BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

From 73002.1213 at CompuServe.COM Sun Nov 3 16:09:58 1996
From: 73002.1213 at CompuServe.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The IBT gasifier
Message-ID: <961103210607_73002.1213_FHM67-3@CompuServe.COM>

Hi Onar:

I would need more information on the IBT gasifier before I could say definitely
that I know or don't know - don't know under that name, certainly. What
country?

Your comment on the "coal" (=charcoal) produced is pertinent: yes, the
pyrolysis gases tend to leave about 4-6% charcoal at the grate, courtesy of the
energy balance between charcoal production and vapor production. The relatively
new IISc (Mukunda) and IITBombay (Parikh) gasifiers rectify this with extra air
injection at the grate, producing an essentially tarless gas.

Work in progress.

Tom Reed

 

 

From 73002.1213 at CompuServe.COM Mon Nov 4 11:06:52 1996
From: 73002.1213 at CompuServe.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: End of Gasification/Stove Odyssey
Message-ID: <961104160235_73002.1213_FHM76-3@CompuServe.COM>

Dear Netpals: (Apologies to anyone who gets multiple copies - overlapping
lists.)

I am finally heading home, finishing my "gasification/stove odyssey". I arrived
here in Tokyo at 7:30 AM, & I don't fly to LA until 4:30 - but don't worry, I
won't bend your ear that long.

When I was a little boy my mother took care of me. In the army Uncle Sam took
care of me. Then I got married and Vivian has taken great care of me. However,
for the last six weeks the whole world has taken care of me, and my special
thanks go to those of you on this list who met me, wined and dined me, informed
me, helped me plan or kept me in their thoughts. (And thanks to United,
Lufthansa and Thai airlines for safe, on time flights and for not loosing my
baggage - and for this nice lounge to wait in.)

I believe I mentioned before my famous fortune cookie -

YOU WILL BE PAID TO GO AROUND THE WORLD, WITH YOUR LOVER

and Vivian's explanation that "lover" meant "laptop lover". In Bombay I asked
Mrs. Parikh if she could think of a better name for her than "TOSHIBA". She
thought a moment and came up with SARAKAWI, the Godess of Knowledge. So thanks
to SARA (and TOSHIBA) and her two batteries for "no headaches, no shopping
sprees".

My last stop was in Bangkok to see Bhatacharya at the Aisian Institute of
technology and Woraphat Arthayukti at UNOCAL Thailand. When I tried to visit
AIT travel was not possible because the Queen of England was going to the
airport. So we settled for a long phone call. Woraphat was a Royal Host,
arranging a lecture for me at the Petroleum Thai Institute, then loaning me his
office and finally entertaining me for dinner with his lovely wife, Chelermporn
and sending me to the airport in the UNOCAL car. A wonderful end to the trip.

My mother would be proud of my balanced diet: In Europe I ate mostly meat and
cheese; in Asia I ate vegetarian. My plumbing performed without need of
attention. I sent several LARGE packages home; I had laundry done in Stockholm
($120), Bangalore ($4) and Bombay ($1); I was just able to carry:

My LL Bean backpack/briefcase
My Banff courtesy satchel (home of Sara)
My Chinese rolling suitcase

My impression from talking to all my Internet friends is that most people in the
world speak some English. Not so! Scientists and professional people mostly
are fluent in English. However, many times, even in hotels catering to
foreigners I had trouble finding any Basic English speakers.

The purpose of the trip was to gather information for a "Survey of Biomass
Gasification" and it was very well served. Several major themes emerged:

Interest in renewable energy crashed in the mid-1980s following the discovery
that the "energy crisis" was largely perceptual, created by political forces.
There is now a renaissance of gasification technology for environmental/CO2
reasons and for supplying energy to off-grid locations.

There is great concern in Europe about the tars generated during gasification;
in Asia we think that this problem is greatly overrated for downdraft gasifiers,
and I personally believe that some new gasifiers being developed can be used
with NO tar cleaning (but requires cooling and some particulate removal).

Diesel engines converted to spark ignition gas engines are being tested as
replacements for the dual-fuel diesel engines thatwere used for power generation
during the 80s. It is surprising that this is being discovered so late in the
game.

There is an upsurge of interest in stove research and stove testing. There are
still 2-3 billion people burning too much wood to poorly cook their dinners.

There is still generous support of research and commercialization by US AID and
the European equivalents.

It has been a wonderful adventure - and now I have to "pay the piper", ie write
the book, probably not as much fun as the trip. So, if most of you don't hear
from me for a while you'll know I'm in my cave with SARA.

