November 1997 Gasification Archive

From DMcilveenw at aol.com Sat Nov 1 16:31:42 1997
From: DMcilveenw at aol.com (DMcilveenw@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Global warming turning cool
Message-ID: <971101163432_1736138977@mrin45.mail.aol.com>

In a message dated 10/31/97 7:08:28AM, you write:

<<

In a message dated 10/30/97 1:50:37 PM, REEDTB@compuserve.com wrote:

>Having listened to the GW debate for a decade, and formed my own opinions,
>I PARTICULARLY RESENT that the GW zealots lump all those who disagree with
>their extreme, unconsidered, agenda as tools of the oil companies and big
>business. I have been working diligently for alternate energy for 20
>years.
>Don't panic, TOM REED
>

All -- here is another vote for Tom Reed's thoughtful approach --CA Kezar

>>

Is "wait and see" an option for non-linear systems? (They aint reversible).

David McIlveen-Wright
NICERT/ Energy Research Centre,
University of Ulster,
Coleraine BT52 1SA
Northern Ireland

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sat Nov 1 19:44:06 1997
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Turbines and Dreamers
Message-ID: <199711020044.NAA02979@powerlink.co.nz>

> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:34:24 -0500
> From: JPhillips@mmt.com (Jeff Phillips)
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Turbines and Dreamers
>
> Doug Williams et al.,
>
> I believe there is an excellent chance that existing gas turbine
> technology can be made to run well on producer gas with only a
minimum
> of retrofit provided that the producer gas is cleansed to remove all

> tars and most (not all) particulates. Here's the basis for my
> optimism.

<snip>

Producer Gas Turbines

Pleased to hear of your findings on syngas and its behaviour in turbines.
We have to keep in mind however that producer gas is completely different,
and be careful to separate its application and potential problems.

The calorific value of producer gas that we use for engines is "about" 135
BTU/ft3 (5.03kJ/Mn3) and provides very stable combustion. Your turbine
man's comments relating to combustion stability, will be based on trying to
use producer gas in the traditional way that one might use for natural gas.
This is one gas you cannot deliver to a combustion chamber nozzle and then
add the air!

As to the possibility of ABB turbines built for dirty gas, I think you will
find that they are well suited for blast or steel smelting furnaces where
producer gas comes from the coke. Possibly the problems of Vanadates comes
from the steel making additives, but unlike wood fuel where carbon blacks
impact and oxidise, the non oxidising dust from the furnace will just
entrain with the gas.

I will also mention the alkaline moisture and its capability to carry
carbon through filtration systems, so there will be need to incorporate gas
driers. No time for inclusion but will post a list of technical
considerations later.

Is there any chance of getting one of the turbine manufacturers into this
discussion?

Regards

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sun Nov 2 02:11:57 1997
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: gasification-digest V1 #553
Message-ID: <199711020712.UAA06548@powerlink.co.nz>

> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:44:58 -0500
> From: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
> Subject: GAS-L: German report part 2 - TR COMMENTS
>
> Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
> Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dear Doug:
>
> I certainly appreciated your comments on engines. Here are a few
> responses.
Dear Tom R and other list members,

Your responses to my comments in the German Reports exceeds my ability to
respond with the detail your answers deserve. Unfortunately even to write
the reports means I steal time from other activities, and I really have no
interest in spending my evenings digging deep into very boring literature
to quote chapter and verse. I mentioned once before in previous
discussions, that it is impossible for me to conduct what amounts to be a
correspondence course in engine gasification technology. Maybe in my
really old age I could do that, as I am sure it will all be just as
mysterious then as it is now. So for those who wrote directly to me with
questions, please use this gasification list so that others may contribute
and share answers.

I would like to make a few points however which isn't a way of avoiding
"sticky questions".

Science in gasification requires precise measurement and when I seek
precision you can be sure that I use the services of appropriately trained
industrial expertise. In fact I know we have accessed some of the best
talent in New Zealand.

Gasification is as we all know a very elusive technology, and in the area
of engine gasifiers it is a little more than precise measurements
as to whether it works or not. In pursuing technologically produced data
many of you have overlooked or ignored the skills of looking, touching and
listening, skills which once created the industrial revolution.
Gasification is the life force of carbon and the pulse of its heartbeat is
far more important to performance than thermal profiles recording a cooling
body. Real doctors know when the patient is dead.

There is only one purpose for an engine gasifier and the only thing
relevant is if that engine operates without problems (within its derated
capacity of course).

* No blocked or sticky manifolds
* No sticky valves
* No sooted or fouled spark plugs
* No big swings of power output on base loads
* Fast response to load change in variable load installations
* And it starts when you push "start".

Whatever it takes to achieve that only bothers those who need
measurements, not the engine. Having a measurement doesn't qualify anyone
to guarantee performance which has to be achieved over thousands of hours
with many variable conditions hardly possible to quantify. Gasification is
about application or it has no purpose, and if it requires study or
measurement it is because the system design is not appropriate for the end
application . This is what I refer to as negative gasification and I
address this issue in the next German Report.

Tom R, I like your probing questions, some answers are buried in literature
which takes time to locate and quote. Anything I write is a perspective of
that which must be known understood and applied to be able to build
commercially acceptable engine gasifiers. When I build a gasifier you can
physically kick the tyres of that perspective, which is something you
cannot do to many who cloak their expertise in scientific measurement and
advisory services.

ome answers albeit brief.
* The big cogen market in the EU is C.H.P. engine generation.
* If a turbo charger contaminates, the gas isn't really clean enough and
contains hydrocarbon.
* H2 content certainly affects ignition and would create NOX emissions if
it was the primary fuel. As neither is the situation in air gasification,
it remains something to divert the attention from some of the more
important issues.
* If you are quoting Hub Stassen from a written paper O.K., but please be
careful in putting names to statements that may be out of context to the
intended meaning. In Europe many have proposed that by reheating the gas
after scrubbing, it solves the filtration problems caused by wet gas. As
for moisture condensing on tar particles, isn't the tar itself hydrocarbon?
Reheating to overcome dew points of condensate creates two engine
problems:
1: Reduced volumetric efficiency and
2: fouling of spark plugs.

Temperature differentials also affect "which sticks to what", but again we
are being distracted from the real question (RQ)
RQ If condensable hydrocarbons have to be reheated to get them into the
engine, what disposal problems are being created for the black liquor from
the scrubber.
RQ How can any authorities approve of technology producing avoidable black
liquors?
RQ Is this gasifier working correctly?

