September 1997 Gasification Archive

From bourgois at term.ucl.ac.be Mon Sep 1 16:47:44 1997
From: bourgois at term.ucl.ac.be (Frederic Bourgois)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gas engines
In-Reply-To: <199708291253_MC2-1E97-489@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.16.19970901222945.2a8f059c@spot.term.ucl.ac.be>

At 12:52 29/08/1997 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Fred:
>
>(Please also pass on to Robin and Jane Turnbull if appropriate).
>
>THere is currently a revolution going on in producer gas engines. Producer
>gas is very high octane, making it appropriate for spark ignition and
>inappropriate for diesel.
>
>If you convert the engine to spark ignition (remove injectors, insert
>plugs, put distributor on end of injector shaft) you can get better engine
>operation with 100% diesel substitution.
>
>Funny it took people so long to discover this.
>
>Good luck, keep me posted on your success, TOM
>RED
>

In 1981, Prof Martin, head of our laboratory converted a Magirus Deutz
engine ( 75 kW) and a Lister engine (13 kW) to spark ignition engines. It
was succefull.

Now, we are working on the "SRC-GAZEL" project (production of decentralized
peak electricity by gasification of short rotation coppice). For the pilot
plant we have choosen a Cummins diesel engine working as a diesel-gas
engine (150 kWe). Indeed, as the plant will produce peak electricity, the
reliability must be very high. In case of problem with the gas, the
diesel-gas engine can run on gasoil.

We aim a pilot injection less than 10%.

F. Bourgois
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Frederic Bourgois
Ingenieur de recherches

Universite catholique de Louvain
Unite TERM
2, place du Levant
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgique

tel : 32-(0)10-47.83.98
fax : 32-(0)10-45.26.92

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

From phoenix at transport.com Tue Sep 2 00:19:45 1997
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gas engines
Message-ID: <199709020421.VAA23237@spanky.transport.com>

To Frederic:

What sort of gasification scheme are you considering to generate the
producer gas necessary for the engines? Since you have done much engine
conversion work, it would seem normal that the producer gas section would
be as far or farther along. This is an important decision for those of us
interested in gasification and long lived engines.

Looking forward to your reply.

Art Krenzel
10505 NE 285th Street
Battle Ground, WA 98604
phoenix@transport.com

----------
> From: Frederic Bourgois <bourgois@term.ucl.ac.be>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: gas engines
> Date: Monday, September 01, 1997 3:29 PM
>
> At 12:52 29/08/1997 -0400, you wrote:
> >Dear Fred:
> >
> >(Please also pass on to Robin and Jane Turnbull if appropriate).
> >
> >THere is currently a revolution going on in producer gas engines.
Producer
> >gas is very high octane, making it appropriate for spark ignition and
> >inappropriate for diesel.
> >
> >If you convert the engine to spark ignition (remove injectors, insert
> >plugs, put distributor on end of injector shaft) you can get better
engine
> >operation with 100% diesel substitution.
> >
> >Funny it took people so long to discover this.
> >
> >Good luck, keep me posted on your success,
TOM
> >RED
> >
>
> In 1981, Prof Martin, head of our laboratory converted a Magirus Deutz
> engine ( 75 kW) and a Lister engine (13 kW) to spark ignition engines. It
> was succefull.
>
> Now, we are working on the "SRC-GAZEL" project (production of
decentralized
> peak electricity by gasification of short rotation coppice). For the
pilot
> plant we have choosen a Cummins diesel engine working as a diesel-gas
> engine (150 kWe). Indeed, as the plant will produce peak electricity, the
> reliability must be very high. In case of problem with the gas, the
> diesel-gas engine can run on gasoil.
>
> We aim a pilot injection less than 10%.
>
> F. Bourgois
> oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> Frederic Bourgois
> Ingenieur de recherches
>
> Universite catholique de Louvain
> Unite TERM
> 2, place du Levant
> B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
> Belgique
>
> tel : 32-(0)10-47.83.98
> fax : 32-(0)10-45.26.92
>
> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

From Morten.Gronli at energy.sintef.no Tue Sep 2 02:31:24 1997
From: Morten.Gronli at energy.sintef.no (Morten Gronli)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Industrial production of charcoal
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970902083700.00905320@mail.trd.sintef.no>

Dear colleagues

I am currently involved in a project related to increase the use
of charcoal in the Norwegian ferroalloy industry. The goal is to
increase the use of fixed carbon (fix C) from biomass (charcoal
produced from wood) to about 25%, which means that approx.
95 000 tons per year of dry charcoal have to be produced.

I am looking for producers of industrial charcoal plants
(incl. name, address, fax & telephone number etc...).

Thank you in advance.

Best regards
Morten Gronli

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morten Gronli
SINTEF Energy
Thermal Energy and Hydropower
N-7034 Trondheim
Norway
Phone +47 73 59 37 25
Fax +47 73 59 28 89
E-mail Morten.Gronli@energy.sintef.no

From arcate at email.msn.com Tue Sep 2 17:20:23 1997
From: arcate at email.msn.com (James R. Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Charcoal PFBC Power Plant
Message-ID: <046640722210297UPIMSSMTPUSR03@email.msn.com>

I recently joined the Bioenergy and Gasification Discussion Groups and ask
that members review and comment on the "first draft" of my Executive
Summary for a BIOMASS CHARCOAL PFBC POWER PLANT on line at:

http://www.sugarnet.com/biomass/

thank you,

Jim Arcate
arcate@msn.com

From bentermm at convertech.co.nz Tue Sep 2 17:44:15 1997
From: bentermm at convertech.co.nz (Markus M Benter)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Industrial production of charcoal
Message-ID: <v01540b00b032db49942e@[202.37.189.53]>

Dear Morton,

I did a search on the internet the other day regarding charcoal and from
memory found a number of plant manufacturers.

In Germany, Lurgi is the biggest supplier - from what I understand. Their
address is:

Lurgi
Lurgiallee 5
60295 Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY
ph: +49 69 58 08-0
fax: +49 69 58 08-38 88

Other suppliers - I understand - in Germany are:
"Silicarbon" in Kirchhundem, "Norit" in Duesseldorf and "AUG" in Doeberitz.
You should be able to get in contact with them by calling international
directory and ask for the company phone/fax number listed in the location I
gave above.

Hope that helps.

Regards
Markus

------------------

>Dear colleagues
>
>I am currently involved in a project related to increase the use
>of charcoal in the Norwegian ferroalloy industry. The goal is to
>increase the use of fixed carbon (fix C) from biomass (charcoal
>produced from wood) to about 25%, which means that approx.
>95 000 tons per year of dry charcoal have to be produced.
>
>I am looking for producers of industrial charcoal plants
>(incl. name, address, fax & telephone number etc...).
>
>Thank you in advance.
>
>Best regards
>Morten Gronli
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Morten Gronli
>SINTEF Energy
>Thermal Energy and Hydropower
>N-7034 Trondheim
>Norway
>Phone +47 73 59 37 25
>Fax +47 73 59 28 89
>E-mail Morten.Gronli@energy.sintef.no

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Markus M Benter
Energy and Process Engineer
Scott Convertech Ltd
PO Box 13 776
Christchurch
NEW ZEALAND

e-mail: bentermm@convertech.co.nz
www: http://www.southpower.co.nz/conver.html

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Sep 2 22:45:58 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gas engines
Message-ID: <199709022247_MC2-1EEE-D41F@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed 303 278 0558 V Colorado School of Mines
1810 Smith Rd., 303 278 0560 FX Department Chem Eng
Golden, CO 80401 ReedTB@Compuserve.com
ALSO: The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

F. Bourgouis et al:

Did I say that with pilot diesel operation one can operate as low as 5 %
diesel IF you use smaller injection ports? Diesel engines are designed to
operate at full power, so at 5% pilot injection the spray pattern is poopy.
If you put in smaller injectors you can get good ignition at 10%, maybe 5%
(courtesy of Mike Graboski, using 350 Kw Waukesha engine).

TOM REED

From us034261 at mindspring.com Wed Sep 3 05:47:57 1997
From: us034261 at mindspring.com (Doug McCullough)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Coal Gasifier Tech. Needed
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970903115231.0066bf3c@pop.mindspring.com>

If anyone can contact me about waste coal gasifiers please send information.
I have the funding to build a coal Gasifier using waste coal fines in Utah.
I need to use a process that is tested and works.
I need to feed a 110MW power plant with the low BTU gas output of this
system. Again my funding is in place up to $50 Million US Dollars and more
if the system can be shown to work.
I need to decide in the next week what system I will purchase and build. I
have all funds and want anyone and everyone to please respond to this via
email.
If you know of key people that can help me with this design I am interested
in offering them a great job and equity interest in the plant for the
knowledge and system they can provide.
I am also very interested in other uses for my coal fines and would welcome
information on processes for floating etc.

Thank You

Douglas P. McCullough
dougmccull@mindspring.com
800-728-3536 (Phone / Fax)
Power Distribution Quality
P.O. Box 1132
Saint Charles, MO. 63301

This is phone and fax but please use EMAIL as I am traveling about everyday.

From phoenix at transport.com Wed Sep 3 10:29:25 1997
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Coal Gasifier Tech. Needed
Message-ID: <199709031433.HAA25239@brutus.transport.com>

Attention: All Gasifier Proponents.

That rumbling you hear in the background is all the people with gasifier
ideas scrambling to get to Utah.