Love to all, TOM REED

PS I was met at customs in LA at 9 AM by my family including Vivian who flew out
here. So, after spending most of Saturday in Tokyo, I also spent another
Saturday in Long Beach. I believe that I am one day older than I would have
been if I hadn't travelled around the world. (Phineas Fogg in "Around the World
in 80 Days" noted the same effect.)

 

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Fri Nov 8 19:49:24 1996
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bioenergy Email Lists and Commands
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961108164518.00d45300@mail.teleport.com>

BIOENERGY EMAIL LISTS

The bioenergy mailing lists are hosted by the Center for Renewable Energy &
Sustainable Technologies(CREST) for industry, academia and government to
discuss biomass production and conversion to energy. There are four lists
at CREST.

o Bioenergy (bioenergy@crest.org)
Moderator: Tom Miles (tmiles@teleport.com)
(Other Volunteers are Welcome!)
Archive: http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/bioenergy-list-archive/
Digest: bioenergy-digest@crest.org

o Gasification (gasification@crest.org)
Moderators: Tom Reed (73002.1213@CompuServe.COM)
Estoban Chornet (Chornete@tcplink.nrel.gov)
Archive: http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Digest: gasification-digest@crest.org

o Anaerobic Digestion (digestion@crest.org)
Moderators: Phil Lusk (plusk@usa.pipeline.com)
Richard Nelson
Dave Stephenson
Archive:http://www.crest.org/renewables/digestion-list-archive
Digest: digestion-digest@crest.org

o Stoves (stoves@crest.org)
Moderators: Ronal Larson(larcon@csn.net),
Etienne Moerman (E.Moerman@stud.tue.nl)
Archive:http://www.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Digest: stoves-digest@crest.org

Current subscribers to the lists are engaged in the research and commercial
production of biomass crops and fuels, the conversion of biomass power in
commercial operating plants, the construction and testing of commercial
scale pilot facilities for combustion, gasification and anaerobic
digestion, testing and analysis of environmental impacts for bioenergy, and
promotion and planning of future bioenergy resources.

This is a cooperative, volunteer effort that is now in it's third year. The
lists are moderated and managed by volunteers. We appreciate the support of
the Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technologies and the
National Bioenergy Industries Association for hosting the lists at their
site.

CONTRIBUTIONS

While there is no fee to subscribe to the list contributions are welcome
and will be necessary to sustain the lists. Please contact Tom Miles
(tmiles@teleport.com).

COMMANDS

To subscribe to the BIOENERGY Lists from any internet email address, please
send email to MAJORDOMO@CREST.ORG with the message

SUBSCRIBE list-name YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS <=three word command
(Example: subscribe bioenergy tmiles@teleport.com)

To post a message to all members on the list, please address it to
list-name@CREST.ORG
(Example: bioenergy@crest.org)

UNSUBSCRIBE list-name YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS <=three word command
(Example: unsubscribe bioenergy tmiles@teleport.com)

Note: If you send a subscribe/unsubscribe command for an email address that
is different from the one known to the list server - for example, you may
send a subscribe command on behalf of someone else - then your message will
go to the list moderator for approval.

OTHER COMMANDS - Send email to MAJORDOMO@crest.org with the command 'help'.

MESSAGE ARCHIVE
Messages are archived at CREST using hypermail. The archives can be viewed
and sorted by date, subject or thread using a WWW browser at URL
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/bioenergy-list-archive/index.html (or
as indicated above). CREST (Solstice) also supports WWW, gopher and ftp
for renewable energy at Solstice@crest.org.

MESSAGE DIGEST
Each list also has a digest, a collection of messages that is issued
periodically. This may be useful if you want to receive messages in a batch.
Subscribe to the list-name-digest@crest.org as indicated above.
(Example: subscribe gasification-digest@crest.org)

World Wide Web
~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~
http://solstice.crest.org/