* Laminar flows exist for whatever reason and is one reason why there are
so many problems relating to the understanding of gas cooling and cleaning.
The obvious isn't important, only its effect on other systems.
* Sure carbon soot burns, it is a great fuel for process heat, but please
don't suggest it is O.K. for engines. It is dirty gas.
* Fluidyne specialised in the manufacture of By-pass engine oil filtration
equipment before gasification. Jack Humphries took on the oil companies
and used their own chemistry to receive very grudgingly acceptance for
parameters to extend oil life and in turn reduced engine acid erosion. Two
thirds of engine life is consumed by water based acid erosion. The only
source of wear particles comes from ingested air and metal shed from
components. Part of Fluidyne's operator training programme actually deals
with field testing of the engine oil. It is simple, inexpensive and can
tell you plenty about what is going on in the engine. Bicarbonate is
better administered to human gasifiers.
* ETSU knows about Fluidyne and listed us as one of five gasifier
manufacturers in one of their publications. They only support, not
implement energy technologies, the use of which is determined by price
fixed by goodness knows who in the Ministry of Energy. ETSU had one of
their team with us when we demonstrated our Pacific Class gasifier in
Manchester during Tree Week to launch the Red Rose Forests project,
November 1994.
* Base load diesel generation allows injector modification to minimise
diesel consumption. In commercial rural application where variable load in
big swings is experienced, the consumption is higher 20-30%, but the engine
retains its ability to operate on 100% diesel as required. Specially
modified engines create problems for the users in one off situations. It
is unlikely diesels are sitting around unused as there is a very healthy
international used power generation market.
* Fluidyne have not converted diesels to spark ignition. Our market
required us to dual fuel existing
engines to which we tailor an external mechanical conversion kit. Spark
ignition natural gas engines are now being used for our U.K. and German
projects.

This has displaced the next German Report.
That's as far as I can go.

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

From Koel_Family at classic.msn.com Mon Nov 3 00:08:19 1997
From: Koel_Family at classic.msn.com (David Koel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <UPMAIL05.199711030510450446@classic.msn.com>

From moersch at IVD.Uni-Stuttgart.DE Mon Nov 3 04:10:35 1997
From: moersch at IVD.Uni-Stuttgart.DE (Oliver Moersch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: tar meter
Message-ID: <345DA3DD.6051@ivd.uni-stuttgart.de>

Dear Thomas Reed

Scanning through the gasification mailing list archive I found a mail
where you suggest a "tar-meter" based on FID.
At University of Stuttgart we have been working for some time on tar
sampling and measurement and one result of this work is our quasi
continuous online analyzer for tars. The prototype has been under
testing for the last two months and so far it performs very well. Tar
measurement takes two minutes. Due to the rather poor gas quality of our
BFB-type gasifier, the lowest tar content we so far achieved is about
0.5 g/m3. This quantity can easily be detected. The detection limit
should be much lower than this, although it might become necessary to
increase sampling time.

Kind regards

Oliver Moersch

=====================================================================
Dipl.-Ing. Oliver Moersch
Institut fuer Verfahrenstechnik und Dampfkesselwesen IVD, Abt. DT
Pfaffenwaldring 23, D-70569 Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Germany
Phone ++49 711 685 3565, Fax ++49 711 685 3491
moersch@ivd.uni-stuttgart.de
=====================================================================

From Murat.Dogru at newcastle.ac.uk Mon Nov 3 04:32:07 1997
From: Murat.Dogru at newcastle.ac.uk (DOGRU)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: tar meter
Message-ID: <52AE06E1C61@TOWN7.ncl.ac.uk>

Dear O. Moersch,

Could you forward some information about your tar measurement
techniques to the gasification list if it is not confidential ?
Or, have you got any written published article for your tar
measurement method ?

Tanks and Regards
Murat Dogru
murat.dogru@newcastle.ac.uk

> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 11:13:49 +0100
> From: Oliver Moersch <moersch@IVD.Uni-Stuttgart.DE>
> Organization: IVD
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: tar meter
> Reply-to: gasification@crest.org

> Dear Thomas Reed
>
> Scanning through the gasification mailing list archive I found a mail
> where you suggest a "tar-meter" based on FID.
> At University of Stuttgart we have been working for some time on tar
> sampling and measurement and one result of this work is our quasi
> continuous online analyzer for tars. The prototype has been under
> testing for the last two months and so far it performs very well. Tar
> measurement takes two minutes. Due to the rather poor gas quality of our
> BFB-type gasifier, the lowest tar content we so far achieved is about
> 0.5 g/m3. This quantity can easily be detected. The detection limit
> should be much lower than this, although it might become necessary to
> increase sampling time.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Oliver Moersch
>
>
> =====================================================================
> Dipl.-Ing. Oliver Moersch
> Institut fuer Verfahrenstechnik und Dampfkesselwesen IVD, Abt. DT
> Pfaffenwaldring 23, D-70569 Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Germany
> Phone ++49 711 685 3565, Fax ++49 711 685 3491
> moersch@ivd.uni-stuttgart.de
> =====================================================================
>

From JPhillips at mmt.com Mon Nov 3 10:59:32 1997
From: JPhillips at mmt.com (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Turbines and Dreamers
Message-ID: <00028CC6.3419@mmt.com>

Graeme Williams,

Your wrote:

" This is one gas you cannot deliver to a combustion chamber nozzle
and then add the air!"

Please educate me. I don't understand the problem.

Jeff Phillips
Molten Metal Technology

From DMcilveenw at aol.com Tue Nov 4 01:36:27 1997
From: DMcilveenw at aol.com (DMcilveenw@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2 emissions not GW
Message-ID: <971104013859_459241721@mrin44.mail.aol.com>

Iguess my question on 24th October sparked off the current, increasingly
acrimonious discussion on GW.
I would ask you to look again at the question:

"Any comments from the biomass community on the announcement of the US DoE on
the 3.6% increase in CO2 emissions last year in the USA, as well as the USA's
postponement to 2017 of the reduction in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels?"

As you can see, no direct reference to GW.

Also, there are perhaps other important implications here.

1) If CO2 emissions have increased last year in the US, more fossil fuels are
being used there.
2) If CO2 emissions are not going to be reduced for the next 20 years, fossil
fuel use is also not going to be reduced for the next 20 years.

Where does the US get its fossil fuels? It has some coal, but it imports oil.

Implications: 1) Potential for another oil crisis
2) Another Gulf War?
3) Role of Renewable Energy in the US - to secure
indignous fuel supplies?

Come on guys, if you can't discuss GW rationally, there are still other major
issues to be found in these US energy policies.

Please note: I did not send this message or the original on 24th October (the
decision to forward it was made elsewhere), to the STOVES group.

David McIlveen-Wright
Energy Research Centre/NICERT,
University of Ulster,
Coleraine BT52 1SA
N. Ireland

From PowerSou at aol.com Tue Nov 4 07:47:49 1997
From: PowerSou at aol.com (PowerSou)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2 emissions not GW
Message-ID: <70f0a8ef.345f195d@aol.com>

From: David DeHart

I would like to preface my comments by saying I do not believe in global
warming.

Secondly, if GW does exist and CO2 is a cause, then let's eliminate all
sources of CO2.

Let's see, that includes:

power plants
cars
camp fires
animals
people
etc.

The above is just as crazy as some of the existing GW/CO2 talk.

From jim.birse at dial.pipex.com Tue Nov 4 10:35:26 1997
From: jim.birse at dial.pipex.com (Jim Birse)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2 emissions not GW
Message-ID: <01BCE937.692A8A80@an235.du.pipex.com>

Re.

From: David DeHart

I would like to preface my comments by saying I do not believe in global
warming. [Jim Birse] etc.

