Comments on: Gasification.

Gasification.

gman — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:55:49 -0800

Convert your Honda Accord to run on trash.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:02:38 -0800

Where we're going, we don't need roads.

By: spicynuts

spicynuts — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:10:52 -0800

But I have a Civic dammit!

By: Meatbomb

Meatbomb — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:15:32 -0800

My friend's uncle tried to do this, and the Oil Companies had him killed. His secret technology was lost.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:19:49 -0800

Global warming or not, there's no way I'm driving Jed Clampett's Honda Accord.

By: sugarfish

sugarfish — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:23:11 -0800

This is way cool, but I wonder how it smells. Burning garbage smell is the worst.

By: saffry

saffry — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:23:43 -0800

In the comments they said they only got 1 to 2 miles a pound. So how much energy did they expend just to get the waste product they need to fuel the car for a short trip? That seems to be the problem that needs to be overcome with gasifiers. My friend's husband built one for a company that is doing large-scale work tied to waste disposal, and it's hard to get output to exceed the energy used in the process.

By: Seekerofsplendor

Seekerofsplendor — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:24:08 -0800

BoingBoingFilter...

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:29:07 -0800

Plus, at BoingBoing we get to read gems like this: "Not only that, but as a benefit it pimps your car out with a fantastic steampunky contraption to impress your fellow road users with!"

By: gman

gman — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:30:43 -0800

By: DU

DU — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:49:27 -0800

If you have trash that produces methane, consider composting. (Also, I want to convert my trash compactor to run on trash, assuming that's not forbidden by the Second Law.)

By: eriko

eriko — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:50:23 -0800

Convert your Honda Accord to run like trash: Put a Hemi in it.

By: killdevil

killdevil — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:08:17 -0800

By: middleclasstool

middleclasstool — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:24:59 -0800

From gman's second link: Honda claims the new Insight will be the most affordable hybrid car in the world, with a base price under $20,000, when it goes on sale in April. That right there pretty much sums up what a joke the hybrid industry still is. No cars significantly under $20k, you can't test drive them unless you live in a huge market, you have to order them sight unseen, you can't get good financing deals on them, and you'll have to wait a minimum of 3 months to get it. Not to mention that a lot of dealers sell them over MSRP, because they can. With the added cost and headaches, there's literally no incentive for people who are not environmentalists already to buy them. Why pay eight grand more for a Ford Escape hybrid, when I can get a regular one now, with a test drive, financed at half the interest rate, and over the life of the car, at worst tie the hybrid for total cost of ownership?

By: MiltonRandKalman

MiltonRandKalman — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:47:23 -0800

This is way cool, but I wonder how it smells. Depends on what you put in it, my roommate built one and he uses coffee bean husks from a local shop, so it smells like roasted coffee.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:23:59 -0800

If only we could convert Honda Accords to run on the ostentatious enviro-hipsters who might otherwise be tempted to drive their Chilean fruit and South African wine home from Whole Foods in a trash-powered car... Conversely, you could simply drive your Honda on them, thereby avoiding smelly hipster combustion fumes.

By: oonh

oonh — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:25:20 -0800

not a single Back to the Future reference so far? tsk tsk.

By: carsonb

carsonb — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:25:38 -0800

Hm, cool project! Now, where'd I put that damn plasma cutter?

By: kbanas

kbanas — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:29:03 -0800

not a single Back to the Future reference so far? tsk tsk. Go re-read the very first comment in this thread.

By: JHarris

JHarris — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:01:25 -0800

Yep, you gotta get up pretty early to beat Astro Zombie. 'Cause he has a time machine, natch.

By: cortex

cortex — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:03:54 -0800

Astro Zombie is my density.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:21:32 -0800

oh your gas ain't nothin' but trash your gas ain't nothin' but trash ...

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:30:55 -0800

My body has been running on trash for years.

By: autodidact

autodidact — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:37:07 -0800

That's heavy!

By: sparkletone

sparkletone — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:37:23 -0800

Let me know when it can fly and travel through time, and I'm there.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:42:59 -0800

Say, did anyone ever see that movie where Alex P. Keaton drove that car to get away from those a-rab terrorists and then the dude they shot up came back and his car did something reminiscent of the Honda in the post? Someone ought to make a joke about that because no one has yet and I totally read the thread.

By: Avelwood

Avelwood — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:26:10 -0800

I was going to go do this when I saw the post, but then I realized that by taking the time to read the post and googling additional reference material I had already used up any potential savings in my overall carbon footprint for the next 10 years.

By: atrazine

atrazine — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:28:30 -0800

That right there pretty much sums up what a joke the hybrid industry still is. No cars significantly under $20k, you can't test drive them unless you live in a huge market, you have to order them sight unseen, you can't get good financing deals on them, and you'll have to wait a minimum of 3 months to get it. Not to mention that a lot of dealers sell them over MSRP, because they can. Early adopters are charitably funding the development process, by behaving in an economically irrational way. This is always the case with new technology.