Art Krenzel

----------
> From: Doug McCullough <us034261@mindspring.com>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Cc: JPhillips@mmt.com
> Subject: GAS-L: Coal Gasifier Tech. Needed
> Date: Wednesday, September 03, 1997 4:52 AM
>
> If anyone can contact me about waste coal gasifiers please send
information.
> I have the funding to build a coal Gasifier using waste coal fines in
Utah.
> I need to use a process that is tested and works.
> I need to feed a 110MW power plant with the low BTU gas output of this
> system. Again my funding is in place up to $50 Million US Dollars and
more
> if the system can be shown to work.
> I need to decide in the next week what system I will purchase and build.
I
> have all funds and want anyone and everyone to please respond to this via
> email.
> If you know of key people that can help me with this design I am
interested
> in offering them a great job and equity interest in the plant for the
> knowledge and system they can provide.
> I am also very interested in other uses for my coal fines and would
welcome
> information on processes for floating etc.
>
> Thank You
>
> Douglas P. McCullough
> dougmccull@mindspring.com
> 800-728-3536 (Phone / Fax)
> Power Distribution Quality
> P.O. Box 1132
> Saint Charles, MO. 63301
>
> This is phone and fax but please use EMAIL as I am traveling about
everyday.

From sp2joap1 at ida.his.se Thu Sep 4 00:41:45 1997
From: sp2joap1 at ida.his.se (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas engines
In-Reply-To: <199708291253_MC2-1E97-489@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970903175836.370D-100000@trix.ixum.se>

On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Tom Reed wrote:

> THere is currently a revolution going on in producer gas engines. Producer
> gas is very high octane, making it appropriate for spark ignition and
> inappropriate for diesel.

What would the ideal and max compression ratio be (roughly) for an engine
running on producer gas from a wood gasifier?

Joacim
-
With both feet on the ground, you won't get very far.
-- Loesje

From bourgois at term.ucl.ac.be Fri Sep 5 02:52:35 1997
From: bourgois at term.ucl.ac.be (Frederic Bourgois)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L:gasification scheme
In-Reply-To: <199709020421.VAA23237@spanky.transport.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.16.19970905083326.374f89c0@spot.term.ucl.ac.be>

At 21:19 01/09/1997 -0700, you wrote:
>To Frederic:
>
>What sort of gasification scheme are you considering to generate the
>producer gas necessary for the engines? Since you have done much engine
>conversion work, it would seem normal that the producer gas section would
>be as far or farther along. This is an important decision for those of us
>interested in gasification and long lived engines.
>
>Looking forward to your reply.
>
>Art Krenzel
>10505 NE 285th Street
>Battle Ground, WA 98604
>phoenix@transport.com
>

We are a small laboratory. Our experience isn't as important as you seem to
believe. However, we think that gasification units must be cheap and
reliable. For this reason, we have chosen the following scheme :

- classical down-draft gasifier(derived from Imbert design) with air
preheating and rotating grid

- dry ash extraction by cyclone followed by a wet extraction (water
scrubber) and a final filter (wood chips + fabric filter)

- diesel-gaz or spark ignited engines following the final use

As you can see, it's a classical scheme. However, we obtain good results.
For an belgium electricity company, we are now developping a 150 kWe pilot
plant for peak electricity production. The mean LHV of the produced gas is
higher than 5.5 MJ/m3N with a CO content in the range 25 .. 28 %. We expect
a net electrical efficiency of 26 %

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Frederic Bourgois
Ingenieur de recherches

Universite catholique de Louvain
Unite TERM
2, place du Levant
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgique

tel : 32-(0)10-47.83.98
fax : 32-(0)10-45.26.92

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

From phoenix at transport.com Fri Sep 5 10:57:18 1997
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L:gasification scheme
Message-ID: <199709051459.HAA00654@spanky.transport.com>

Small Laboratories do great things - you needn't apologize.

It sounds like you have a fairly well thought out process train. You used
a term for an internal part of the gasifier called a "rotating grid" - what
does that look like and are there many successful units operating with that
design? Can you send a sketch or picture of that portion of the gasifier?

What is your projected source of fuel for the gasifier and what amount of
pretreatment and fuel size preparation are you planning? How do you plan
to feed the fuel to the gasifier. What is the proposed air pretreatment
temperature prior to introduction to the gasifier? Is it a positive
pressure or negative pressure design?

Looking forward to your reply.

Art Krenzel
10505 NE 285th Street
Battle Ground, WA 98604

----------
> From: Frederic Bourgois <bourgois@term.ucl.ac.be>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L:gasification scheme
> Date: Friday, September 05, 1997 1:33 AM
>
> At 21:19 01/09/1997 -0700, you wrote:
> >To Frederic:
> >
> >What sort of gasification scheme are you considering to generate the
> >producer gas necessary for the engines? Since you have done much engine
> >conversion work, it would seem normal that the producer gas section
would
> >be as far or farther along. This is an important decision for those of
us
> >interested in gasification and long lived engines.
> >
> >Looking forward to your reply.
> >
> >Art Krenzel
> >10505 NE 285th Street
> >Battle Ground, WA 98604
> >phoenix@transport.com
> >
>
> We are a small laboratory. Our experience isn't as important as you seem
to
> believe. However, we think that gasification units must be cheap and
> reliable. For this reason, we have chosen the following scheme :
>
> - classical down-draft gasifier(derived from Imbert design) with air
> preheating and rotating grid
>
> - dry ash extraction by cyclone followed by a wet extraction (water
> scrubber) and a final filter (wood chips + fabric filter)
>
> - diesel-gaz or spark ignited engines following the final use
>
> As you can see, it's a classical scheme. However, we obtain good results.
> For an belgium electricity company, we are now developping a 150 kWe
pilot
> plant for peak electricity production. The mean LHV of the produced gas
is
> higher than 5.5 MJ/m3N with a CO content in the range 25 .. 28 %. We
expect
> a net electrical efficiency of 26 %
>
>
>
>
> oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> Frederic Bourgois
> Ingenieur de recherches
>
> Universite catholique de Louvain
> Unite TERM
> 2, place du Levant
> B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
> Belgique
>
> tel : 32-(0)10-47.83.98
> fax : 32-(0)10-45.26.92
>
> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Sep 7 08:35:57 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Coal Gasifier Tech. Needed
Message-ID: <199709070837_MC2-1F76-6DF8@compuserve.com>

Normally we don't "do" coal here (the renewability is very long term).
However Doug asked about buying a coal gasifier. Here are two leads:

1) On my recent trip I visited Richd. J. McLellan at Wellman Process
engineering (Cornwall Rd., Smethwick, Warle, W. Midlands, B66 2Lb England;
Tel:44-121 565 2766; Fx 44-212 555 5651). They have been making coal
gasifiers since 1923 and selling complete systems around the world for any
degree of heat or power you may want.

2) Coal gasification is not in vogue today, but was for 100 years. A MAJOR
reference is RAMBUSH, written about 1923 and available in LARGE OLD
libraries.

Good luck in your search and keep us posted.

Yours, TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Sep 7 08:35:50 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Figures of merit for gasifiers and stoves
Message-ID: <199709070837_MC2-1F76-6DF4@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed 303 278 0558 V Colorado School of Mines
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Netters:

Here is a subsection I recently wrote for our upcoming book. I would be
interested in your comments. Sorry about the less than perfect formatting,
but maybe this is better than encoding.

1.2 Gasifier Comparison with "Figures of Merit"

While it is necessary to collect data specific to particular gasifiers,
it is quite difficult to compare performance between different types and
sizes. There are a number of "figures of merit" that reduce data from
various gasifiers to a common denominator so that one can compare gasifiers
that are widely different in scale and type, just as the listing of "price
per kg" of various products in the supermarket makes it possible to
determine unit costs without carrying a computer to the store.

1.2.1 SUPERFICIAL GAS VELOCITY, SGV (AREA THRUPUT)

The superficial gas velocity (SGV) is easily calculated from the most
basic information on gasifiers, ie
SGV = Gas production (m3/sec)/Internal Cross Section Area (m2)
The superficial velocity has long been used to compare widely different
gasisfiers. Many other factors are easily derived from this number or used
to derive this number.

The word "superficial" refers to the fact that it is based on the gas
production measured at normal temperature and pressure (not at gasifier
temperature) and uses the gasifier internal diameter without reference to
internal fuel or equipment. The word "velocity" refers to the fact that
m3/m2-sec has the units of velocity, m/sec (or m/hr), so the SGV refers to
the velocity below the grate corrected to room temperature. (Cute?) It
might be more properly called the area thruput, but we will use the
historic term here.
In addition, the SGV has a major influence on the conditions and products
of gasification and these will be discussed in Volume II.

The following table illustrates comparison of the SGV of a number of
gasifiers.
Table 1 Maximum Reported Superficial Gas Velocity of Various Gasifiers
GASIFIER TYPE ID AREA MAX FLOW SV
m m2 m3/sec m3/m2-sec
Imbert Nozzle Downdraft 0.30 0.071 0.045 0.63
SERI Air Stratified Downdraft 0.15 0.018 0.005 0.28
SERI Oxygen Str Downdraft 0.15 0.018 0.004 0.24
Syn-Gas - Air Str Downdraft 0.76 0.454 0.776 1.71
Syn-Gas - Oxy Str Downdraft 0.76 0.454 0.485 1.07
Buck Rogers Str Downdraft 0.61 0.292 0.126 0.43

(Notes: From Reed, 1988, Hanbook....; Imbert gasifier measured at ID, not
constriction. Buck Rogers from Chern thesis, 1985. )

The SERI experimental gasifier had the lowest thruput, while it's
offspring, the Syn-Gas gasifier has the highest (due to its enclosed
refractory top). None of these relations would be evident from the raw
data, and were not evident at the time of operation.