[Jim Birse]
Dear Mr DeHart,

There is a considerable difference between the natural cycling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (with concentrations staying relatively stable and even gradually decreasing over time as the earth's natural feedback systems react to a very gradual increase - over Aeons - in the brightness of the sun) and the addition of huge amounts of fossil Carbon that was "taken out of the system" millions of years ago.

The natural carbon cycle is vital to life on earth. Continuing to add huge amounts of extra CO2 to our atmosphere will not end life on earth - indeed some species may do very well but mankind is most unlikely to be one of the benefactors.

No one is seriously suggesting that we can stop using all fossil fuels right now, we can't. It is vital however to encourage basic understanding of how our atmosphere functions and the likely Climate Change implications of increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by 150 to 200% and to look seriously at what we can do to mitigate against those implications.

While many people do not believe in GW or Climate Change and seem not to understand how our atmosphere works it is interesting to note that many of the worlds leading insurers do seem to believe in global warming, perhaps it's because they are already picking up the tab.

Jim Birse.

From JPhillips at mmt.com Tue Nov 4 16:19:56 1997
From: JPhillips at mmt.com (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2 emissions not GW
Message-ID: <000291B8.3419@mmt.com>

David,

Here are some dry answers to your questions about where the US gets
its energy (Data source: U.S. DOE Energy Information Agency
www.eia.doe.gov):

Change in U.S. Energy Consumption 1995 to 1996

absolute change relative change
(quads) (%)

Total +2.871 +3.2
Renewables +0.546 +8.0
Fossil +2.354 +3.0
Nukes -0.009 0.0

Breakdown of the Fossil Energy Consumption is

Petroleum +1.054 +3.0
Natural Gas +0.424 +1.9
Coal +0.903 +4.5

The increase in petroleum consumption was met by an increase of oil
imports of 1.24 quads (quadrillion BTUs). Domestic oil production
fell slightly as it has every year since 1985 (when oil prices
crashed).

Total fossil fuel consumption in 1990 was 71.955 quads. In 1996 it
was 79.292 quads. So, we will have to decrease fossil fuel
consumption by almost 10% between now and 2017 to meet the stated
target. A decrease of 13% was accomplished between 1979 and 1983.
The key to the 79-83 drop was, of course, higher oil prices and the
worst US economic recession since the Great Depression of the 1930's.
"Ah, those were the days."

Incidentally, the US does indeed have "some" coal. So much so that
the price is relatively insensitive to demand (if price would go up,
hundreds of mines could open back up overnight). Thus rising oil
prices would cause coal consumption to go up (as it did between '79
and '83).

Jeff Phillips
Molten Metal Technology

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: GAS-L: CO2 emissions not GW
Author: DMcilveenw@aol.com at Internet
Date: 11/4/97 1:39 AM

Iguess my question on 24th October sparked off the current, increasingly
acrimonious discussion on GW.
I would ask you to look again at the question:

As you can see, no direct reference to GW.

Also, there are perhaps other important implications here.

Where does the US get its fossil fuels? It has some coal, but it imports oil.

Implications: 1) Potential for another oil crisis
2) Another Gulf War?
3) Role of Renewable Energy in the US - to secure
indignous fuel supplies?

Come on guys, if you can't discuss GW rationally, there are still other major
issues to be found in these US energy policies.

Please note: I did not send this message or the original on 24th October (the
decision to forward it was made elsewhere), to the STOVES group.

David McIlveen-Wright
Energy Research Centre/NICERT,
University of Ulster,
Coleraine BT52 1SA
N. Ireland

From PQVC79B at prodigy.com Tue Nov 4 21:55:33 1997
From: PQVC79B at prodigy.com (MR BEN WIANT)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2 emissions not GW
Message-ID: <199711050259.VAA62512@mime2.prodigy.com>

From: Ben Wiant
To: David Dehart
Opinions are like assholes: everybody has one.
This forum should stick to facts. If you want to back your beliefs
with facts please do.

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Nov 5 07:11:53 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: tar meter
Message-ID: <199711050714_MC2-26CB-314C@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Oliver:

Thanks for the progress report on your "tar meter". My original idea was
to use a flame ionization detector, an FID, in a gas slip stream and this
would give a continuous electronic reading. I still think it would give an
indication, but methane interferes significantly.

Would you care to give us a hint on the principle of operation of your
meter?

Yours truly, TOM REED

From PowerSou at aol.com Wed Nov 5 08:07:31 1997
From: PowerSou at aol.com (PowerSou@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2 emissions not GW
Message-ID: <971105075117_75561645@emout04.mail.aol.com>

<< In a message dated 97-11-05 01:32:21 EST, Ben Wiant writes:

PQVC79B@prodigy.com (MR BEN WIANT)

Opinions are like assholes: everybody has one. This forum should stick to
facts. If you want to back your beliefs with facts please do.>>

Ben:

It is also my opinion that this forum is for adults who can express their
opinion without acting like children. Children frequently result to using
profanity when they are upset.

If you were to truely examine yourself, you would discover that almost
everything that you think you know is really only an opinion. I, like you,
am the world's foremost expert on my opion.

Learned science in the 1400s thoght the world was flat and people were jailed
who wanted to sail the ocean, all under the pretense of protecting them from
falling off the edge of the Earth. The "science" crowd of 20 years ago said
we were heading into an iceage. <<==== Please note that this was their
opinion. There are many other examples of this.

As for data, anyone can take a small piece of data and make it show what they
want it to show. I could take data from two days of last week's stock market
"blood bath" and using only that data show a trend that the market should now
be at around 4,500.

The GW - CO2 "problem" involves many, many, many variables before a true
model can be constructed and believed, not just a few years of reading the
thermometer and saying the temperature has increased by 0.2 degrees. I have
not seen a model that is accurate for the long run. None of the GW models
predicted this year's temperatures.

As for backing up statements with facts, you did not back up your statement
with facts or attempt to do so. Others have also had the opinion that you
have of me. You also did not use any facts (your opinions) on the current
issue at hand.

To look at the CO2 in the atmosphere, we must do a mass balance analysis and
look at the amount currently existing, amount being produced, and the amount
being removed. Sources include man-made and those which occur naturally.
The data that I have seen shows that the CO2 produced from natural sources
far excees that produced by man-made sources. I thought you want to give me
the last straw that broke the camel's back or the last drop that caused the
bucket to overflow story. Oops that would be your opinion.

Since I belive the Earth is able to compensate, I also believe the Earth will
genereate methods to reduce the CO2 (i.e. vegetation). Studies have also
shown that the plant growth has increased. <<=== Please note that this is
the opinion of the scientists who produced these studies.

Ben, I welcome your response with your facts and opinions. Thank you.

