicinity for quite a while afterward.

But I now know several people with fatal allergies to tree nuts. So I wonder - what is the effect on any allergic people nearby of vaporizing nut shells and injecting the vapor into the atmosphere?

sPh

Some self-regulation of temps is possible

[Mryll]

The dynamics of heat/mass transfer on the globe are far from trivial, and it should not be too surprising that some mechanisms that moderate the extent of trends and changes are part of the deal.

If the poles get warm enough on the surface (atmosphere gets warm enough) to melt significant quantities of ice, the slow deep-water currents that are largely driven by density gradients from saline water will be weakened, with indications that surface (atmosphere) warming would be suppressed. Whether such a "regulation" system is stable against a significant spike in CO2 concentrations remains to be seen, I guess.

Some references here.

I got an idea....

[Anonymous Coward]

Insiders say the company spoksperson will be none other than Jenna Jameson.

The tv ad is slated to have Jenna at a distant outdoor local, on a sunset cliff in a subtle breeze suductivly pering into the camera lens,
then softly looking over her shoulder at the Ergon Energy power plant and then back twoards the camera -
to which she gives a suptle nod, smiles with a naugty angst then wispers.. "Nuts".

Nutshells or Nutcases?

[Chompster]

Except; Plant run by nutcases = Chernobyl. The difference a half of a word can make! Well, I'm sure Chernobyl really cut down on the CO2 emissions. After all, melting down doesn't involve the active burning of Hydrocarbons! ... Unless they were eating Macadamia nuts in the cafeteria, then there would be a problem.

-Chompster

Re:Yeah, cos macademia nut shells are a big proble

[colmore]

Maybe you don't generate a lot of macademia nut shells, but the macademia nut industry (who is providing the shells, if you read the article) does.

Or maybe you really like macademia nuts, I don't know.

Nuts, plants.....Squirrels Unite

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmmm... sounds to me like you all forgot to count the squirrel factor, and thats +1 for the female squirrels and + 3 for the male squirrels.

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!, grow up and stop bitching over this rediculous crap, put all this effort into something more meaningful........ like sqashing the bug that is microsoft OS.

The USA

[Anonymous Coward]

What do we care in the US? The government is already powered by nuts.

Who let the cat out of the bag?

[hayden]

Who told the rest of the world that Australians never drink the beer we export?

Easy

[hayden]

We have Steve Erwin, a professional nut. What do you really think he was doing during his tour of the US?

If it one thing Australia has a lot of

[hayden]

It's space. And also beer.

Nut power: Unenvironmental

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally find the conssumption of a vast quantity of nuts greatly enhances the output of greenhouse gasses. The subsidiary wind power created is alas unharnessed...

Have you ever taken a chemistry class?

[Anonymous Coward]

C6 hydrocarbons would be hexane/hexene or the like. Propane is C3H8, ya ignorant git.

And while you're at it, learn to make proper links:

Biomass
Turkey guts or Anything into oil
Gyromills

Feeling expansive

[Tau Zero]

Actually, storing the shells longer is probably beneficial because they will dry, though perhaps you want wet shells so that the liquid water trapped in the shells will undergo a phase change as you burn the shells, which results in a great deal of energy being available due to the expansion of the water.

That energy of expansion is only available if you have the combustion under pressure and confined in something like a gas turbine. Otherwise all you are doing is cooling the combustion and lowering the efficiency of any engine running off of it by making more heat escape with the stack gases (more heat escapes as latent heat because greater humidity increases the temperature you must maintain to prevent condensation, and reduced combustion temperature further lowers the amount of heat you can extract before hitting the condensation limit).

Depending how you measure efficiency (energy per unit carbon prevented from entering the atmosphere, maybe?) you might be best not to burn the shells but to pyrolize them, perhaps with solar heat. The combustible gases driven off can run engines, while the carbon char left over can be used as a soil amendment. This would add to the ability of the soil to hold water and nutrients while increasing the net carbon inventory over time.

Guess I'll Add Another Nut Joke...

[horati0]

...but really it's just an excuse to quote "Kung Pow".

Chosen One: I'll take a pound of nuts.
Shopowner (screaming): THAT'S A LOT OF NUTS!!!!

You must be a lawyer to split hairs so finely

[Tau Zero]

You're saying "at the end of this year, I've produced a net amount of 0,0 CO2 in my system" while in fact you should be saying "look... over the past year I have raised the average amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and since everybody else is doing so as well and our cycles are out of sync the netto percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere must have been raised by my actions".

Of course, you could level the same accusation at anyone who reduces their net biomass by losing weight.

The total amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is the product of the rate of CO2 addition and its residence time; the faster CO2 is removed, the smaller the total effect. From the atmospheric rate curves it appears that the residence time of CO2 from coal and the like is on the order of decades; if the residence time of CO2 from a macademia nut hull is less than a year, that's quite an improvement. Or you could even use the nut farm to remove atmospheric CO2 as an ongoing operation.

Wood Burning Power Plant in West Aust

[Anonymous Coward]

See this link

http://www.westernpower.com.au/html/home/environ me nt/renewable_energy/renewable_bioenergy.html

for a wood burning power station with by products and synergies. This is in Western Australia and is small at 1 MW export, but a 10 MW is planned next. I worked there for a while on construction and have seen the whole setup.

Aren't macadamia nuts expensive?

[BitterOak]

I seem to remember a Saturday Night Live Weekend Update joke where Jimmy Fallon reported that scientists had developed an engine that ran on hazelnuts. After commenting on the price of hazelnuts, he added that the same scientists were working on an even better engine that ran on bald eagle heads and Faberge eggs.

Neither does your link

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't provide a pointer to a Google cache or something, that was entirely useless,

I wonder...

[burbilog]

Why use complicated mechanics to break shells when you can pump air into the box with nuts, let the air to leak into nuts and then suddenly relase it, so the air will break shells at once? This technology is used to clear small nuts...

Sociological

[sasah]

It is likely that most large-scale monocultural industires can (economically) convert their waste products into something useful. Such innovation is occuring in the poultry industry now [see citations below]. However, I have deep seated doubt that any of these technologies will be implemented on a national scale until the majority of the populace reckognizes the need to use available resources more efficently.

Jouney to Fuel | Chicken Manure Fuel

Anything into Oil | Discover

Been there, done that...

[allanj]

I've had a stoker furnace in my home for 5 years now, and it has burned a variety of waste products with great success:

• Hazelnut shells
• Compressed sawdust
• Cherry nucleus shells
• Olive oil nucleus shells
• Wheat - unfit for consumption for various reasons
• "Oilcakes" - byproducts from animal protein feed production
• Pea byproducts

So in short, YOU can do this too - but probably not in metro areas. Get a stoker furnace, a form of storage, contact some of the local farming industries around and start heating your home with other people's waste products - safely and very economically.

Lots of farming industries produce big amounts of waste, and most of that can be converted into biofuel simply by drying and sometimes crushing/shredding.

Or get a wood shredder and go shred the wood from trees that have fallen down in storms/hurricanes/whatever hits your region the most - many people will gladly let you remove their fallen trees, and you can heat your house very economically in this way.