THERMAL POWER: If one knows the heating value of the gas (HV), the
thermal thruput is calculated from:
P(th) = HV X SGV
The air gasifiers listed above typically produce gas with a heating value
of 5 MW/m3. The oxygen gasifiers produce a gas with a heating value of 10
MW/m3. These give the power thruputs shown in Table 1 .
~~~~~
Gasifier SGV Pth Pel SFV
SGProduction
m3/m2-s MWth MWe mm/sec m3/m2-hr
Imbert 0.6 3.2 0.95 0.5 84
Buck Rogers 0.4 2.2 0.65 0.3 57
SERI Air 0.3 1.4 0.42 0.2 37
SERI Oxygen 0.2 1.2 0.36 0.2 32
Syn-Gas - Air 1.7 8.6 2.57 1.2 228
Syn-Gas - Oxygen 1.1 5.4 1.61 0.8 143
Notes: gas heat content 5 MJ/m3; El efficiency 30%; particle size 3
cm; 18 Gj/m3, gasifier efficiency 0.7.
~~~~
ELECTRIC POWER:
If the efficiency [e (p)] of power generation using the gas is known, the
power thruput is given by
P(e) = e (p) X HV X SV
and values for the gasifiers above are shown in Table 2.

SUPERFICIAL FUEL VELOCITY (SFV):

If one knows the bulk density of the fuel, the fuel density (typically
200 kg/m3 for wood chips) , the heating value of the fuel (typically 18
GJ/m3), the efficiency of gasification (typically 0.7) and the heating
value of the fuel one can calculate the velocity of fuel flow at steady
state in the gasifier from the energy balance as
SFV = r X e (g)X SGV X HG/HF
These velocities are shown in Table 2. (They are shown in mm/sec because
they are so small relative to the gas velocities. Multiply by 3.6 to get
m/hr.)

1.2.2 SUPERFICIAL GAS PRODUCTION (SGP):
While superficial gas velocity is a measure of gas production per unit
cross section, the superficial gas production is a measure of production
rate per unit volume, where h is the active bed height of the of the
gasifier (where heat losses occur and insulation is required).

SGP = Gas volume per sec/gasifier volume = SGV/ h´A
(m3gas/m3vessel-sec)

(As a reference, biogas digestors typically produce 1 m3 of gas/m3 of
vessel per hour. We once calculated the methane production from cow
stomachs as 7 m3 gas/m3 stomach-hr. It is seen in Table ? that gasifiers
produce gas at 50-200 times the rate.)
In fluidized beds, the active zone only depends on the vessel dimensions.
In fixed bed gasifiers the height of the bed is difficult to determine, and
depends particularly on fuel size and moisture content. These will be
discussed in more detail in Volume II. For now the 3,6,9 RULE illustrates
the calculation. Typically the flaming combustion zone is 3 particle
diameters and the char gasification zone is 6 particle diameters, so the
active zone is 9 particle diameters or 36 cm high. Thus the active bed
height for a 4 cm particle fuel will be Vessels may be much larger, but the
remainder is typically fuel magazine. The SGP for the various gasifiers
of Table 1 are shown in Table 2.

1.2.3 Significance of SGV and SGP:

While the SGV is a measure of how big the "footprint" of the gasifier
will be (cross section area), the SGP is a measure of the volume occupied,
and the relative mass and construction cost. It is also inversely
proportional to heat loss. The SGV of a fluidized bed is typically high
because of the necessity of supporting the fuel on a column of gas, and so
fluidized bed gasifiers tend to be quite tall. The SGV of fixed bed
gasifiers is much lower because of the very compact reaction zones.
However, fixed bed gasifiers typically have higher gas production per unit
volume as shown by the SGP figures above. ...(Waiting for data on
fluidized bed SGP and SFV.) But Fbs are typically 3-10 m tall, compared to
reaction zones of 0.2-1m in fixed bed gasifiers.)