From PQVC79B at prodigy.com Wed Nov 5 14:45:25 1997
From: PQVC79B at prodigy.com (MR BEN WIANT)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2 emissions not GW
Message-ID: <199711051948.OAA64766@mime2.prodigy.com>

Thanks - That is more like it.
Ben

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Wed Nov 5 14:58:24 1997
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Turbines and Dreamers
Message-ID: <199711051958.IAA15524@powerlink.co.nz>

----------
> From: Jeff Phillips <JPhillips@mmt.com>
> To: gasification@crest.org; Graeme Williams <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>
> Subject: Re[2]: GAS-L: Turbines and Dreamers
> Date: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 5:00 AM
>
> Graeme Williams,
>
> Your wrote:
>
> " This is one gas you cannot deliver to a combustion chamber nozzle
> and then add the air!"
>
> Please educate me. I don't understand the problem.
>
> Jeff Phillips
> Molten Metal Technology
Jeff

My comments about delivering producer gas to the combustion chamber nozzle
and then adding air, relates to atmospheric gasification combustion and is
possibly just as valid for oxygen blown. Unlike cool gas which is by
comparison of consistent calorific value, the wood gas quality can
fluctuate depending on uncontrollable variables throughout the whole
system. This naturally changes the very close gas/air ratio and in turn
affects ignition stability of the mixed gas. You must also remember that
we are dealing with large volumes of gas of which only 20 - 23% is
combustible (average).

The real problem is the mixing of two different density streams to the
correct gas/air ratio before ignition. Because unmixed gas and
hydrocarbons have to scavenge oxygen in the combustion zone, soot forms
which then go on to cause other problems.

Tom R mentioned that turbines need a 10 bar oxygen blown gas supply, which
means atmospherically producer gas would have greater volume for the same
total calorific value. At the burner nozzle this equates to velocities
that can and do exceed the flame speed which coupled with changing
calorific value produce the unstable combustion reported by some research
projects.

Burners for low BTU gas have not been to our knowledge available from
commercial suppliers, and back in 1981 or 2 Fluidyne had to research and
develop these burners for timber drying kilns.

Jack Humphries wrote a paper on the subject and it is quite useful if you
haven't any knowledge of basic producer gas combustion problems. If you
would like a copy, post me US$3 and its yours!

Sorry I cannot offer it free, but other people's curiosity has a very high
cost attached to it.

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd
P O Box 2l-583
Henderson
Auckland, New Zealand.

From mezainal at rocketmail.com Wed Nov 5 20:09:41 1997
From: mezainal at rocketmail.com (Zainal Zainal)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification in Japan?
Message-ID: <19971106010757.13591.rocketmail@web1.rocketmail.com>

Dear friends,

I am seeking information if there are anybody working
in gasification in Japan. I would appreciate if
anybody could supply the information urgently.

Thanks

Dr. Zainal

_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com

From Luiz-Carlos.deSousa at psi.ch Thu Nov 6 02:43:59 1997
From: Luiz-Carlos.deSousa at psi.ch (Luiz Carlos de Sousa)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification in Japan?
Message-ID: <"RFC-822:3461760f:1b5*/RFC-822=(060)971106084725.537(a)psidmw.psi.ch.0(062)/ADMD=400net/C=ch/"@MHS>

Dear Dr. Zainal and List

you might try to contact the University of Tokyo. As far as I know, they are
not ivestigating thermochemical gasification but rather supercritical
liquefaction in water. This summer I had one of their students over here in the
IAESTE student exchage program. You may contact his professor Mr. Yoshida for
further information. Prof. Yoshida's e-mail is yoshida@chemsys.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Regards

Luiz Carlos de Sousa
_______________________________________________

Luiz Carlos de Sousa Phone: +41 56 310 40 60
Paul Scherrer Institut
OLGA/215 Fax: +41 56 310 21 99
CH-5232 Villigen PSI
Switzerland e-mail: desousa@psi.ch
_______________________________________________

From cvc at redestb.es Thu Nov 6 14:51:52 1997
From: cvc at redestb.es (Marc)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Coke
Message-ID: <34622ED3.6B23@redestb.es>

Dear all,

Does anybody know if Petroleum Coke could be used as fuel in
gasification process to generate steam at low pressure (200 psi).
What about the high level of sulphur(4,5%)?Is there any reference?

We are an engineering company with experience in steam boilers and now
we are studying the aplication of gasification thecnics in Spain
industry.

Yours,
Marc Vilaseca

Territorio y Medio Ambiente, S.A.
Aragon 141-143; 4º
08015 Barcelona
Spain

Phone : + 34 3 2804554
Fax : + 34 3 2057143
e-mail: cvc@redestb.es

From ali at worldbank.org Thu Nov 6 22:35:08 1997
From: ali at worldbank.org (ali)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tps Plant in Italy
Message-ID: <34622B51.65F2@WORLDBANK.ORG>

I'm Carlo Magni from World Bank-Washington D.C. and I'm working
on a Commercial Demonstration Project for a Biomass Gasification Plant
in Brazil.

I would like to know something about the TPS Termiska Processer's
Commercial Gasification Plant operating on RDF at Greve di Chianty in
Italy. Could you give me any new references?

Thank you in advance for your help,

Carlo.
--
The World Bank, 1818 H St. NW, Washington DC 20433, U.S.A.
http://www.worldbank.org +1(202)477-1234

From JPhillips at mmt.com Thu Nov 6 23:50:07 1997
From: JPhillips at mmt.com (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Turbines and Dreamers
Message-ID: <0002994D.3419@mmt.com>

Doug,

You are certainly right that if the producer gas is available at atmospheric
pressure and has fluctuating heating value, it is really not compatible with
being used in a gas turbine. You are better off trying to fuel a piston engine
since at least there you don't have to spend the extra money for a compressor to
get the gas up to the gas turbine combustor pressure.

As far as cleanly and stably burning low BTU gas goes, I will reiterate that GE
found they could burn low BTU gas (down to 100 BTU/SCF) with no problems in
their "F" class combustors. BUT, the low BTU gas they used had very consistent
calorific content (typical of a coal gasifier) and was available at a pressure
which was high enough to get through the control system for their combustor.
>From what I can tell, GE uses a very high pressure drop between the fuel supply
header and the combustion zone. I'm assuming they must force the fuel through
very high velocity nozzles to promote rapid and complete mixing in the
combustion zone (thus good emissions performance even on low BTU gas).

Just to give you an idea of the pressures, GE's F class turbine (e.g., 7F & 9F)
operate with a pressure ratio of about 16:1, meaning that the combustor is
operating at 16 atmospheres, and the fuel supply pressure is typically at least
5 atmospheres above that. Naturally there are a lot of different gas turbines
out there - many run at lower pressure ratios than 16:1, but I think Tom Reed is
probably right if he said that you need fuel gas at 10 bar to get into a gas
turbine. I don't think you'll find one with a lower pressure requirement than
10 bar.

Jeff Phillips
Molten Metal Technology

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: GAS-L: Turbines and Dreamers
Author: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz> at Internet
Date: 11/6/97 8:51 AM

Burners for low BTU gas have not been to our knowledge available from
commercial suppliers, and back in 1981 or 2 Fluidyne had to research and
develop these burners for timber drying kilns.

Jack Humphries wrote a paper on the subject and it is quite useful if you
haven't any knowledge of basic producer gas combustion problems. If you
would like a copy, post me US$3 and its yours!