Gopher
~~~~~~
gopher.crest.org

Anonymous FTP
~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
solstice.crest.org

You can contact CREST at +1 202 289-5370,
or by sending email to info@crest.org.

LISTS ADMINISTRATORS
Please direct questions to the bioenergy list administrators:
Tom Miles, Jr. tmiles@teleport.com,
Zach Nobel zach@crest.org
Andrew Waegel asw@crest.org

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Tom Miles, Jr. Thomas R. Miles
tmiles@teleport.com, tmiles@ortel.org Consulting Design Engineer
http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/ 5475 SW Arrowwood Lane
Tel (503) 591-1947 Fax (503) 292-2919 Portland, Oregon, USA 97225-1353

 

From 73002.1213 at CompuServe.COM Sat Nov 9 07:59:58 1996
From: 73002.1213 at CompuServe.COM (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: information on biogas run electrolux refrigerators
Message-ID: <961109125500_73002.1213_FHM49-3@CompuServe.COM>

Dear Kishore:

First let me thank you for the trip we took in Delhi last month. I later
visited the silk boiling plant. I will follow up here in Denver.

I too have long felt that the gas refrigerator would be a "natural" for producer
gas. We had a small camping trailer for 10 years in the mountains. It used
propane for the refrigerator. I don't see any reason why it couldn't use
producer gas. However, the burner would have to be redesigned for the low
energy gas and the gas would need to have consistent properties from day to day.
Most gas devices in the U.S. and Europe have automatic shutoff valves, so safety
would not be an issue.

However, one would have to project a reasonably large market before any
manufacturer would make the necessary changes. In China there are several
"producer gas villages" (Shandong province). Maybe those people would be
interested in developing the gas refrigerator if the villages succeed. Ralph
Overend at NREL has been there several times and sees a future.

Meanwhile, I will make inquiries to see who makes gas refrigerators in the U.S.,
costs, and possible problems.

Yours truly, TOM REED

 

 

 

From zach at crest.org Wed Nov 13 04:55:54 1996
From: zach at crest.org (Zach Nobel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: One more test, please ignore...
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961113045118.17183I-100000@solstice>

 

Again, I'm testing the majordomo program to make sure that things are
working properly..

Thanks for your patience.

Zachariah Nobel

_________
Zachariah Nobel, Assistant in Internet Services
Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology (CREST)
zach@crest.org

 

 

From zach at crest.org Wed Nov 13 05:25:18 1996
From: zach at crest.org (Zach Nobel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:14 2004
Subject: APOLOGY: Re: GAS-L: One more test, please ignore...
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961113045118.17183I-100000@solstice>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961113052045.17912A-100000@solstice>

 

For those of you who received many copies of the message above,
please acceept my most sincere apologies.

There will be no further test messages with your list.

Sincerely,

Zachariah Nobel

_________
Zachariah Nobel, Assistant in Internet Services
Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology (CREST)
zach@crest.org

 

 

From mannm at tcplink.nrel.gov Mon Nov 18 14:05:33 1996
From: mannm at tcplink.nrel.gov (mannm@tcplink.nrel.gov)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Discussion of the NREL gasification report
Message-ID: <9610188483.AA848347609@tcplink.nrel.gov>

This is a reply to a message posted a while back that questioned some
of the assumptions in the NREL report on gasification and thermal
processes. Phil Shepherd at NREL has provided the answers below, and
I have included the original post at the bottom of this message. If
you have further questions, please Phil Shepherd directly at
303-275-2929, as he is not a member of this list.

______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: GAS-L: The NREL report
Author: Philip Shepherd at NREL
Date: 11/1/96 4:35 PM

1. $60,000,000 for a materials processing facility is
reasonable, even though the data in our report do not
substantiate the commenter having selected this number. Page
2-10 puts the figure at about $38,000,000. The commenter is
referred to The Materials Recycling and Processing Industry in
the United States, 1996-96 Yearbook, Atlas, and Directory, V I
&II, where he will find the range of capital cost for material
recovery facilities to range from about $35,000 to $75,000 per
ton of daily capacity. Subtract out land and building then
add in fuel classification and the numbers in the report look
very reliable. The commenter claims a preprocessing plant for
only $10,00,000. I have no idea what this would consist of.
The commenter refers only to chopping and compression. That
would be far too simplistic and hazardous for dealing with
mixed municipal solid waste.

2. $40,000,000 for a gas turbine of about 40 MW is fairly
typical, although I once heard a figure of as low as
$24,000,000 claimed. The commenter claims a "power plant" for
$250,000 per MW but does not say what kind of power plant, so
I can not comment further.

3. The capital costs ranging around $100,000 per daily
ton of capacity excluding land and building is right on target
with other thermal processes for converting municipal solid
waste to heat or power. The reference here is 1993 - 94