By: zardoz

zardoz — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:25:03 -0800

With the added cost and headaches, there's literally no incentive for people who are not environmentalists already to buy them. Why pay eight grand more for a Ford Escape hybrid, when I can get a regular one now, with a test drive, financed at half the interest rate, and over the life of the car, at worst tie the hybrid for total cost of ownership? Because of gas prices. Remember, back in the distant past, or summer '08, when gas hit $3.50-$4.00 or more a gallon? In ten years--or probably a lot sooner--we're going to look back on $4.00 a gallon gas with aching nostalgia, ("God, it was so damn cheap then!"). The hybrid or electric or biofuel car you buy now will still be running in ten years and, with luck, will still be somewhat stylish. Americans have very short memories when it comes to expensive gas prices. This dip we're in now won't last. Anyway, thanks for the post, this is damn impressive work.

By: flabdablet

flabdablet — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:23:02 -0800

1 to 2 miles a pound An unmodified Accord is good for about 9 km/litre. Density of petrol is 0.74 kg/litre, so that's 12 km/kg of petrol. 2 miles per pound is about 7 km/kg. Not as good as petrol to be sure, but not too shabby, especially considering the relative prices of petrol vs. cellulosic waste.

By: middleclasstool

middleclasstool — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:42:32 -0800

Early adopters are charitably funding the development process, by behaving in an economically irrational way. This is always the case with new technology. The Prius turns 12 this year. They've had over a decade to ramp up production and make these cars more ubiquitous. Your point's taken, and certainly things are better than they were, but we could be further along than we are. The big 3 have spent most of that time cranking out F150s and Escalades. It's a boutique industry, because auto makers get to have it both ways -- they get to project the image that they're doing something that has an environmental impact, while maintaining a market where they get way more profit than they do off their regular cars. Americans have very short memories when it comes to expensive gas prices. This dip we're in now won't last. I went shopping for a hybrid when gas prices were nearing $4.00, and the math still didn't make much sense.

By: caution live frogs

caution live frogs — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 05:16:01 -0800

flabdablet writes "Not as good as petrol to be sure, but not too shabby" ...but what are the emissions in that thing? A waste burner usually isn't that efficient, I wouldn't expect these to be that much better. Doesn't help the environment much if you're replacing relatively clean-burning gas with dirty-burning garbage, and either way you're still dumping CO2. However - if we all just start growing switchgrass and burning that - no net carbon change. That might work.

By: rfs

rfs — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:45:41 -0800

Actually, GM's been working on hybrids for at least 10, probably closer to 15 years. I can't remember the exact date, but I helped out some people at Research who were working on them in the 90's.

By: You Can't Tip a Buick

You Can't Tip a Buick — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:57:20 -0800

Side note on gas prices: Remember how Southwest airlines was able to undercut the majors for quite some time due to their having locked in their fuel prices back before the price of oil went up? I wish there was a way that ordinary mortals could get in on that. Who's up for pitching in to buy a refinery and a heap of oil futures, huh?

By: flabdablet

flabdablet — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:08:41 -0800

but what are the emissions in that thing? Well, considering that what's actually going into the motor is a relatively pure stream of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and water vapor. When I was a kid we called that "town gas" and it's what was supplied to houses and burned in kitchen stoves. It burned every bit as cleanly as the natural gas (methane) we're using today. I see no reason to expect the tailpipe emissions from a car running on town gas to be significantly different from those of one running on natural gas. A waste burner usually isn't that efficient What exactly do you mean by "efficient?" Are you talking fuel kilograms per kilometre, or dollars spent per kilometre, or CO₂ emissions per kilometre, or other emissions per kilometre, and compared to what? Refined petrol? Crude oil input to refinery? It seems to me that extracting useful transportation value from something that would otherwise be a waste disposal problem is a net efficiency gain in the big-picture sense. Doesn't help the environment much if you're replacing relatively clean-burning gas with dirty-burning garbage The point of a gasifier is that it makes the garbage burn clean. If the gasifier is supplying significant amounts of tar it will bugger the engine, so they're designed not to do that. A well designed gasifier produces town gas, small amounts of ash and not much else. Exactly how clean they burn is going to depend on what you put into them. If you loaded your gasifier up with shredded car tyres you'd get a lot of sulphur emissions, but if it's doing a reasonably good job of gasifying wood or paper or coffee grounds, and the tar-recycling stuff is working properly, I don't see where you get the "dirty-burning" idea from. A gasifier is not the same thing as a backyard incinerator. and either way you're still dumping CO2 But if you're feeding pelletized wood or shredded paper or rice hulls or coffee grounds or (yes!) chipped switchgrass, that's CO₂ that was recently extracted from the atmosphere by the plants whose remains you're burning; the net effect of your fuel cycle on atmospheric CO₂ levels is nil. About the only way you'd actually increase atmospheric CO₂ with one of these toys is to burn plastic bags in it.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:17:08 -0800

Heh. On-board seems like it would be a little touchy... too many failure modes, little control over the feedstock quality. I'm convinced that the long-term solution is going to be something like the gasification of biomass (algae? switchgrass?) followed by liquefaction via the Fischer-Tropsch process. Forget electric cars, forget the hydrogen economy; we'll go straight from petroleum to high-energy-density psuedopetroleums with net neutral carbon and no need to make any changes to the automotive or fuel distribution infrastructure. Couple this with carbon capture technology at the Fischer-Tropsch plants (you need to burn some of your biomass to produce the high temperatures required by the process) and you could even have a net-negative carbon process.

By: peter_meta_kbd

peter_meta_kbd — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:13:58 -0800

It can make a small contribution, IF you happen to have a large quantity of wood chips or something similarly dense that can burn cleanly.