Sorry I cannot offer it free, but other people's curiosity has a very high
cost attached to it.

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd
P O Box 2l-583
Henderson
Auckland, New Zealand.

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sat Nov 8 00:36:21 1997
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: German report part 4 High over Europe
Message-ID: <199711080536.SAA11810@powerlink.co.nz>

German Report No. 4 - High over Europe

The day I left Germany (22 September) we drove from Oldenburg across the
dyke at the top of the Netherlands and down to Amsterdam via a lot of side
roads (motorway problems). With a huge high over most of Europe, the North
Sea was like glass and the ever present windmills still and silent.

Our enforced crawl through the side roads of the countryside, highlighted
the problems of what must be the best drained overfertilized swamp in the
world.

Once in the air I looked down on the high density housing and industrial
areas of the Netherlands and Germany, and I don't mind admitting to feeling
a little overwhelmed. Has anyone out there a calculation of how many
Departments to Minister of Energy exist, or how many technical institutions
advise or help formulate energy policy. How many former biomass
researchers have rotated their way through Aid Agencies and other
institutions?

While you think about that, I have need to step back a few years to 1985,
when four of us from New Zealand went to Bandung in Indonesia for the
Second International Gasification Conference It was very expensive to
attend (for those who paid their own way) but here I saw negative
gasification (NG) "at work" for the first time. NG is where everything is
explained, but you don't get told how to do it, and when attempted doesn't
quite work. Its nothing that another few failed projects in far away
places won't solve however, as no one really checks out these projects.

NG had its origin in the heady days of the oil price crisis, when both
governments and Aid Agencies flooded technical institutes, consultancies,
etc. with rather large amounts of money. The idea was to get biomass
energy working, but there never was an integration of expertise and
infrastructure to ensure this could be achieved. My concerns for the
direction of NG had grown considerably by 1988, and I endeavoured to
establish contact with other gasifier manufacturers. The need to form an
association to represent our industry and have input into long term
planning and policies was clearly missing. It didn't happen as commercial
manufacturers were too few at that time and busy struggling to survive.

In the nine years since 1988, there has been a continuous rotation of NG
knowledge and it now percolates through most countries' policies towards
power generation from biomass.

When it was announced in the U.K. of the Non Fossil Fuel Order (NFFO) it
seemed every consultant who drew breath wrote to us wanting to gasify
everything but mouse droppings. The same happened from other EU countries
as money came up for grabs to reduce CO2 emissions. This scramble for
money is really a matter of survival, as most institutional activities are
struggling for operational funding. Competing for project funds prevents
pooling expertise in a constructive manner, and it does nothing long term
for the co-ordination of effort to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

So back to reality and I am high over Europe after four weeks of hard work
pushing Positive Gasification (PG).

PG is when every question is answered with a lecture, every problem has a
solution, and you see your team come alive as their own knowledge is pushed
and pulled into alignment. When the penny of understanding drops, suddenly
everything changes, particularly attitude towards biomass energy. During
these four weeks our Russian speaking design team who knew nothing about
gasification, went from tree to engine designing each system with a degree
of practical skill that doesn't seem to count any more. All over 50, they
are considered unemployable and these men designed, built and commissioned
steel mills! The waste of industrial expertise within the EU will
eventually be recognised as the loss of a national asset, but only a
dilution of their skills will remain by the time that happens.

We had their skills however, and redesigned our Pacific Class gasifier so
that it could be manufactured in the Ukraine. Moving Fluidyne gasification
technology into Russia is to meet the electrical shortages of their
industry, and small C.H.P. engine systems are appropriate for their needs.
The ability to meet these needs extend further than just making gasifiers
and chopping wood. The implementation programme needs supporting
infrastructure such as operator training, gasifier servicing, fuel supply
and replanting of fuel plantations. Even to create a core team in Germany
has taken three years, so to move on again is proving to be a daunting
task.

Here are a few questions to ponder.
* Why did hardnosed businessmen in the UK, Germany and now Russia, have to
get their questions answered and purchase equipment half a world away in
New Zealand? What's wrong with EU technology?
* How can competing factions within the EU resolve biomass energy problems
without co-ordination.
* Has poorly directed and monitored research actually created a
Frankenstein within bureaucracies, lurching around swiping us with NG
* What can we do to rectify the above and lots more you can name yourself?

During the writing of these German Reports, which I must emphasise is pure
biased opinion, I have stood up to show that a person is ultimately behind
every company name and is responsible for the technology they present. In
my chosen field of engine gasification, there are no competitors, only
colleagues struggling to overcome the inertia of dictatorial
administrations.

Possibly I have also spoken for the many friends within institutes
consultancies and industry who cannot comment in such a public forum. They
don't all agree with my views which keeps me ever vigilant to investigate
and improve my own presentation of biomass energy.

Whilst I have named these as German Reports, its problems and comments are
universal. I haven't written this to impress anyone, solicit work, sell
equipment, or expand my non existent industrial empire. Sharing knowledge
of each others' activities ultimately benefits us all.

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

From moersch at IVD.Uni-Stuttgart.DE Tue Nov 11 08:38:22 1997
From: moersch at IVD.Uni-Stuttgart.DE (Oliver Moersch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: tar meter (details)
Message-ID: <34686094.2059@ivd.uni-stuttgart.de>

Dear Gasification Colleagues

Here some more detailed information on our tar meter:

The method is based on the comparison of the hydrocarbon content of the
hot tar containing gas and that of the gas with all tars removed.

Major obstacles for the application of this principle using two FIDs
are:

- for low tar contents, the difference of the two measurements is
very small compared to their absolute value (typically 100
mg of tar against 50000 mg of gaseous hydrocarbons)

- both FIDs have to have absolutely identical and constant flow
rates

- on removing condensable components the reference volume
decreases considerably (water!)

- possible fluctuations of the gas composition require to
analyze exactly contemporaneously

With the following procedure these obstacles are overcome:

Hot gas from the gasifier is led directly to the analyzer. At the
beginning of the analysis two identical sample loops are brought in line
with a hot slip stream from the gasifier. Both sample loops are filled
contemporaneously. Fluctuations of the gas concentration do, therefore,
not affect the analysis. When the sample loops are filled, high
temperature valves connect them with a carrier gas flow that
consecutively flushes their content to the flame ionization detector. At
first the gas from one sample loop is lead directly to the FID and the
total content of hydrocarbons is registered. The gas from the second
sample loop is lead to a Filter, where all condensable substances are
removed and then passes on to the FID, thus yielding the content of non
condensable hydrocarbons. Benzene and toluene completely pass this
filter and are not registered as tar (they do not cause trouble in an
engine!). The difference of the two measurements yields the total mass
of tars in the gas.

To test the analysis method a series of gasification experiments have
been carried out. The gasifier used is of the bubbling fluidized bed
type with a thermal capacity of 25 kW. Good agreement has been achieved
with previous results. The scatter of the new method is much smaller
than for the method used up to now. The experiments showed that quasi
continuous online monitoring is possible. Sampling and analysis time are
reduced to a minimum (currently 100s for one run).