Resource Recovery Yearbook. And, the cost per MWe is a little
less than lots of waste to energy plants. The commenter
should accept that the net cost to a community for managing
its trash is the issue. The cost per MWe, or whatever power
industry parameter you choose, is of no concern to public
works managers. That cost is but one input to the accounting
process that measures the net cost for a community to manage
it's trash.

Bottom line is all data and text were reviewed by a steering
committee including a representative from,EPA, one from a
major utility, NREL, and others. Only previous comment on
capital costs suggested that they may be too LOW. $100,000
per daily ton of capacity to process waste to RDF and convert
to electric power by almost any thermal process is accepted as
typical in the trade. I suggest that the commenter review the
GAA reports on Resource Recovery and on Waste Recycling and
Processing.



______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: GAS-L: The NREL report
Author: gasification@crest.org at SMTP
Date: 10/31/96 2:56 PM



I've just worked myself through the NREL report on gasification and novel
thermal processes, and the thing that struck me was the cost estimates. My
only reaction is: has the world gone mad? The figures seemed to be way out
of proportion. The two things I reacted most to was the cost estimates of
MSW pre-processing plants (about $60,000,000 for about 1000 t/d) and gas
turbines (about $40,000,000 for about 40 MW). To me this seems to be off
target by a factor of at least 10. I mean, if you divide the prices you get
a capital cost of $2,400 per kg/h, and $1,000,000 per MWe. That's madness!

Second, the process equipment in isolation ranged in investment costs
from $30,000,000 to $100,000,000. The equipment was constructed for
handling approximately 1000 t/d. This too is madness. Our gasifiers
we can handle the same amount of MSW for an investment cost of about
$5,000,000. (Cleaning system beyond cyclones and scrubbing not included)

My own estimate is that a 1000 t/d preprocessing plant (chopping and
compression) costs no more than $10,000,000 to build, and a power plant
costs at the very most $250,000 per MW. Can anyone give me a good reason
why these estimates should not hold?

If the costs reflected in the NREL report really are representative for
the MSW gasification industry then I understand why there are no real
successstories so far.


Onar.

 

 

From graeme.williams at bbs.powerlink.co.nz Wed Nov 20 02:21:27 1996
From: graeme.williams at bbs.powerlink.co.nz (GRAEME WILLIAMS)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ceramic candle help
Message-ID: <8CC943F.01F4000B1C.uuout@bbs.powerlink.co.nz>

Project proposals are now crossing my dest with line drawings of boxes
marked "Ceramic candle hot gas filtration". As a filter I am sure they
would build a perfect caking bed, much the same as any other filtering
surface. The difficulty of using ceramic filters is of course
maintaining an even pressure drop and removing the cake. It is proposed
to use reverse flow pulse cleaning, which means compressors. As this gas
is hot and full of condensable tar, does anyone know of a compressor or
any recipricating machinery proven commercially to work with such
hostile gas conditions?

I would also appreciate comment regarding the ceramic candles. They
would seem perfect to me in a boiler flue stack cleaned with compressed
air!

Who has commercial projects using them reliably for updraft dirty
producer gas?

All comments are valuable, so please hop in if you can contribute as I
am far from confident that it is appropriate technology.

Thanks,

Doug Williams

 

From 73002.1213 at CompuServe.COM Wed Nov 20 13:20:55 1996
From: 73002.1213 at CompuServe.COM (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ceramic candle help
Message-ID: <961120181607_73002.1213_FHM34-7@CompuServe.COM>

Dear Doug:

I certainly won't set myself up as an "expert" on ceramic candle, but here's
what I have been hearing.

The candles are made from porous silicon carbide, a very high temperature
ceramic with good shock resistance and oxidation resistance. In the U.S. the
principle marketer is Westinghouse, though there may be others.

In my recent trip around the world I saw several installations using ceramic
candles in Finland and Sweden. As you say, they require back pulsing and flow
control, but this has all been worked out. Part of the interest of Westinghouse
in the Hawaii-IGT project (BGF) is to test their candles and maybe provide a
market.

One of the justifications of operating high pressure gasifiers (for IGCC or
chemical synthesis) vs atmospheric with later compression is that the cost of
the candles is prohibitive at 1 atmosphere, but OK at 10 atm. Another seems to
be the incredibly low requirement on particulate and alkali metals (<40 ppB Na
and K).
As to tars, there is a window between 400C and 600C where the tars neither
condense or crack.

The use of candles may be justified, but it certainly ratchets up the cost of
gasification. It will be interesting to hear what others say.

Yours, TOM REED

 

 

From 73002.1213 at CompuServe.COM Wed Nov 20 13:21:22 1996
From: 73002.1213 at CompuServe.COM (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Small, biomass systems
Message-ID: <961120181605_73002.1213_FHM34-5@CompuServe.COM>

Dear Jane:

Thanks for you kind comments - makes travelling and E-mail worthwhile.

I appreciate your concern for applicability of gasification and I have the
