Producer-gas Facts and Figures
Page 36
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Further Replies From Makers and Others to the Strong Criticisms Put Forward Last Week in a Letter From Mr. John Walton LAST week we included a letter somewhat critical of the scope of the gas producer, together with opinions from several sources. We now publish a further selection of replies to Mr. Walton.
*ROAD TRANSPORT ENABLED TO CARRY ON WE, at the moment, are not in a position to deal with any producer-gas questions, and the only point I would make is the obvious one that Mr. Walton apparently assumes that he will in fact be able to obtain unlimited supplies of petrol at its present price and is dealing with the matter from an economic aspect only.
In the event of his present supply being reduced, or the price rising materially, the position would be entirely altered and producer gas does, at least, make it possible for transport users to carry on in circumstances in which they would otherwise find it impossible.
HUGH E. MACGILLIVRAY,
for the Sentinel Waggon Works (1936), Ltd. Shrewsbury.
*PROS MORE THAN BALANCE THE CONS PRODUCER gas as a fuel is some 66.6 per cent, cheaper than petrol at is. 6d. per gallon, taking the price of the special anthracite as roughly 70s. per ton delivered. (I am taking Leeds delivery as an example.) This means that with a 6-ton lorry which normally runs about 6 m.p.g., there is a possible saving of about £250 on 30,000 miles a year.
The extra labour involved with a gas plant may be taken at about £26 per year. So that we are now about £224 to the good.
While it is agreed that the loss of power is considerable— probably 30 per cent.—owing to the lower calorific value of carbon monoxide, and therefore the pay-load is somewhat reduced (if we want to keep up to. the petrol performance), it is not reasonable to assume that this is about balanced by the fuel economy already seen. In my opinion we are still a good bit on the credit side.
As to the speed, it is unfortunately true that the Exchequer has refused to agree to the extra weight—caused by the producer plant—being free from penalization, thus the 50 cwt. chassis may have to go into the 3-ton class and come down to 20 m.p.h. We still hope, however, that the Chancellor will eventually alter his decision and allow the weight free, • in consideration of the fact that we are using home-produced fuel. .
[Since this letter was received this concession has been promised.—ED.] Additional maintenance due to the gas plant is almost negligible, as there is nothing to go wrong. We might burn out a " tuyere " once in a while due to an airlock in the cooling-water system, but the cost of this replacement is insignificant.
Your correspondent does not appear to realize that the demand for gas plants and the fuel for them has been both sudden and great and there has not been time yet to produce plants on a big scale, or arrange for standardized fuel distribution. These matters are being remedied quickly—one well-known colliery has increased its production capacity (of special anthracite) six times, to cope with the demand.
As the Ministries concerned are out to encourage this new form of power (new for us), there will he no restrictions on the supplies of steel plates and tubes required-for manufacture.
A26 The fuel must remain tax free, for the simple and same reason that oil from coal (by hydrogenation) is tax free, and this has been confirmed by the Ministry concerned.
As your correspondent is a well-known engineer in mechanical transport, may I say that he and other transport managers, could help considerably if, instead of criticizing at this early stage, they would send mechanics to the gas-producer companies to be trained in the use of producer-gas, have lorries fitted up and thus gain experience; they could then pool and compare their results to the benefit of themselves and the whole haulage industry.
We are out to help the Government by relieving the.pressure on liquid-fuel supplies, and, at the same time, try and keep the wheels turning in our vital road-transport services, consequently everyone should try and help.
Leeds. (MAJOR) W. H. GODDARD, A.M.I.Mech.E.
*SUCCESS ACHIEVED ON AN AUSTIN 2-TONNER I N connection with the criticisms of producer-gas equipment, as applied to commercial vehicles, we see that you have now hcard direct from British Gazogenes, Ltd.
From our own experience with the Gohin-Poulenc appa• ratus fitted to our Austin 2-ton truck, we must say that the results we have obtained have been quite satisfactory, and there is certainly no question about the fact that, from a national point of view, petrol is undoubtedly saved, for home-produced fuel can easily be used in its place.