Increasing sampling time, the system should also be applicable to very
low tar contents. A limitation is the relatively high vapor pressure of
the tar components even at low temperatures. To completely condense all
tars the filter has to be operated at temperatures below 00(even at -10
0C about 10 mg/m3 of naphthalene will stay in the gas phase).

At present we are developing a second prototype. It is going to be a 19"
device the size of a standard FID.

Up to now, this work has not been published. It will be presented at a
conference in Germany on the 19th November (in German) and has been
handed in for other conferences.

Regards

Oliver Moersch

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Nov 11 13:34:13 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Message from Internet
Message-ID: <199711111333_MC2-27CB-2714@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Gay and All:

I received my copy of your Biomass Users Network, BUN 5 newsletter today
and am printing it out, EVEN AS WE SPEAK (or type). I look forward to
receiving your hard hard copy, no rush, but I will read my copy in the next
day or two and file the separate articles in appropriate places.

I use the back sides of recycled Xerox paper for such jobs. I suppose this
is primary recycling (using for original purpose). Does anyone else? 17
Pages saved!

I noticed a note by me on "Biomass Research Through the Internet" on P. 11
anks.
Keep up the great work. In my view India is the world center for the
development of small gasifiers (with lots of help from Europe, not much
from U.S.).

Yours truly, TOM REED

PS I have been working on my WWW page this weekend and hope to be "On Web"
in a few days. Looked at your page yesterday. Nice, but slow on a Sunday
afternoon.

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Nov 11 18:14:22 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: German report part 4 High over Europe
Message-ID: <199711111817_MC2-27CF-48F8@compuserve.com>

Dear Doug:

Thank you for sharing your experiences in the EU with us in you 4-5
letters. What a strength is the internet when properly used!

My observations on my trip last year are more or less in accord with
yours. High hopes, (Based on WWII successes) low expertise, inattentions
to details, then fade out. I have tried to remedy this to some extent with
stocking books that explain and instsruct in gasification, but books are no
substitute for experience. Short of WWIII, I suppose global warming is our
best bet for a crisis situation.

Thanks again, TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Nov 11 18:14:30 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: tar meter (details)
Message-ID: <199711111817_MC2-27CF-48FF@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Oliver Moersch:

Thanks so much for your detailed description of your FID tar meter. Having
thought part way along these lines, I am glad to see that you took the next
hurdle - using a second FID to get background, since the light hydrocarbons
have a much higher concentration than the heavies. It sounds as if you
have invented the FID equivalent of the Wheatstone Bridge.

You are correct that the benzene and toluenes should not be classified as
"tars". (In fact, they are to some extent tar solvents!). If you are
Cooling to 0 C, you will be measuring many things that don't interfere with
engine operation. I should think you wound merely compare the stream at 90
C before and after the tar filter. That will condense all the heavy tars
that bother engines and pass the lighter hydrocarbons.

My impression is that the sensitivity of the FID increases with increasing
number of carbon atoms. Is that true? If so, your sensitivity should be
more than expected on a mass basis.

After the tar filter I recommend a pump taking the gas to a warm Bunsen
burner. A visual inspection of the combustion can tell you a lot about gas
condition. And you burn off the gas which is useful indoors.

Comments?

Yours truly, TOM REED

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Wed Nov 12 12:53:32 1997
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Turbines and Dreamers
Message-ID: <199711121753.GAA31603@powerlink.co.nz>

> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:49:14 -0500
> From: JPhillips@mmt.com (Jeff Phillips)
> Subject: Re[4]: GAS-L: Turbines and Dreamers
>
<snip>
> As far as cleanly and stably burning low BTU gas goes, I will reiterate
that GE
> found they could burn low BTU gas (down to 100 BTU/SCF) with no problems
in
> their "F" class combustors. BUT, the low BTU gas they used had very
consistent
> calorific content (typical of a coal gasifier) and was available at a
pressure
> which was high enough to get through the control system for their
combustor.
> >From what I can tell, GE uses a very high pressure drop between the fuel
supply
> header and the combustion zone. I'm assuming they must force the fuel
through
> very high velocity nozzles to promote rapid and complete mixing in the
> combustion zone (thus good emissions performance even on low BTU gas).
>

Jeff and others

I looked up some files over the weekend on gasified turbine projects, and I
am still of the opinion that current turbine engines are inappropriate for
producer gas. G.E. have selected their LM2500 gas turbine for biomass
gasification, and its development for Brazil appears to be funded from the
public purse to the tune of $US 1.6M In G.Es own words, at one seventh the
heating value of natural gas it is therefore not straightforward, and is
made somewhat more difficult by volume constraints in the combustion
annulus of aeroderivative engines.

I don't have any information on different combustion chambers, but producer
gas will require a multi chambered system to keep the flame speed under
control. There are other factors about these chambers that also need
resolving for producer gas, which for commercial reasons I will leave for
the moment.

G.E. are supplying the gas at temperatures as high as 450 degrees C,
possibly to match the temperature of the air from the compressor, which can
be taken off at the appropriate compression ratio and 16:1 is quite close
to the few figures I have on turbine compression.

I spent an afternoon in Bristol U.K. looking at R.R. turbines a couple of
years ago, just to see for myself and get a "feel" for this technology.
Hopefully my perception of turbine function and the behaviour of hot
producer gas from biomass in that environment is wrong, because the public
image being promoted, is that it is all a piece of cake.

The list of turbine trivia I promised to post will confuse the issue for
clean gas application, which doesn't require standards of contamination. A
question I would appreciate anyone answering is:

If these turbine projects are working so well, and the contamination level
of the gas is within limits why is there emphasis on developing blade
coatings? I also wonder where the combustion philosophy comes from?

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

From ferguson at antenna.nl Wed Nov 12 14:06:22 1997
From: ferguson at antenna.nl (Eric T. Ferguson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier for asian village use
Message-ID: <199711121905.AA22427@antenna.nl>

Some time ago the folowing message was posted on the list, unfortunately
not including a full e-mail address for reply. Perhaps someone can pass
this reply on to Imron Comey in Jakarta.

> Dear Johannes,
>
> I only recall (roughly at that) the anti-MacDonald slogan of the early
> 80's - ....
> And i am asking for help myself: perhaps you or some listee can steer me
> somewhere --as you mention biogas prod.
> ...
> My friend and i have stumbled our way into a small project for a Central
> Kalimantan govenment dept. connected with rural development. The
> creation of a prototype small wood or biomass gasifier for generation of
> up to 10 kw only. Village power use. Concept is to make wood and
> gleanings valuable so they are not just burnt by people clearing land-
> producing the nightmarish smoke haze that is so famous at the moment.
> Instead they can sell the wood or gleanings to the village 'power
> station'- and buy power in return. Must be a very clean burn with nearly
> no smoke out. This all initially on a tiny scale, like a model. We are
> laymen with only rough understanding of it all but have a glass cement
> factory and access to reasonably sophisiticated engineering shops. We
> think to build this thing from scratch. Run it way up river in the as
> yet unserivced hinterlands of central borneo. See how a village can work
> with such a thing sitting in their midst.
>
> We need do it yourself plans for a gasifier that can suppy a small
> diesel running a say 10kv genset. perfer multi fuel capability - like
> wood- or rice gleanings....if there is such a creature.
>
> Imron Comey, Jakarta.