Stovers: I believe that the wood-gas stove gasifier has a superficial gas
velocity of 0.02 m/s, over an order of magnitude less than the gasifiers
above. I believe this explains the charcoal yield of 25% rather than <5%
in the gasifiers above, due to the lower pyrolysis temperatures.
~~~~
I hope some of you will wish to calculate the SGV and SGP figures for
your own gasifiers and that you may wish to send them to me. I may include
them in the database, and I will include them in discussion. I also hope
that you may know other names that are officially used.

Thanks to all, TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Sep 7 08:35:46 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas engines
Message-ID: <199709070837_MC2-1F76-6DF2@compuserve.com>

Joachim Person asks what the optimum compression ratio for spark ignited
producer gas in converted diesel engines. I have been asking the same
question for a few months, so let me give my partial answers.

1) Thermodynamically, efficiency continues to increase with CR
indefinitely, so no optimum there. However, above 16/1 it tapers off and
there is little advantage from 16-30.

2) Engines get very heavy at the high compression ratios and friction
mounts rapidly.

3) If we are talking about converting diesel engines, then easy conversion
of existing engines, whatever their CR would seem to give a broad optimum
in the 12-18 range.

Hope some of you can add to this.

Thanks, TOM REED

From rcbrown at iastate.edu Mon Sep 8 13:27:09 1997
From: rcbrown at iastate.edu (Robert C Brown)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Figures of merit for gasifiers and stoves
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970908122754.0075be9c@pop-3.iastate.edu>

Jerod: Would you have time to calculate the quantities requested from Reed
for our fluidized gasifer?

Thanks

Robert

At 08:37 AM 9/7/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Thomas B. Reed 303 278 0558 V Colorado School of Mines
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Dear Netters:
>
>Here is a subsection I recently wrote for our upcoming book. I would be
>interested in your comments. Sorry about the less than perfect formatting,
>but maybe this is better than encoding.
>
>1.2 Gasifier Comparison with "Figures of Merit"
>
> While it is necessary to collect data specific to particular gasifiers,
>it is quite difficult to compare performance between different types and
>sizes. There are a number of "figures of merit" that reduce data from
>various gasifiers to a common denominator so that one can compare gasifiers
>that are widely different in scale and type, just as the listing of "price
>per kg" of various products in the supermarket makes it possible to
>determine unit costs without carrying a computer to the store.
>
>1.2.1 SUPERFICIAL GAS VELOCITY, SGV (AREA THRUPUT)
>
> The superficial gas velocity (SGV) is easily calculated from the most
>basic information on gasifiers, ie
> SGV = Gas production (m3/sec)/Internal Cross Section Area (m2)
>The superficial velocity has long been used to compare widely different
>gasisfiers. Many other factors are easily derived from this number or used
>to derive this number.
>
> The word "superficial" refers to the fact that it is based on the gas
>production measured at normal temperature and pressure (not at gasifier
>temperature) and uses the gasifier internal diameter without reference to
>internal fuel or equipment. The word "velocity" refers to the fact that
>m3/m2-sec has the units of velocity, m/sec (or m/hr), so the SGV refers to
>the velocity below the grate corrected to room temperature. (Cute?) It
>might be more properly called the area thruput, but we will use the
>historic term here.
>In addition, the SGV has a major influence on the conditions and products
>of gasification and these will be discussed in Volume II.
>
> The following table illustrates comparison of the SGV of a number of
>gasifiers.
>Table 1 Maximum Reported Superficial Gas Velocity of Various Gasifiers
>GASIFIER TYPE ID AREA MAX FLOW SV
> m m2 m3/sec m3/m2-sec
>Imbert Nozzle Downdraft 0.30 0.071 0.045 0.63
>SERI Air Stratified Downdraft 0.15 0.018 0.005 0.28
>SERI Oxygen Str Downdraft 0.15 0.018 0.004 0.24
>Syn-Gas - Air Str Downdraft 0.76 0.454 0.776 1.71
>Syn-Gas - Oxy Str Downdraft 0.76 0.454 0.485 1.07
>Buck Rogers Str Downdraft 0.61 0.292 0.126 0.43
>
>(Notes: From Reed, 1988, Hanbook....; Imbert gasifier measured at ID, not
>constriction. Buck Rogers from Chern thesis, 1985. )
>
> The SERI experimental gasifier had the lowest thruput, while it's
>offspring, the Syn-Gas gasifier has the highest (due to its enclosed
>refractory top). None of these relations would be evident from the raw
>data, and were not evident at the time of operation.
>
> THERMAL POWER: If one knows the heating value of the gas (HV), the
>thermal thruput is calculated from:
> P(th) = HV X SGV
> The air gasifiers listed above typically produce gas with a heating value
>of 5 MW/m3. The oxygen gasifiers produce a gas with a heating value of 10
>MW/m3. These give the power thruputs shown in Table 1 .
> ~~~~~
>Gasifier SGV Pth Pel SFV
>SGProduction
> m3/m2-s MWth MWe mm/sec m3/m2-hr
>Imbert 0.6 3.2 0.95 0.5 84
>Buck Rogers 0.4 2.2 0.65 0.3 57
>SERI Air 0.3 1.4 0.42 0.2 37
>SERI Oxygen 0.2 1.2 0.36 0.2 32
>Syn-Gas - Air 1.7 8.6 2.57 1.2 228
>Syn-Gas - Oxygen 1.1 5.4 1.61 0.8 143
>Notes: gas heat content 5 MJ/m3; El efficiency 30%; particle size 3
>cm; 18 Gj/m3, gasifier efficiency 0.7.
> ~~~~
>ELECTRIC POWER:
> If the efficiency [e (p)] of power generation using the gas is known, the
>power thruput is given by
> P(e) = e (p) X HV X SV
>and values for the gasifiers above are shown in Table 2.
>
>SUPERFICIAL FUEL VELOCITY (SFV):
>
> If one knows the bulk density of the fuel, the fuel density (typically
>200 kg/m3 for wood chips) , the heating value of the fuel (typically 18
>GJ/m3), the efficiency of gasification (typically 0.7) and the heating
>value of the fuel one can calculate the velocity of fuel flow at steady
>state in the gasifier from the energy balance as
> SFV = r X e (g)X SGV X HG/HF
> These velocities are shown in Table 2. (They are shown in mm/sec because
>they are so small relative to the gas velocities. Multiply by 3.6 to get
>m/hr.)
>
>1.2.2 SUPERFICIAL GAS PRODUCTION (SGP):
> While superficial gas velocity is a measure of gas production per unit
>cross section, the superficial gas production is a measure of production
>rate per unit volume, where h is the active bed height of the of the
>gasifier (where heat losses occur and insulation is required).
>
> SGP = Gas volume per sec/gasifier volume = SGV/ h´A
>(m3gas/m3vessel-sec)
>
>(As a reference, biogas digestors typically produce 1 m3 of gas/m3 of
>vessel per hour. We once calculated the methane production from cow
>stomachs as 7 m3 gas/m3 stomach-hr. It is seen in Table ? that gasifiers
>produce gas at 50-200 times the rate.)
>In fluidized beds, the active zone only depends on the vessel dimensions.
>In fixed bed gasifiers the height of the bed is difficult to determine, and
>depends particularly on fuel size and moisture content. These will be
>discussed in more detail in Volume II. For now the 3,6,9 RULE illustrates
>the calculation. Typically the flaming combustion zone is 3 particle
>diameters and the char gasification zone is 6 particle diameters, so the
>active zone is 9 particle diameters or 36 cm high. Thus the active bed
>height for a 4 cm particle fuel will be Vessels may be much larger, but the
>remainder is typically fuel magazine. The SGP for the various gasifiers
>of Table 1 are shown in Table 2.
>
>1.2.3 Significance of SGV and SGP:
>
> While the SGV is a measure of how big the "footprint" of the gasifier
>will be (cross section area), the SGP is a measure of the volume occupied,
>and the relative mass and construction cost. It is also inversely
>proportional to heat loss. The SGV of a fluidized bed is typically high
>because of the necessity of supporting the fuel on a column of gas, and so
>fluidized bed gasifiers tend to be quite tall. The SGV of fixed bed
>gasifiers is much lower because of the very compact reaction zones.
>However, fixed bed gasifiers typically have higher gas production per unit
>volume as shown by the SGP figures above. ...(Waiting for data on
>fluidized bed SGP and SFV.) But Fbs are typically 3-10 m tall, compared to
>reaction zones of 0.2-1m in fixed bed gasifiers.)
>
>Stovers: I believe that the wood-gas stove gasifier has a superficial gas
>velocity of 0.02 m/s, over an order of magnitude less than the gasifiers
>above. I believe this explains the charcoal yield of 25% rather than <5%
>in the gasifiers above, due to the lower pyrolysis temperatures.
> ~~~~
> I hope some of you will wish to calculate the SGV and SGP figures for
>your own gasifiers and that you may wish to send them to me. I may include
>them in the database, and I will include them in discussion. I also hope
>that you may know other names that are officially used.
>
>Thanks to all, TOM REED
>
Robert C. Brown
Iowa State University
Department of Mechanical Engineering
2020 H. M. Black Bldg.
Ames, IA 50011
Tel: 515-294-8733
Fax: 515-294-3261
E-mail: rcbrown@iastate.edu
http://www.eng.iastate.edu/coe/me/homepage.html

From thomg at flash.net Mon Sep 8 19:19:11 1997
From: thomg at flash.net (Thom Green)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY
Message-ID: <341488B1.58679C20@flash.net>

Please excuse my ignorance at the subject of this group. I ask that if
this information is not intended for discussion on this list that
someone help direct me to a place more suitable.

I run a small compost operation, where we take Construction and
Demolition materials from the metroplex area. This material we sort
into four different groups; Cardboard/Paper, Metal, Concrete and Wood.
The Cardboard/Paper is baled up and sent to different mills in the U.S.
The metal and concrete are shipped raw to different places that take it
and recycle it. I have been using the wood to produce compost but have
found that I am getting in more wood than is feasible to compost and
market. Therefore, I have been in corespondence with a few people in
reference to producing a bio-fuel out of the wood waste that we have.
This option seemed to be more applicable than just burning the wood. I
also figured if we were going to burn it, it might as well make a
product and profit.

As I am no engineer, and do not completely understand the technical side
of the process. I was hoping someone would be able to help direct me to
some information or people that would be interested in speaking with me
about gasification of the wood waste that I have to possibly produce
electricity and/or steam.

Thanks

Thom Green
thomg@flash.net

From antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br Mon Sep 8 23:08:28 1997
From: antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br (Antonio G. P. Hilst)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas engines
In-Reply-To: <199709070837_MC2-1F76-6DF2@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <34147660.3238@merconet.com.br>

Thomas Reed wrote:
>
> Thomas B. Reed 303 278 0558 V Colorado School of Mines
> 1810 Smith Rd., 303 278 0560 FX Department Chem Eng
> Golden, CO 80401 ReedTB@Compuserve.com
> ALSO: The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dear Gasification:
>
> Joachim Person asks what the optimum compression ratio for spark ignited
> producer gas in converted diesel engines. I have been asking the same
> question for a few months, so let me give my partial answers.
>
> 1) Thermodynamically, efficiency continues to increase with CR
> indefinitely, so no optimum there. However, above 16/1 it tapers off and
> there is little advantage from 16-30.
>
> 2) Engines get very heavy at the high compression ratios and friction
> mounts rapidly.
>
> 3) If we are talking about converting diesel engines, then easy conversion
> of existing engines, whatever their CR would seem to give a broad optimum
> in the 12-18 range.
>
> Hope some of you can add to this.
>
> Thanks, TOM REED
As far as I remember, the Gas Engineer Handbook has a full chapter on
this subject.
Antonio.

From phoenix at transport.com Tue Sep 9 00:51:54 1997
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY
Message-ID: <199709090453.VAA31825@s.transport.com>

Hi Thom!

An interesting question you pose - you do not indicate where you are
located. Fuel derived from demolition materials is produced quite
universally and sells quite well in markets which have local solid fuel
boilers or steam generators. Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have a
large amount of fuel used to produce steam used to dry wood which comes
from ground up wood waste. In Portland, OR specifically, the metro waste
collection system gathers wood waste, grinds it at the central transfer
station and loads it into self unloading trailers where it is then shipped
to local saw mills for steam production.

Art Krenzel
phoenix@transport.com

----------
> From: Thom Green <thomg@flash.net>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY
> Date: Monday, September 08, 1997 4:22 PM
>
> Please excuse my ignorance at the subject of this group. I ask that if
> this information is not intended for discussion on this list that
> someone help direct me to a place more suitable.
>
> I run a small compost operation, where we take Construction and
> Demolition materials from the metroplex area. This material we sort
> into four different groups; Cardboard/Paper, Metal, Concrete and Wood.
> The Cardboard/Paper is baled up and sent to different mills in the U.S.
> The metal and concrete are shipped raw to different places that take it
> and recycle it. I have been using the wood to produce compost but have
> found that I am getting in more wood than is feasible to compost and
> market. Therefore, I have been in corespondence with a few people in
> reference to producing a bio-fuel out of the wood waste that we have.
> This option seemed to be more applicable than just burning the wood. I
> also figured if we were going to burn it, it might as well make a
> product and profit.
>
> As I am no engineer, and do not completely understand the technical side
> of the process. I was hoping someone would be able to help direct me to
> some information or people that would be interested in speaking with me
> about gasification of the wood waste that I have to possibly produce
> electricity and/or steam.
>
> Thanks
>
> Thom Green
> thomg@flash.net

From belvalrp at vbimail.champlain.edu Tue Sep 9 08:39:13 1997
From: belvalrp at vbimail.champlain.edu (Ron Belval)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY
In-Reply-To: <341488B1.58679C20@flash.net>
Message-ID: <34154379.1068@vbimail.champlain.edu>

Thom Green wrote:
>
> Please excuse my ignorance at the subject of this group. I ask that if
> this information is not intended for discussion on this list that
> someone help direct me to a place more suitable.
>
> I run a small compost operation, where we take Construction and
> Demolition materials from the metroplex area. This material we sort
> into four different groups; Cardboard/Paper, Metal, Concrete and Wood.
> The Cardboard/Paper is baled up and sent to different mills in the U.S.
> The metal and concrete are shipped raw to different places that take it
> and recycle it. I have been using the wood to produce compost but have
> found that I am getting in more wood than is feasible to compost and