A. P. FIELD, Sales Manager (Stanhope House), London, N.W.1. For The Car Mart, Ltd.
* PRODUCER FUEL WILL BE UNTAXED WE have given careful consideration to the points raised by Mr. J. Walton, and greatly appreciate the opportunity afforded to us to reply.
The only operating costs that we use are those published in a paper given before the Institute of Fuel in December last, and published in the Journal of the Institute in February this year. These are based on the admirable tables which The Commercial Motor itself publishes (a sufficient guarantee of sound practice) and the operational records of Brush-Hoela producers.
Costs for equal power are suggested, but this, of course, is a misleading term, as the operator is interested only in the pay-load ton-miles per vehicle per annum. The question of power, therefore, does not arise save in so far as any increase occurs in running time with producer gas instead of petrol on a known run with a known load. Clearly, on a flat road the same speed can be maintained on producer gas as on petrol, with a slightly larger throttle opening.
The Commercial Motor published on July 15, 1938, comparative figures with regard to acceleration and hill climbing, and these afford justification for the view that the increase in time would not exceed 5 per cent.
Taxation categories of vehicles equipped with gas producers are, under the present hampering regulations, often affected; but in the lower categories, at least, are to a great extent offset by economies in fuel costs.
The speed-limit category is a very difficult proposition, and except as a war-time measure on the grounds of fuel, we could not recommend anybody to lit a vehicle were its speed limit thereby reduced. However, in the 2-2f-ton class one well-known maker lists 27 standard bodies, to 11 of which a Brush-Koela producer of standard size can be applied without affecting either its taxation or speed-limit categories. As a producer of 21-3 cwt. does not add more than 11-2* per cent, to the gross laden weight of the vehicle, it is difficult to accept the suggestion that a loss of £250 of revenue per annum is involved.
In the operating costs to which we refer, extra labour and maintenance are given separately, the figure for the former being 45. a week on a 3-tonner. Depreciation on a 3-tonner is increased from 0.79d, to 1.04d. per mile.
We are making the most thorough investigations into the distribution of fuels which we have already tested here, and can assure our customers that supplies will be available. Naturally a little time must elapse before the fuel can be available at frequent and unspecified points, but this, too, is a possibility we have in mind. • As regards the supply of materials for the manufacture of producers, we are advised that authorization will be given.
As regards the comparative costs, irrespective of fuel taxation, producers of petrol from coal in this country were, in the 1938 Budget, guaranteed immunity of Excise Duty for 12 years, so that unless home-produced solid fuel is differently treated from home-produced liquid fuel, this question will not arise for 11 years.
In conclusion, there seems justification for estimating a saving in operating costs for a producer-gas-propelled vehicle over both petrol and oil vehicles, provided that the speed-limit category is not affected. In any case, during war, road-transport operators must expect different -conditions, and we believe that if these be intelligently faced in a willing spirit no greater difficulty will be found with producer gas than 1,Vith any other fuel,
THE BRUSH ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CO., LTD. Lough borough.
* DESIGN IS THE SECRET OF PERFORMANCE
rONSIDERING, in their order, the criticisms raised by
Walton: —" Power for power producer-gas is not cheaper.Power is the quantity of work done and the time taken to do it. Producer-gas and a modified engine will perform just as much work as the petrol or oil engine in just the same time. If work in the engineering sense be considered the design of the engine must also receive consideration. As a conversion the producer-gas vehicle does fall a little short, but for all practicable purposes it is of no consequence. Very rarely is a vehicle taxed to its limit of power. In the complete producer-gas chassis there is not an atom of difference in performance. Theoretical discussions, mechanical formuke and other calculations are a pleasure to the engineer, but until the machine or apparatus is actually tested there can he no foregone conclusions such as those put forward by your correspondent.
Before going any farther let it be clear that the design of the gas-producing apparatus is the whole secret of performance, maintenance and economy. One can satisfy oneself only by actual experiment. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can make a tin with two holes diametrically opposite, connect it to another tin of wet coke and he has a gas producer, but what gas and what a producer! The whole of my arguments are dependent upon the job being done properly by someone who has already done it.