The best reply I can give is that much knowledge on gasifiers can be
obtained from:
Biomass Technology Group (BTG)
University of Twente
P.O.Box 217
7500 AE ENSCHEDE
NETHERLANDS
tel: 053-489 2897 fax: 053-489 3116
e-mail: btg@ct.utwente.nl
Huub Stassen, director

Good luck with your quest,

Eric

|dr. E.T. Ferguson, Consultant for Energy and Development (MacFergus BV)|
|van Dormaalstraat 15, 5624 KH EINDHOVEN, Netherlands. |
|e-mail: e.ferguson@antenna.nl. phone:+31-40-2432878; fax:+31-40-2467036|

From phoenix at transport.com Wed Nov 12 16:33:18 1997
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Turbines and Dreamers
Message-ID: <199711122136.NAA30551@spanky.transport.com>

To Doug Williams,

In answer to your question of:
> If these turbine projects are working so well, and the contamination
level
> of the gas is within limits why is there emphasis on developing blade
> coatings? I also wonder where the combustion philosophy comes from?

As an old jet jockey, the need for blade coatings rises from the need to
operate the blades at ever increasing exhaust temperatures to increase the
efficiency of the engine. Blade coatings are usually a combination thermal
barrier and to provide high temperature corrosion resistance. When using a
low BTU gas, a low Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) may produce reduced
economics.

The last jet aircraft I flew was so finely tuned that, according to the
engine manufacturer, if the maximum continuous duty EGT was raised by only
10 degrees C, the engine life would be cut in half. The engine
manufacturer was on a major move to reduce major throttle movements near
100% thrust which were considered detrimental to longevity of the engine
life due to excessive thermal effects.

The technique to gain long engine life is to derate the EGT and exchange
the lower engine efficiency for the longer life.

Art Krenzel
Phoenix Technologies
phoenix@transport.com

From JIRVING104 at aol.com Thu Nov 13 09:12:48 1997
From: JIRVING104 at aol.com (JIRVING104@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Vermont Gasification Project
Message-ID: <971113091558_446023650@mrin42.mail.aol.com>

Yesterday we reached a major milestone in the startup of the Vermont
Gasification Project. We were able to load sand into the dashpots and
circulate it between the gasifier and combustor. It worked like a charm.
The current schedule is to shut down this weekend and inspect the refractory
next week. Wood gasification shouldn't be far away! John Irving

From JPhillips at mmt.com Thu Nov 13 23:56:16 1997
From: JPhillips at mmt.com (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Proposed US Biomass Legislation
Message-ID: <0002AB24.3419@mmt.com>

FYI, I got this off of the ASME Washington Newsletter for this week

Jeff Phillips
Molten Metal Technology

_____________________________________________________________________

CONVENTIONAL ENERGY PRODUCERS OPPOSE
RENEWABLE ENERGY MANDATES

Producers of conventional energy sources (natural gas,
petroleum, coal) are gearing up to fight proposals in several
pieces of legislation that would mandate that a certain
percentage of utilities' electricity be derived from
renewable energy sources. Renewable energy sources are
defined by the legislation as wind, solar, and geothermal.

Senator James Jeffords (R-VT) has introduced legislation
(S. 687) mandating that 2.5 percent of utilities' power come
from renewable sources by 2000, rising to 20 percent by
2020. S. 237, introduced by Senator Dale Bumpers (D-
AR), would set a quota of 3 percent by 1999, rising to 12
percent by 2013.

On the House side, legislation (HR. 1960) by Edward
Markey (D-MA) would mandate 3 percent by 1999,
climbing to 10 percent by 2010. Representative Dan
Schaefer (R-CO) would set his sights a little lower with his
legislation (HR. 655). It would mandate 2 percent of
generation from renewables by 2001, increasing to 4
percent by 2010.

Natural gas producers and other conventional energy source
providers are concerned that such mandates would hamper
their ability to expand, would increase consumer energy
costs, and would threaten their industries. For their part,
renewable energy supporters called upon Congress to
increase incentives for their energy sources. One of their
immediate priorities is to extend the tax credit for wind and
biomass-generated energy sources for an additional five
years. The current tax credits, contained in the Energy
Policy Act of 1992, expire if plants are not brought on line
by 1999.

From DMcilveenw at aol.com Fri Nov 14 00:00:37 1997
From: DMcilveenw at aol.com (DMcilveenw@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Vermont Gasification Project
Message-ID: <971114000351_-54604334@mrin39>

In a message dated 11/13/97 2:17:58PM, you write:

<<
Yesterday we reached a major milestone in the startup of the Vermont
Gasification Project. We were able to load sand into the dashpots and
circulate it between the gasifier and combustor. It worked like a charm.
The current schedule is to shut down this weekend and inspect the
refractory
next week. Wood gasification shouldn't be far away! John Irving
>>
Good news!!! Please keep us informed.

David McIlveen-Wright
Centre for Energy Research/NICERT,
University of Ulster,
Coleraine BT52 1SA
Northern Ireland

From rcala at reduc.cmw.edu.cu Fri Nov 14 19:46:08 1997
From: rcala at reduc.cmw.edu.cu (Ramon Cala Aiello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: agradecimientos
In-Reply-To: <199710162004.RAA13966@poisson.iem.efei.rmg.br>
Message-ID: <9711141610.aa00672@reduc.cmw.edu.cu>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 518 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19971114/ec3032c3/attachment.cc
From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sat Nov 15 09:06:18 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Vermont Gasification Project
Message-ID: <199711150909_MC2-2840-26D7@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear John,

Great news! Keep us informed on our net here.

Yours, TOM REED

From SamDarcy at aol.com Mon Nov 17 21:55:08 1997
From: SamDarcy at aol.com (SamDarcy@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas Fired Kilns
Message-ID: <971117215653_2105204202@mrin86.mail.aol.com>

We are seeking information re: materials list & costs for a moderate sized
gas fired kiln. We imagine 4 cf interior. We have no idea as to
construction designs, but we can follow plans well.

Questions include approximate amount of fire brick, approx. cost of brick,
types of burners and LP tank requirements as well as designs and lay-outs.
We are a small group, experimental, limited resources (of course), have
acquired some predictability with sawdust firing.

Any information would be most helpful. Reply to this address.

From waterwide at xtra.co.nz Tue Nov 18 01:45:19 1997
From: waterwide at xtra.co.nz (Paul D Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Waterwide Gasifiers
Message-ID: <34725EA3.5E42@xtra.co.nz>

Dear Jeff,

I noticed your enquiries re New Zealand made "Waterwide" Close Coupled
Gasifier.

Our company, Combustion Consultants Ltd. is the manufacturer of this
equipment.

Please let me know if I can be of help.

Best regards

Paul D Williams

From arcate at email.msn.com Wed Nov 19 23:57:08 1997
From: arcate at email.msn.com (James R. Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Hawaii Biomass Gasification Project
Message-ID: <02c9926000514b7UPIMSSMTPUSR03@email.msn.com>

What's the latest on the Hawaii BGF on Maui ?