> market. Therefore, I have been in corespondence with a few people in
> reference to producing a bio-fuel out of the wood waste that we have.
> This option seemed to be more applicable than just burning the wood. I
> also figured if we were going to burn it, it might as well make a
> product and profit.
>
> As I am no engineer, and do not completely understand the technical side
> of the process. I was hoping someone would be able to help direct me to
> some information or people that would be interested in speaking with me
> about gasification of the wood waste that I have to possibly produce
> electricity and/or steam.
>
> Thanks
>
> Thom Green
> thomg@flash.net
Thom, I would be interested in talking about both gasification and how
you go about sorting out the material. The key issue, in Vermont at
least, is that the woody material be toxin-free. You may be aware that
the is a gasification demonstration project approaching completion of
construction. In order for the process to work, a sustainable supply of
such clean waste wood must be available as one of the important
elements. Thanks. Ron Belval

From rovers at ad1.vsnl.net.in Tue Sep 9 09:28:40 1997
From: rovers at ad1.vsnl.net.in (Mr. Jwalant Desai)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biogas
Message-ID: <34153586.465D@ad1.vsnl.net.in>

Dear Sir,

As you must be well aware India has ample of human, animal and
agricultural waste.
We have a group of people with us who are interested to generate power,
methane from bio waste.
We request you to send us all relevant details and catalogues regarding
the same.
Feel Free to contact the undersigned for any further details.
Hoping to hear from you very soon.
Best regards.
Jwalant Desai.

Rovers Marketing Pvt.Ltd.
302, sarthak complex,
Nr. Swastik Cross Road,
C.G.Road, Ahmedabad. 380009.
Gujarat.
India.

Phone : 0091 79 6447226.
Fax : 0091 79 6640270.
E-mail: rovers@ad1.vsnl.net.in

PS : While sending catalogues/samples always send by
DHL Courier [ Courier Mode ].

From thomg at flash.net Tue Sep 9 09:45:04 1997
From: thomg at flash.net (Thom Green)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY
In-Reply-To: <199709090453.VAA31825@s.transport.com>
Message-ID: <341553A8.4F62@flash.net>

Art;

Thank you for responding to my inquiry. Actually, I was just in the
Seattle area 2 weeks ago. Trying to locate some ideas of possible
solutions to my ever increasing ground wood pile.

I am located in the Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas area. Where there is a
lack of mills that require fuel. The ones that do use the fuel are
approximately 3 hours away, and there is currently enough people
bringing wood waste in they (the mills) are not looking for anymore
suppliers. Which has sent me on the trail to locate another alternitive
to my situation. I am certain (possibly ignorantly so) that there has
to be an economically feasible solution that would allow me to make a
sustainable product from the wood waste I produce.

I am hoping that the idea of creating electricity is such an idea.
Though, I have heard that trying to create electricity from wood waste
on a small scale is not feasible both economically and operationally for
a small business to take on.

I guess my main questions are:
Are there any plants that are currently gasifying wood waste to create
electricity and steam?
How much does the equipment and setup cost?
Is it feasible econoimically?
What kind of permitting is required?

I appreciate any help you can give me.

Thom Green
8255 Lifford Pl
Ft Worth, Texas 76116

Art Krenzel wrote:
>
> Hi Thom!
>
> An interesting question you pose - you do not indicate where you are
> located. Fuel derived from demolition materials is produced quite
> universally and sells quite well in markets which have local solid fuel
> boilers or steam generators. Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have a
> large amount of fuel used to produce steam used to dry wood which comes
> from ground up wood waste. In Portland, OR specifically, the metro waste
> collection system gathers wood waste, grinds it at the central transfer
> station and loads it into self unloading trailers where it is then shipped
> to local saw mills for steam production.
>
> Art Krenzel
> phoenix@transport.com
>

From PowerSou at aol.com Tue Sep 9 11:31:11 1997
From: PowerSou at aol.com (PowerSou@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY
Message-ID: <970909113234_146254615@emout07.mail.aol.com>

FROM:

PowerSou@aol.com
David DeHart
Power Sources, Inc.
9140 ArrowPoint Blvd., Suite 370
Charlotte, NC 28273
(704) 525 - 5819
(Fax) 527 - 1218

To all:

Please see my previous e-mail. Power Sources has facilities in North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi.

What is the quantity of wood waste that you generate a year? Does your
facility or any facility (within say a 50 mile radius of you) have a steam
load (at least 40,000 lb/hr for 350 days a year). We generate electricity at
one of our facilities and if the waste stream is large enough (and maybe also
a steam customer), we could for you also. See my other responses in [[DOUBLE
BRACKETS AND ALL CAPS]].

David

In a message dated 9/9/97 9:50:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, you write:

<<
Subj: Re: GAS-L: COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY
Date: 9/9/97 9:50:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: thomg@flash.net (Thom Green)
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Reply-to: gasification@crest.org
To: gasification@crest.org

Art;

Thank you for responding to my inquiry. Actually, I was just in the
Seattle area 2 weeks ago. Trying to locate some ideas of possible
solutions to my ever increasing ground wood pile.

I am located in the Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas area. Where there is a
lack of mills that require fuel. The ones that do use the fuel are
approximately 3 hours away, and there is currently enough people
bringing wood waste in they (the mills) are not looking for anymore
suppliers. Which has sent me on the trail to locate another alternitive
to my situation. I am certain (possibly ignorantly so) that there has
to be an economically feasible solution that would allow me to make a
sustainable product from the wood waste I produce.

I am hoping that the idea of creating electricity is such an idea.
Though, I have heard that trying to create electricity from wood waste
on a small scale is not feasible both economically and operationally for
a small business to take on. [[PSI BELIEVES WE CAN DO IT.]]

I guess my main questions are:
Are there any plants that are currently gasifying wood waste to create
electricity and steam? [[PSI CURRENTLY OPERATES A RICE HULL GASIFIER THAT
GENERATES STEAM AND ELECTRICITY.]]
How much does the equipment and setup cost? [[THAT DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF
THE PROJECT]]
Is it feasible economically? [[IT IS IF FUEL CAN BE OBTAINED AT A
REASONABLE COST]]
What kind of permitting is required? [[DEFINITELY AIR. MAYBE SOLID WASTE
(ASH), MAYBE STORMWATER, MAYBE WATER, MAYBE SEWAGE, MAYBE WASTEWATER - IT
DEPENDS ON YOUR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY.]]

I appreciate any help you can give me.

Thom Green
8255 Lifford Pl
Ft Worth, Texas 76116
>>

From John.WHITE at state.or.us Tue Sep 9 12:26:54 1997
From: John.WHITE at state.or.us (WHITE John)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY
Message-ID: <"0335634157858023*/c=us/admd= /prmd=or.gov/o=ODOE/ou=MSMail/s=WHITE/g=John/"@MHS>

Tom,
You might consider cross-posting your inquiries to the bioenergy list
(bioenergy@crest.org). Direct combustion technologies come to mind as an
alternative to gasification. The mills Art refers to in his reply use
combustion boilers, rather than gasification, to produce industrial steam
and electricity. Another possible alternative would be pelletizing or
densifying the material for pellet stoves or other residential heating
applications--but there may be problems using urban wood waste for this
purpose. Wood contaminated with paints or preservatives would not be
appropriate, for example. I hope others more knowledgeable than I will
respond on whether pellet fuels would be a viable option using your
feedstock.

John G. White
Oregon Office of Energy
john.white@state.or.us
----------
From: Thom Green
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY
Date: Tuesday, September 09, 1997 6:56AM

Art;

Thank you for responding to my inquiry. Actually, I was just in the
Seattle area 2 weeks ago. Trying to locate some ideas of possible
solutions to my ever increasing ground wood pile.

I am hoping that the idea of creating electricity is such an idea. Though, I
have heard that trying to create electricity from wood waste
on a small scale is not feasible both economically and operationally for
a small business to take on.

I guess my main questions are:
Are there any plants that are currently gasifying wood waste to create
electricity and steam? How much does the equipment and setup cost?
Is it feasible econoimically?
What kind of permitting is required?

I appreciate any help you can give me.

Thom Green
8255 Lifford Pl
Ft Worth, Texas 76116

Art Krenzel wrote:
> > Hi Thom!
> > An interesting question you pose - you do not indicate where you are
> located. Fuel derived from demolition materials is produced quite
> universally and sells quite well in markets which have local solid fuel
> boilers or steam generators. Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have a
> large amount of fuel used to produce steam used to dry wood which comes
> from ground up wood waste. In Portland, OR specifically, the metro waste
> collection system gathers wood waste, grinds it at the central transfer
> station and loads it into self unloading trailers where it is then shipped
> to local saw mills for steam production.
> > Art Krenzel
> phoenix@transport.com
>

From PowerSou at aol.com Tue Sep 9 13:17:05 1997
From: PowerSou at aol.com (PowerSou@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY
Message-ID: <970909111400_-1232505711@emout05.mail.aol.com>

From:
PowerSou@aol.com
David DeHart
Power Sources, Inc.
9140 ArrowPoint Blvd., Suite 370
Charlotte, NC 28273
(704) 525 - 5819
(Fax) 527 - 1218

Thom:

There are many uses for the wood you describe. One potential use is for
boiler fuel. Power Sources, Inc. owns and operates seven such facilities in
the Southeast. I don't know where you are from, but there is probably
someone in your area who does the same.

David

In a message dated 9/8/97 10:32:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, you write:

<<
Subj: GAS-L: COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY
Date: 9/8/97 10:32:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: thomg@flash.net (Thom Green)
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Reply-to: gasification@crest.org
To: gasification@crest.org (gasification@crest.org)

Please excuse my ignorance at the subject of this group. I ask that if
this information is not intended for discussion of this list that
someone help direct me to a place more suitable.

I run a small compost operation, where we take Construction and
Demolition materials from the metroplex area. This material we sort
into four different groups; Cardboard/Paper, Metal, Concrete and Wood.
The Cardboard/Paper is baled up and sent to different mills in the U.S.
The metal and concrete are shipped raw to different places that take it
and recycle it. I have been using the wood to produce compost but have
found that I am getting in more wood than is feasible to compost and
market. Therefore, I have been in correspondence with a few people in
reference to producing a bio-fuel out of the wood waste that we have.
This option seemed to be more applicable than just burning the wood. I
also figured if we were going to burn it, it might as well make a
product and profit.

As I am no engineer, and do not completely understand the technical side
of the process. I was hoping someone would be able to help direct me to
some information or people that would be interested in speaking with me
about gasification of the wood waste that I have to possibly produce
electricity and/or steam.

Thanks

Thom Green
thomg@flash.net >>

From jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 9 16:57:44 1997
From: jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com (Jane H. Turnbull)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY
In-Reply-To: <199709090453.VAA31825@s.transport.com>
Message-ID: <341509C4.4FD6@ix.netcom.com>

Thom -

Texas Utilities, Central and Southwest, and Central Louisiana Electric
Company all have coal-fired power plants that should have the potential
for co-firing waste wood, if it is sized appropriately and is low
moisture. You might have some luck if you contact their fuels
procurement staff. The utilities that have been co-firing have generally
noted decreased emissions of both SOx and NOx, which has value.

Jane Turnbull

From sp2joap1 at ida.his.se Thu Sep 11 13:15:28 1997
From: sp2joap1 at ida.his.se (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas engines
In-Reply-To: <199709070837_MC2-1F76-6DF2@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970911155529.10466B-100000@trix.ixum.se>

On Sun, 7 Sep 1997, Thomas Reed wrote:

> 1) Thermodynamically, efficiency continues to increase with CR
> indefinitely, so no optimum there. However, above 16/1 it tapers off and
> there is little advantage from 16-30.
>
> 2) Engines get very heavy at the high compression ratios and friction
> mounts rapidly.
>
> 3) If we are talking about converting diesel engines, then easy conversion
> of existing engines, whatever their CR would seem to give a broad optimum
> in the 12-18 range.
>
> Hope some of you can add to this.

I suppose there must be a point where the fuel/air mixture self-ignitiates
as the CR is increased.
The compression temperature increases with the CR, and the ignition
temperature for the fuel/air decreases with the CR. At the point where the
curves for these two functions intersects, the motor starts to knock. An
Otto-motor must operate below that point, and a diesel-motor must
operate above it. ...since the calorific value, and the composition of
the gases in producer gas isn't constant, I guess it's a bit pointless to
ask for an exact value of the best CR, but it would be interesting to know
if an ex-diesel-motor could have it's CR increased even further when
running on producer gas. (by modifying the top or/and the pistons)

Let's say we have a gas from a wood gasifier consisting of 23% CO, 18% H2,
2% CH4, 10% CO2, and 47% N2 (numbers taken from a car gasifier operation
course book from 1940 that I discovered in the dusty basement of the
province library ;)
What would the octane-number be for such a gas mixture?
How do we compute/estimate the best CR for a given octane-number?

Another thing that perhaps should be taken into consideration is the
production of NOx, wich I believe increases with the CR. Would a regular
car catalyst take care of the NOx?

Joacim
-
With both feet on the ground, you won't get very far.
-- Loesje

From rabello at uniserve.com Thu Sep 11 20:21:27 1997
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: NOx Emissions
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970912002607.006a9048@popserver.uniserve.com>

Hello!!!

Present catalytic converters do not reduce NOx emissions. You are correct
in thinking that high compression ratios increase NOx, but several methods
exist to emeliorate this problem.