" Reduction of speed and carrying capacity." This statement is limited in its application. Speed is reduced with a conversion on 30 m.p.h. vehicles. Loading capacity is reduced all round. This applies only to conversions; completely designed producer-gas vehicles, however, are clear. The reduction in speed limit must he taken up with the Government; meanwhile, as we are dealing with conversions, the reduction of speed is only temporary and is better than idleness. It is interesting to note that both 20 m.p.h. and 30 m.p.h. vehicles are used in soft fruit and fish transport, and these commodities have to reach the market on time.
" Time to start up and close down." It does not take as long to start up from cold with producer gas as it does on steam. In properly designed producers relighting is not necessary each morning. Two or three minutes on the blower is all that is necessary. A poker will remove dust or clinker in a matter of seconds. In some contraptions I grant that it is a messy job. " Additional maintenance necessary." This is absolutely wrong. Provided the producer, filters, diffusers, scrubbers and cleaners do their work properly no tar can stick valves, no acids can distil, no ash can reach the engine. The properties of good producer gas are such that, despite the increased compression needed, no additional hearing pressure is transmitted. Decarbonization is not necessary for at least 40,000 miles. The engine can be put on full load from cold, firing is more even at low speeds. The specialized knowledge mentioned later in Mr. Walton's letter is equivalent to that required by the housemaid to clean the flues on an ordinary fire grate. No skill is required to tip a quantity of coal into a hopper and screw down tight. Water needs pouring into the tank or cooler. Where is the extra maintenance?
" Depreciation." Mr. Walton says that this can reach as much as 25 per cent. Do his vehicles come from the junk yard at a few shillings each? What extra can you add for a producer plant beyond fire bricks once or twice per annum and a new grate every year at less than £3? Where does the 25 per cent, come in? In my past experiments I have ruined plenty of engines, had a few explosions, etc. But this was experiment. Such tests are never undertaken by the operator. Your writer cannot substantiate his facts.
" Nothing has been said about standardized distribution." Your correspondent is not so conversant with facts as he imagines. The British Coal Utilization Research Association is already busy with arrangements for "coal pumps." The Amalgamated Anthracite Collieries, Ltd., is seeking agents for the fuel specially designed for roadtransport work. This fuel is called Progasite.
" Steel and labour required for more vital services." Who is to pay for the war? Have we found some new form of perpetual motion? The business of the country must continue. The civilian market must be retained. In the past war we were all in it. This time other countries are entering our markets. Transport is essential for industry, trade must go on or who will pay the taxes?
"Tax on fuel." On average equivalent figures, solid v. liquid fuel, anthracite could stand 8d. per cwt. tax and still beat oil-engine economy. If it be left untaxed it will be cheaper than the steamer. Being home produced the Government income will be received indirectly from the producers of the fuels, which is much more satisfactory.
In conclusion I cannot believe that your correspondent is serious. He is seeking more knowledge but is unwilling to admit his ignorance of the practical application of producer gas. KEN TURNER, M.I.M.E., Wigan. for Standish Truck Co.
* FREE THE WAY FOR PRODUCER-GAS VEHICLES ABOUT two years ago you published a letter of mine on the subject of alternative fuels and producer-gas in particular. Now we are at war and find ourselves without enoughmoney to buy the fuel to keep our wheels turning. We are still told that our loads must go by rail, even if they he perishable, but there is no sign of a constructive policy to enable the most efficient haulier to serve the needs of the community.
' Mr. Sewill takes the bouquet for the pooling scheme and assures us that the railways do not wish to make capital out of our misfortunes, but he cannot blame us for being doubtful when we look round and see the encouragement we are getting.
Let the Government allow the 30 m.p.h.. limit to stand for 50-cwt. vehicles with added gas equipment. I say nothing about the road tax if gas will give relief from the petrol tax. The way will then be clear'for us to go ahead.
We have been so badly treated in the past that no one can blame us for trying for all the concessions we can get, but at the same time Sir John stands to lose his 9d. per gallon on ever' vehicle gas equipped. Tax or no tax, I am prepared to invest in a producer so soon as the authorities will allow me a 30-m.p.h. limit for my vehicles, plus the weight of the plant or with it drawn on a trailer.
Carry on, S.T.R., and strength to your arm.
SandyBeds. J. H. ATKINS.