Jim Arcate

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Thu Nov 20 21:18:00 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Top Down Rick Charcoal
Message-ID: <199711202121_MC2-28F0-CF99@compuserve.com>

Tom Reed - Over Oklahoma, travelling to Lubbock - 11/18/97

Dear Pyromaniacs:

You have heard a great deal in STOVES and GASIFICATION about "inverted
downdraft" or top down burning for gas and charcoal production. I have an
experiment to report here on Top Down Rick Charcoal making.

Last Spring I visited the Jack Daniels plant in Tennessee and saw their
charcoal production facility. (They use the charcoal - activated? - to
filter out the headache chemicals - fusil oils - in the whiskey.)

They start with hardwood cut on the tennessee ridges and slopes (not
valleys). They cut ~ 4 in diameter logs ~ 4 feet long and stack them in
layers, the logs in each lalyerat right angles to the those above and
below. The "RICK", thus constructed, is about a 4 foot cube. They then
set the rick on fire (TOP or BOTTOM??) and as charcoal appears they spray
watter on the outer layers so that only the volatiles of the wood are
burned.

I had never heard of this method of making (activated? cooking?) charcoal
before and wrote them asking a few questions and volunteering info on
pyrolysis.. They sent me a Jack Daniels keychain but no answers.

Thinking about this method of charcoal production, I decided to run a
"rick" experiment. I built two 5 1/4" cubes of 3/4X3/4X5/1/4 inch pine.
(I measured moisture content - 6.5%). I video taped the fireworks. The
first rick I carefully lighted only the top layer (Propane torch). It took
about 13 minutes to burn to the bottom layer, progressing one layer at a
time. The flame was 10-15 inches tall. I preume the air rises up through
the rick and loses its oxygen in the burning layer, so that charcoal in
layers above is protected from oxydation. I used a spray bottle to
extinguish the charcoal near the outer surface when it began to glow.
Yield of charcoal was 125 g, uniform and nicely formed. 24.7% yield on wet
basis, 26.5 dry basis. I did this in my garage and there was very little
smoke until the very end when I extinguished the whole mass with my
sprayer.

I then ignited the other rick (535 g)at the bottom. The whole cube was
rapidly enveloped in flames extending 20-30 in toward my ceiling. As the
flames left the lowest layer it was more difficult to keep the charcoal
from burning and the whole mass began to glow. Final yield 112 g of more
irregular charcoal, still quite good. More smoke, but I still did it in a
closed garage without excessive discomfort. Yield 21.0% WB, 22.4% DB.

In both cases the charcoal was very light, but held together nicely. There
were a few pieces at the bottom that did not burn completely.

This experiment raises a lot of questions. Might it be a useful
alternative to kiln charcoal? Can it be "tuned" for even higher yields?
Can it be "tuned" to make activated charcoal, using the high temperature of
the flames? Should the "rick" have a metal shield around it to prevent air
from entering at the sides and consuming charcoal? Insulated? Will both
top and bottom lighting work with wetter wood? What is the optimal spacing
of the logs?

I hope someone can try this on a larger scale and let us know what is
observed.

~~~~~
I recenly came across a WWW site, "TOP DOWN FEVER" - A Revolutionary new
(old) fire building technique. The site title is "WOOD HEAT", but I don't
see the URL on my offprint.

THey say that town down fire construction in fireplaces is sweeping the
country since 1992. (Our top down gasification dates back to 1985 - any
cross fertilization?) They stress the no smoke burning and other
advantages.

So, I recommend top down rick burning for charcoal manufacture. Think I'll
call Jack Daniels again and try to find an engineer.

CHEERS (as in a Cheery fire), TOM
REED

From nelson.r.w at mcleodusa.net Sun Nov 23 19:38:59 1997
From: nelson.r.w at mcleodusa.net (Chris Nelson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Natural Gas is very good
Message-ID: <3478F3F9.1120@mcleodusa.net>

The Natural gas industry is at a very precarious position right
now. The industry's future competition will come from renewable energy
sources, such as solar photovoltaic cells or wind turbines. If the
federal government shifts it's resources away from natural gas and into
renewables technologies, that will crowd out the future natural gas
market.
The implication of this could be severe. It would be indicitive
of electricity price fluctuations for the long-term. In other words,
natural gas and renewables will compete in the future. If the government
allows renewables to monopolize a certain portion of a utilities
portfolio, that will trade off with the natural gas industry. This could
mean increased electricity rates because the utilities will naturally
eliminate the slightly more expensive natural gas as opposed to cheap
coal and oil.

From j.g.brammer at aston.ac.uk Tue Nov 25 06:28:20 1997
From: j.g.brammer at aston.ac.uk (John Brammer)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasifier with reversing flow ?
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19971125113059.008feba0@pophost>

We are trying to come up with a design concept for a medium scale (around
0.5-2 MWth) air-blown biomass gasifier in which the flow reverses direction
every few minutes - i.e. the inlet becomes the outlet and the outlet
becomes the inlet. This seems to dictate that the design be symmetrical.
Does anyone know a) whether this has been done before, and b) what if any
gasifier concepts might be suitable? Cross-flow is the only general
concept that comes to mind, but these have in the past been at very small
scale. Is anyone working on cross-flows thes days? Any contacts?

John Brammer
Energy Research Group
Aston University
UK

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Nov 27 01:16:59 1997
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: gasifier with reversing flow ?
Message-ID: <199711270522.SAA04205@powerlink.co.nz>

>
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:30:59 +0000
> From: John Brammer <j.g.brammer@aston.ac.uk>
> Subject: GAS-L: gasifier with reversing flow ?
>
> We are trying to come up with a design concept for a medium scale (around
> 0.5-2 MWth) air-blown biomass gasifier in which the flow reverses
direction
> every few minutes - i.e. the inlet becomes the outlet and the outlet
> becomes the inlet. This seems to dictate that the design be symmetrical.
> Does anyone know a) whether this has been done before, and b) what if any
> gasifier concepts might be suitable? Cross-flow is the only general
> concept that comes to mind, but these have in the past been at very small
> scale. Is anyone working on cross-flows thes days? Any contacts?
>
> John Brammer
> Energy Research Group
> Aston University
> UK
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of gasification-digest V1 #570
> **********************************

John,

Trying to come up with a concept for any design of gasifier requires
reason, and that reason is determined by:
(a) The fuel to be gasified
(b) The end use of the gas. i.e. dirty gas process heat or tar free
rotating machinery application.
The concept of alternating directional flows suggests your group has some
sort of philosophy worked out that should be reviewed before you commit
yourself to any design.
In principle if I take your concept, and apply it to known wood chip or
block gasification, you would only end up with dirty gas. I would also
predict an unstable (compared to what it could be) char bed, and even a
conventional up draught principle would be a better choice (if you want
dirty gas).
Tell us on the net a little more, and I am sure it will open out the
discussion to cover wider issues.

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd..

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

November 1997 Gasification Archive