Early attempts at solving this problem centered on the use of exhaust gas
recirculation and lowered compression ratios. This reduced the temperature
of the intake mixture and resulted in lower NOx emissions, as well as
reduced performance. Reduced spark advance will work as well.

Perhaps a better solution would be to utilize water injection. Developed
for bomber aircraft in the '30's, the addition of atomized water droplets to
the intake mixture absorbs combustion energy, then releases it when the
piston starts moving down.

I've used this technique on my own car, and it works well.

Good luck!

robert luis rabello

From bourgois at term.ucl.ac.be Fri Sep 12 01:22:43 1997
From: bourgois at term.ucl.ac.be (Frederic Bourgois)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L:gasification scheme
In-Reply-To: <199709051459.HAA00654@spanky.transport.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.16.19970912070322.333742fa@spot.term.ucl.ac.be>

At 07:53 05/09/1997 -0700, you wrote:
>Small Laboratories do great things - you needn't apologize.
>
>It sounds like you have a fairly well thought out process train. You used
>a term for an internal part of the gasifier called a "rotating grid" - what
>does that look like and are there many successful units operating with that
>design? Can you send a sketch or picture of that portion of the gasifier?
>
In a next future, we will update our web site with gasifier pictures. The
"rotating grid" isn't extraordinary. It's a classical plate grid with an
spindle
through the bottom of the gasifier

>What is your projected source of fuel for the gasifier and what amount of
>pretreatment and fuel size preparation are you planning?

We tried different fuels. Currently, we use poplar and willow wood chipped
by a forest chipper. We have a very big size distribution with a lot of
small particles producing important pressure losses

>How do you plan
>to feed the fuel to the gasifier.

The GAZEL gasifier is automatically feeded

>What is the proposed air pretreatment
>temperature prior to introduction to the gasifier?

Air is preheated by the produced gas in an internal heat exchanger to about
200°C

>Is it a positive
>pressure or negative pressure design?

For safety, we prefer negative pressure but for efficiency we use positive
pressure

>Looking forward to your reply.

What is your interest in so technical details ? Are you developping
gasifiers ?

>
>Art Krenzel
>10505 NE 285th Street
>Battle Ground, WA 98604
>
>
>
>
>----------
>> From: Frederic Bourgois <bourgois@term.ucl.ac.be>
>> To: gasification@crest.org
>> Subject: GAS-L:gasification scheme
>> Date: Friday, September 05, 1997 1:33 AM
>>
>> At 21:19 01/09/1997 -0700, you wrote:
>> >To Frederic:
>> >
>> >What sort of gasification scheme are you considering to generate the
>> >producer gas necessary for the engines? Since you have done much engine
>> >conversion work, it would seem normal that the producer gas section
>would
>> >be as far or farther along. This is an important decision for those of
>us
>> >interested in gasification and long lived engines.
>> >
>> >Looking forward to your reply.
>> >
>> >Art Krenzel
>> >10505 NE 285th Street
>> >Battle Ground, WA 98604
>> >phoenix@transport.com
>> >
>>
>> We are a small laboratory. Our experience isn't as important as you seem
>to
>> believe. However, we think that gasification units must be cheap and
>> reliable. For this reason, we have chosen the following scheme :
>>
>> - classical down-draft gasifier(derived from Imbert design) with air
>> preheating and rotating grid
>>
>> - dry ash extraction by cyclone followed by a wet extraction (water
>> scrubber) and a final filter (wood chips + fabric filter)
>>
>> - diesel-gaz or spark ignited engines following the final use
>>
>> As you can see, it's a classical scheme. However, we obtain good results.
>> For an belgium electricity company, we are now developping a 150 kWe
>pilot
>> plant for peak electricity production. The mean LHV of the produced gas
>is
>> higher than 5.5 MJ/m3N with a CO content in the range 25 .. 28 %. We
>expect
>> a net electrical efficiency of 26 %
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>> Frederic Bourgois
>> Ingenieur de recherches
>>
>> Universite catholique de Louvain
>> Unite TERM
>> 2, place du Levant
>> B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
>> Belgique
>>
>> tel : 32-(0)10-47.83.98
>> fax : 32-(0)10-45.26.92
>>
>> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>
>
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Frederic Bourgois
Ingenieur de recherches

Universite catholique de Louvain
Unite TERM
2, place du Levant
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgique

tel : 32-(0)10-47.83.98
fax : 32-(0)10-45.26.92

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

From bourgois at term.ucl.ac.be Fri Sep 12 01:39:41 1997
From: bourgois at term.ucl.ac.be (Frederic Bourgois)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas engines
In-Reply-To: <199709070837_MC2-1F76-6DF2@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.16.19970912072020.53871e5e@spot.term.ucl.ac.be>

At 18:20 11/09/1997 +0100, you wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Sep 1997, Thomas Reed wrote:
>
>> 1) Thermodynamically, efficiency continues to increase with CR
>> indefinitely, so no optimum there. However, above 16/1 it tapers off and
>> there is little advantage from 16-30.
>>
>> 2) Engines get very heavy at the high compression ratios and friction
>> mounts rapidly.
>>
>> 3) If we are talking about converting diesel engines, then easy conversion
>> of existing engines, whatever their CR would seem to give a broad optimum
>> in the 12-18 range.
>>
>> Hope some of you can add to this.
>
>I suppose there must be a point where the fuel/air mixture self-ignitiates
>as the CR is increased.
>The compression temperature increases with the CR, and the ignition
>temperature for the fuel/air decreases with the CR. At the point where the
>curves for these two functions intersects, the motor starts to knock. An
>Otto-motor must operate below that point, and a diesel-motor must
>operate above it. ...since the calorific value, and the composition of
>the gases in producer gas isn't constant, I guess it's a bit pointless to
>ask for an exact value of the best CR, but it would be interesting to know
>if an ex-diesel-motor could have it's CR increased even further when
>running on producer gas. (by modifying the top or/and the pistons)
>
>Let's say we have a gas from a wood gasifier consisting of 23% CO, 18% H2,
>2% CH4, 10% CO2, and 47% N2 (numbers taken from a car gasifier operation
>course book from 1940 that I discovered in the dusty basement of the
>province library ;)
>What would the octane-number be for such a gas mixture?
>How do we compute/estimate the best CR for a given octane-number?
>
>Another thing that perhaps should be taken into consideration is the
>production of NOx, wich I believe increases with the CR. Would a regular
>car catalyst take care of the NOx?
>
>Joacim
>-
>With both feet on the ground, you won't get very far.
> -- Loesje
>
>
We made experimental trials and found that CR must be reduced in order to
avoid knocking. We found maximum values of 11-12 for spark-ignited and
15-16 for desel-gas engines.

For gaseous mixtures, we speak about methane number instead of octane number.
You can find some informations in :

"Engine Knock Rating of Natural Gases - Methane Number",Ryan T.W. et al.,
Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol 115, pp 769-776. 1993

As wood gas has a low LHV (CO and H2 are diluted by N2), combustion occurs
at a relatively low temperature and few of NOx are produced. A wood gas
engine is a leanburn engine ...

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Frederic Bourgois
Ingenieur de recherches

Universite catholique de Louvain
Unite TERM
2, place du Levant
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgique

tel : 32-(0)10-47.83.98
fax : 32-(0)10-45.26.92

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

From bourgois at term.ucl.ac.be Fri Sep 12 02:12:00 1997
From: bourgois at term.ucl.ac.be (Frederic Bourgois)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas composition
Message-ID: <3.0.2.16.19970912075240.3337cf64@spot.term.ucl.ac.be>

Dear gasifiermen,

In the litterature, we found typical wood gas composition as following :

CO : 23 %
CO2 : 10 %
H2 : 18 %
CH4 : 2 %
N2 : 47 %

Are these values also yours ? I would be very interested to obtain your
mean gas composition. Indeed, our gasifier (down-draft, design derived from
Imbert, 150 kWe)produces a gas with very high CO content. Typical mean gas
composition :

CO : 27.6 %
CO2 : 8.2 %
H2 : 14.5 %
CH4 : 2 %
N2 : 47 %
LHV : 5.75 MJ/M3N
Fuel is poplar chips at 11% of moisture.

We regularly obtain CO content as high as 30 %. I haven't seen such CO
levels in the litterature.

Thank you for your gas compositions and your analysis
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Frederic Bourgois
Ingenieur de recherches

Universite catholique de Louvain
Unite TERM
2, place du Levant
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgique

tel : 32-(0)10-47.83.98
fax : 32-(0)10-45.26.92

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

From paisley at battelle.org Fri Sep 12 08:06:12 1997
From: paisley at battelle.org (Mark A Paisley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas composition
Message-ID: <9708128740.AA874066064@ccmailgw.im.battelle.org>

Both the gas composition given and the one achieved in your reactor could be
considered "typical" for air blown gasification reactors. The CO (and hydrogen)
content will vary depending on the amount of steam added to the gasifier.

You can find more "wood derived" gas analyses in "Modern Gas Producers" by
Rambush.

Mark Paisley
Battelle Columbus

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: GAS-L: Gas composition
Author: gasification@crest.org at ~internet
Date: 9/12/97 2:14 AM

Dear gasifiermen,

In the litterature, we found typical wood gas composition as following :

CO : 23 %
CO2 : 10 %
H2 : 18 %
CH4 : 2 %
N2 : 47 %

Are these values also yours ? I would be very interested to obtain your
mean gas composition. Indeed, our gasifier (down-draft, design derived from
Imbert, 150 kWe)produces a gas with very high CO content. Typical mean gas
composition :

CO : 27.6 %
CO2 : 8.2 %
H2 : 14.5 %
CH4 : 2 %
N2 : 47 %
LHV : 5.75 MJ/M3N
Fuel is poplar chips at 11% of moisture.

We regularly obtain CO content as high as 30 %. I haven't seen such CO
levels in the litterature.

Thank you for your gas compositions and your analysis
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Frederic Bourgois
Ingenieur de recherches

Universite catholique de Louvain
Unite TERM
2, place du Levant
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgique

tel : 32-(0)10-47.83.98
fax : 32-(0)10-45.26.92

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

From phoenix at transport.com Fri Sep 12 11:57:44 1997
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L:gasification scheme
Message-ID: <199709121513.IAA27396@brutus.transport.com>

You wrote: >How do you plan>to feed the fuel to the gasifier.

The GAZEL gasifier is automatically feeded

Is this gasifier commercially available? Are there brochures and drawings
available on the gasifier? It would please me (and perhaps others) greatly
if you could make available a cross section drawing of the GAZEL unit.

You wrote:<What is your interest in so technical details ? Are you
developping
gasifiers ?

I suspect there are quite a few engineers "lurking" around this discussion
group who have a great deal of interest in gasification. In my case, I was
a young Chemical Engineer who was very satisfied with his life until I met
Tom Reed. We did some experiments together and made site visits and since
then I have thirsted for more information on gasification, charcoal
manufacturing, small scale stoves, etc. I must admit that I was a willing
candidate to be led down this dark path of no return.

So to sum it all up - I am Chemical Engineer very interested in the
chemical and mechanical systems necessary to gasify biomass for use in a
sustainable energy system. You seem to have a very nice design which is
under evaluation and I am very interested in the results and the design. I
do not manufacture gasifiers.

Art Krenzel
phoenix@transport.com

From doelle at ozemail.com.au Mon Sep 15 03:13:15 1997
From: doelle at ozemail.com.au (doelle)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: other internet discussions on similar topic
Message-ID: <341CDF48.358D@ozemail.com.au>

Hi everybody,

I wonder whether everybody is aware of two eco-conferences going on on
the internet.
1. The first is a conference called EcoPlan, and discusses various
aspects of Zero Emission strategies. You can look at the project on
http://www.the-commons.org/zero-ems
or on the http://center.hamline.edu
The former is the more appropriate.
2. The UNU initiates an eco conference on integrated biosystems for
sustainability. Enquiries should be directed to the coordinator Dr.Jacky
Foo <foo@ias.unu.edu>. The program is referred to as ips-p2 I think.

It is for those interested in additional internet discussions on
sustainability of our ecosystems.
Good hunting
Horst Doelle

From Nds.Energie-Agentur at t-online.de Mon Sep 15 07:58:23 1997
From: Nds.Energie-Agentur at t-online.de (MS)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: other internet discussions on similar topic (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <341CDF48.358D@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <m0xAZoQ-0003IHC@fwd03.btx.dtag.de>

doelle schrieb:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I wonder whether everybody is aware of two eco-conferences going on on
> the internet.
> 1. The first is a conference called EcoPlan, and discusses various
> aspects of Zero Emission strategies. You can look at the project on
> http://www.the-commons.org/zero-ems
> or on the http://center.hamline.edu
> The former is the more appropriate.
> 2. The UNU initiates an eco conference on integrated biosystems for
> sustainability. Enquiries should be directed to the coordinator Dr.Jacky
> Foo <foo@ias.unu.edu>. The program is referred to as ips-p2 I think.
>
> It is for those interested in additional internet discussions on
> sustainability of our ecosystems.
> Good hunting
> Horst Doelle

Mit frdl. Gruessen
Markus Suessmann / Nds. Energie-Agentur

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Sep 15 08:41:08 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas composition
Message-ID: <199709150843_MC2-207C-4849@compuserve.com>

Looks like extra good gas to me. I have never seen (in 15 years of
looking) 30% CO in producer gas.

TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Sep 15 12:08:49 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Research on the Internet
Message-ID: <199709151210_MC2-2074-8F4C@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed 303 278 0558 V Colorado School of Mines
ReedTB@Compuserve.com
ALSO: The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Gayathri:

You asked for an article for the current BUN (of India) newsletter. I have
really enjoyed it and I like your mix of articles. Here is one you might
use. I sympathize with your problem of getting new articles and I hope
others will contribute. I'll send this to a few friends (800).

Your netpal, TOM REED
~~~~
BIOMASS RESEARCH THROUGH THE INTERNET