following, partly from my trip:

(a) small systems in developing countries - most of the projects of the 1980s
closed down as soon as the development engineers went home. While technical
performance is not the only criterion of success, it is necessary and many of
the small gasifiers were made by groups with their eyes on the development
dollars rather than sterling performance. I believe that there is now a
renaissance and that we are seeing better systems operating without subsidies,
especially in India. (Did you see the large list of installed capacity on the
back of the last BUN-INDIA newsletter?)

(b) Did you see the concerns of ONAR on the costs of LARGE plants? They are
going out the roof with ever higher demands for perfection.

This will be a continuing dialogue, and this is a good time to pursue it before
I have to cast it in concrete in our book "Survey of Biomass Gasification".

I have some other comments I'll be posting soon in GASIFICATION.

Yours TOM REED

(Jane Turnbull asked:
Thanks for your many bits of great trivia and really good substantive
stuff as you circumambulated (or some such word) the globe. When you
are back in this country and have a few minutes, I'd really like to
discuss your conclusions. Over the past 12 months, I've been trying to
define how far we can take small biomass systems into the developing
countries, with some level of confidence that they'll meet
expectations/promises. My optimism still hasn't totally disappeared,
but the tough realities loom large. I have a couple of favorites
which I believe can be pushed to a better comfort level, but those I
can count on one hand.

Besides my e-mail, my phone is 415/919-1876, fax is 415/919-1877, and
via Steve Segrest, I now have a web site -
www.serve.com/stevie2/Companies/Turnbull.html)

 

 

From 73002.1213 at CompuServe.COM Sun Nov 24 07:59:29 1996
From: 73002.1213 at CompuServe.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: pressurized combustion
Message-ID: <961124125501_73002.1213_FHM32-1@CompuServe.COM>

Aerts, Parker et al:

I found the following on my laptop three weeks after I got home, probably
written in the Tokyo airport during my "extra" Saturday, courtesy of the
dateline.. If I sent it before, please excuse!

On my trip I saw a monstrous pressurized recirculating fluidized bed combustor
in Finland. It was impressive as a major engineering feat. One justification
is that the hot gas filtering with ceramic candles are relatively cheaper at
high pressure. However, the cost of the equipment is very high for combustion.

Pressurized operation MAY be justified for gasification, where operation of a
combined cycle gas turbine is the prize or for making synthesis gas where direct
production of methanol or ammonia is the prize. I visited the 5MWe, 9MWh
recirculating fluidized bed at Varnamo last month; they had operated the whole
system successfullly the previous week for a whole week. The system used lock
hoppers, but they were interested in trying a plug feeder which greatly reduces
gas losses.

So, I am glad to see pressurized operation being tested, but hope it is not
necessary for combustion.

Yours, TOM REED

 

 

From onar at hsr.no Mon Nov 25 04:08:23 1996
From: onar at hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: NREL report
Message-ID: <199611250905.KAA28490@broremann.hsr.no>

Here is my reply to Peter Shepherd.

1. My estimate of $10,000,000 for an MSW preprocessing plant is based
on Norwegian statistics of MSW. MSW can generally be divided into two
main categories: household waste and industrial waste. The latter
is about 2/3 of the total amount of waste. Now, of the industrial
waste more than 50% is wood from building and construction. This greatly
eases the gasification process. Due to glass & metal recycling only
about 10% of the total waste is glass or metal. This makes very little
MSW refinement necessary.

2. A power plant for $250,000 per MWe is not at all unreasonable.
I only have local figures to point to, but they illustrate my point.
Ullstein inc. sell 40% electrical efficiency generator sets for
$400,000 per MWe, and these guys are expensive. If you settle with
35% efficiency the price easily drops to $150,000 per MWe.

Another thing that I found disturbing was the fact that the very, very
best gross electrical power efficiency (Proler inc.) was no more than
40% (using gas turbines). Admittedly I am not as well-versed in MSW
as I am in wood gasification, but the corresponding efficiency for
wood (using gas turbines) is at least 50%. The theoretical limit for
gas turbines is 64% electrical efficiency using wood. I can't imagine
that MSW should yield much lower efficiencies than wood.
Currently the theoretical electrical efficiency for wood using state
of the art technology is 86%. Thus >70% electrical efficiencies is
currently practically conceivable. As the electrochemical membrane
technology improves the theoretical limit is expected to exceed
90%.

The commenter
should accept that the net cost to a community for managing
its trash is the issue.

Reply: if you sum the factors I have pointed out here you will
find that we no longer are talking about a net cost to a
community, but a net profit. THAT'S the real issue here: can
we turn MSW handling into a viable commercial industry or
must we accept that it is doomed to subsidization.

For the record: the electrical efficiency above is a measure of
how much gross electrical power one can squeeze out of the
HHV of the fuel. (sorry, make that electrical _energy_.)

Onar.