# Not wood gas... Coal Gas.



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

I haven't seen it discussed in the many outlets I read on alternative energy. Most are for the "green" approach. Which is fine. But I was wondering if coal would be a good fuel for a "gas" generator. It wouldn't have all the drawbacks of wood I would think. Does anyone have any info on it? I know it was how "gas" was delivered to houses before the introduction of natural gas. How hard would the setup be? Would it be different?


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

I know its a by product of coking coal for steel production but beyond that I know very little about it. Interesting thought though!


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

its is by all intents and purposes the same.

you will get more power from the coal. 

if you ever ran out you could use wood in place. 

you can see btus per fuel on this page.

http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/wcee/keep/Mod1/Whatis/energyresourcetables.htm

if you look at the ton of coal and ton of wood. you will see the wood on the high side 
is close to the low side of the coal.

woods nice if you have some forrest and can sustainably harvest. copicing and dead fall
collection. coal you need to buy or mine. there are some places you could scavenge coal. seen a whole bunch the other day along a old rail track.


----------



## cmcon=7 (Mar 7, 2010)

Town gas had a few byproducts like coal tar and ammonia, lots of it.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

The production of the stuff was always a foul smelling affair, I remember going by the old gas plants. Town gas is a little more tricky than wood gas, IIRC, because water has to be injected at some point. (Town gas was sometimes called "water gas" because of this.) It also lends itself to much larger batches than wood. All of this type of technology is fine IF AND ONLY IF you are scrupulous about eliminating leaks and never ever breathing the stuff or allowing it to get even near a home. There is a high carbon monoxide component.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Harry Chickpea said:


> All of this type of technology is fine IF AND ONLY IF you are scrupulous about eliminating leaks and never ever breathing the stuff or allowing it to get even near a home. There is a high carbon monoxide component.


Yeah, I know it is the one thing that has me leery about a "test" set up. It's some dangerous stuff.

I thought the water was added to make it more efficient. You created more hydrogen for "free" and the gas contained much less nitrogen. I was also under the impression you could do the same with wood.
You injected steam into the destruction zone instead of air. Basically the crucible temperatures create a situation in the carbon where it is so attractive to oxygen it rips the oxygen away from the steam. Your left with two flammable gasses. Hydrogen and Carbon monoxide.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

||Downhome|| said:


> its is by all intents and purposes the same.
> 
> you will get more power from the coal.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link. I was thinking coal would be good because you can stockpile it easily if you have a bit of room and getting it by the truck load is much cheaper than regular delivery.

As for picking it up on the side of the road... Here in PA whole coal seams are exposed next to the road. You can just stop and get a bucket.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Working from memory, I think it was the higher temps involved with coalgas that allowed the oxygen stripping. They may have used additives like lime as well. I'd have to go back and re-read. My general impression was that it was more practical large scale and not very much so small scale, so I moved on.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

I seem to remember reading an article years ago about the USAF giving a contract to a company to make jet fuel from coal tailings. I believe the idea was if we ever lost or oil supply they'd still be able to bomb stuff and defend our skies.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Yeah, invested in a company that had some patents along those lines - a conversion from coal to gasoline and other petroleum products. Lost money because the pipe from the Middle East kept flowing. Germany did a lot of research during WWII and the period leading up to it. The issues are more economic than technical at this point.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

I think before that idea is a real money maker we'd have to lose some standing in the world. So long as oil is priced in USD we'll keep right on buying it, regardless of economics. IMO of course.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

InvalidID said:


> I seem to remember reading an article years ago about the USAF giving a contract to a company to make jet fuel from coal tailings. I believe the idea was if we ever lost or oil supply they'd still be able to bomb stuff and defend our skies.


West Virginia University was doing this. I don't think the Air Force project got off the ground. :whistlin:

Now they're building a coal to gasoline plant in WV. 

http://www.wdtv.com/index.php/home/local-news/6400-mingo-co-coal-to-gasoline-plant-groundbreaking


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

here is are a good pdf 

http://www.purdue.edu/dp/energy/pdf/Basics1-CoalGasification-July06.pdf

I asked before on the survival board and a few other places about lubrication oil in the event of teotwawki.

seems this answers my question.


----------