As scientists and engineers, we have been accustomed to conducting research
a day at a time, then reporting results in papers and in meetings, then
waiting for a response from our colleagues "out there". This is a very
slow process with a turnaround time of months or years. No wonder it has
taken so long (13 billion years) for intelligence to make the secrets of
nature consciously manifest.

A new process is at work on the Internet, and it may benefit those least
able to help themselves - the 3 billion poor of the world who are cooking
wastefully with biomass, deforesting their neighborhoods and enhaling the
smoke producing emphesema and glaucoma.

The Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology (CREST)
maintains a
netsite with a number of special interest nodes - STOVES, GASIFICATION,
DIGESTION, BIOCONVERSION, with a general category, BIOENERGY. Each node
maintains archives and a mailing list. (I am the moderator of the
GASIFICATION list - we currently have 150 members.) To subscribe to any of
these lists, send the message "subscribe <listname>" to
majordomo@crest.Org. (And, if you get tired or bored, or overwhelmed, send
"unsubscribe <listname>".)

The STOVE node has been very active in research in the last six months. We
are working on WOOD-GAS STOVES (and in a sense this work also belongs in
the GASIFICATION node). These stoves are close coupled gasifiers that
generate gas in an inverted downdraft (also called charcoal making) NATURAL
DRAFT gasifier which then leaves 25% charcoal after roasting out the gas
and volatiles. The problem remaining is to mix the gases with air for
clean, intense combustion. Natural draft doesn't provide much power for
the mixing, and some of us have tried "air wicks", others are trying
venturi mixers. Every few days someone makes a new configuration and
reports on the results. It is VERY exciting, and should produce a working
WOOD-GAS STOVE (if one is possible) in a year at most.

[Here's a section you can keep - or leave out:
Reporting research in the STOVES node can be very exciting as illustrated
by the following E-mail letter that I got this morning.

"I am very new to the subject of gasifier and or charcoal producing
stoves. However after some excellent information derived from this
archive, and list, I built a two can stove of my own. It didn't take
long, (60min), or cost much, ($5.00), but it illustrated the theory and
practice of everything I had read in a way nothing else could have! To
anyone who hasn't tried it....build one.

This stove is built from 21Litre paint cans, some brass angle brackets, (I
can't help it, but ithas to look good), and some pop rivets for
convenience. The gasifier
section has a fuel grill mounted 3cm above the base of the can, made
from 1/4in hardware cloth. Primary air intake is only a series of 1/8"
holes, (about 40), drilled in the base, and in a can bottom removed from
the burner can. The disc is pop riveted to the gasifier bottom, and
supplied with a rudimentary handle.

The burner assembly is located 1cm
above the gasifier unit (secondary air intake). I didn't know what to
expect, having guessed at some of the dimensions.....but I'll be
*"=%$#@@##$.....if it didn't work....sure I got smoke.....sure it only
burned for 35minutes...but at 2am in my back yard, in the dark....I saw
exactly what I needed to understand what I had only been reading
about.At about 10 minutes even surface combustion was achieved, the
flame danced about 2cm above the combustibles, the colouration was
white, blue, alternating with yellow. At this point there was no smoke
that I could discern. The burn lasted for 35min...at which time I sealed
the unit....charcoal production was at about 20%...

I believe the primary intake needs to be increased dramatically, as the
flame seemed
to be starving, the secondary intake is already adjustable from 0-4cm,
so I will play with that.....sorry if I seem to be going over old
ground, but this is all new to me, anyway...three other stoves are in
production...each with significant design changes....in a day or two
we'll see. Again thank you to ALL for the new facination."

This illustrates the excitement found in this node better than my words.
(It also illustrates that you should sign your name and address. I don't
know who wrote this or from where. The spelling "colour" might indicate
someplace in the Old British Empire, but your guess is as good as mine.]

The various contributors to this node are weighing in from all over the
world. Alex English (in Canada) has a WWW site,
Stoves: Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html
that has pictures, drawings and discussions on this and many other stoves.
Anyone interested should check out this site. We are getting a lot of
interest in Africa.

It seems to me that this research interaction in STOVES is new in this old
world. (Has anyone found other examples?) I hope we can see similar
interactions on the other nodes, but they have so far confined themselves
to theoretical and economic questions.

I have also appreciated your BUN Website at
Http://144.16.73.100/~mukunda/home.Html.

and I hope this sparks more readers and MORE WRITERS.
~~~~
Yours truly, TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Sep 15 12:50:52 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Energy Consumption of Pyrolysis
Message-ID: <199709151210_MC2-2074-8F48@compuserve.com>

You said....
Here are Sunday morning ponderings. Charcoal energy content is about 1/3 of
the total content of wood (?), what is the net proceeds of pyrolysis, i.e.
energy given off by pyrolysis (as a percent of total content of wood)? The
remainder of the energy will be contained in the producer gas.

In SLOW pyrolysis (as practiced for the last 20,000 years) about 1/3 of the
energy is in the charcoal, 1/3 in the tar and 1/3 in the non-condensible
gases.

In FAST pyrolysis (as practiced the last 15 years in Canada, the US and
Europe) 60% of the energy can be in the wood-oil (Bio-Syn, Bio-Crude,
Syrup, whatever you want to call it) with only 20% in the char and very
little in gas.

Incidentally, I have been chasing down the "energy FOR pyrolysis" (heat Of
pyrolysis plus sensible heats to pyrolyse) for 20 years. It is an elusive
number, possibly as low as ZERO (autopyrolysis) and possibly as high as 30%
of the heat of combustion (5.4 Kj/g or 2400 Btu/lb) for SIMULTANEOUS
PYROLYSIS AND GASIFICATION (SPG).

So, if you have questions in this area, you are one of the healthy ones.

Regards, TOM REED

From jsmeenk at iastate.edu Tue Sep 16 12:07:49 1997
From: jsmeenk at iastate.edu (Jerod Smeenk)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Figures of merit for gasifiers and stoves
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970916110713.007c5610@pop-2.iastate.edu>

Dear Tom and Netters,

I read with interest your evaluation of the different downdraft gasifier
styles. I also did some checking on the calculations and data listed in
the text (listed below) as I wanted to perform similar calculations for the
fluidized bed gasifier located at Iowa State University. I was confused by
the units used in Table 2 for the thermal thruput. In Table 2, units of
MWth and MWe are listed. Thruput would typically have units of MWth/m2 and
MWe/m2, which matches the calculated values. Second, the calulations for
the oxygen blown gasifiers were conducted with a heating value of 5 MJ/m3
instead of the suggested 10 MJ/m3. If a heating value of 10 MJ/m3 is used
the power thruput will double from that listed in Table 2 for the oxygen
blown gasifiers.

A similar analysis of the fluidized bed gasifier at Iowa State University
gives the following values:

TYPE -
ID -
AREA -
MAX FLOW -
SGV -
Pth -
Pel -
SFV -
SGP -

At 08:37 AM 9/7/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Thomas B. Reed 303 278 0558 V Colorado School of Mines
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Dear Netters:
>
>Here is a subsection I recently wrote for our upcoming book. I would be
>interested in your comments. Sorry about the less than perfect formatting,
>but maybe this is better than encoding.
>
>1.2 Gasifier Comparison with "Figures of Merit"
>
> While it is necessary to collect data specific to particular gasifiers,
>it is quite difficult to compare performance between different types and
>sizes. There are a number of "figures of merit" that reduce data from
>various gasifiers to a common denominator so that one can compare gasifiers
>that are widely different in scale and type, just as the listing of "price
>per kg" of various products in the supermarket makes it possible to
>determine unit costs without carrying a computer to the store.
>
>1.2.1 SUPERFICIAL GAS VELOCITY, SGV (AREA THRUPUT)
>
> The superficial gas velocity (SGV) is easily calculated from the most
>basic information on gasifiers, ie
> SGV = Gas production (m3/sec)/Internal Cross Section Area (m2)
>The superficial velocity has long been used to compare widely different
>gasisfiers. Many other factors are easily derived from this number or used
>to derive this number.
>
> The word "superficial" refers to the fact that it is based on the gas
>production measured at normal temperature and pressure (not at gasifier
>temperature) and uses the gasifier internal diameter without reference to
>internal fuel or equipment. The word "velocity" refers to the fact that
>m3/m2-sec has the units of velocity, m/sec (or m/hr), so the SGV refers to
>the velocity below the grate corrected to room temperature. (Cute?) It
>might be more properly called the area thruput, but we will use the
>historic term here.
>In addition, the SGV has a major influence on the conditions and products
>of gasification and these will be discussed in Volume II.
>
> The following table illustrates comparison of the SGV of a number of
>gasifiers.
>Table 1 Maximum Reported Superficial Gas Velocity of Various Gasifiers
>GASIFIER TYPE ID AREA MAX FLOW SV
> m m2 m3/sec m3/m2-sec
>Imbert Nozzle Downdraft 0.30 0.071 0.045 0.63
>SERI Air Stratified Downdraft 0.15 0.018 0.005 0.28
>SERI Oxygen Str Downdraft 0.15 0.018 0.004 0.24
>Syn-Gas - Air Str Downdraft 0.76 0.454 0.776 1.71
>Syn-Gas - Oxy Str Downdraft 0.76 0.454 0.485 1.07
>Buck Rogers Str Downdraft 0.61 0.292 0.126 0.43
>
>(Notes: From Reed, 1988, Hanbook....; Imbert gasifier measured at ID, not
>constriction. Buck Rogers from Chern thesis, 1985. )
>
> The SERI experimental gasifier had the lowest thruput, while it's
>offspring, the Syn-Gas gasifier has the highest (due to its enclosed
>refractory top). None of these relations would be evident from the raw
>data, and were not evident at the time of operation.
>
> THERMAL POWER: If one knows the heating value of the gas (HV), the
>thermal thruput is calculated from:
> P(th) = HV X SGV
> The air gasifiers listed above typically produce gas with a heating value
>of 5 MW/m3. The oxygen gasifiers produce a gas with a heating value of 10
>MW/m3. These give the power thruputs shown in Table 1 .
> ~~~~~
>Gasifier SGV Pth Pel SFV
>SGProduction
> m3/m2-s MWth MWe mm/sec m3/m2-hr
>Imbert 0.6 3.2 0.95 0.5 84
>Buck Rogers 0.4 2.2 0.65 0.3 57
>SERI Air 0.3 1.4 0.42 0.2 37
>SERI Oxygen 0.2 1.2 0.36 0.2 32
>Syn-Gas - Air 1.7 8.6 2.57 1.2 228
>Syn-Gas - Oxygen 1.1 5.4 1.61 0.8 143
>Notes: gas heat content 5 MJ/m3; El efficiency 30%; particle size 3
>cm; 18 Gj/m3, gasifier efficiency 0.7.
> ~~~~
>ELECTRIC POWER:
> If the efficiency [e (p)] of power generation using the gas is known, the
>power thruput is given by
> P(e) = e (p) X HV X SV
>and values for the gasifiers above are shown in Table 2.
>
>SUPERFICIAL FUEL VELOCITY (SFV):
>
> If one knows the bulk density of the fuel, the fuel density (typically
>200 kg/m3 for wood chips) , the heating value of the fuel (typically 18
>GJ/m3), the efficiency of gasification (typically 0.7) and the heating
>value of the fuel one can calculate the velocity of fuel flow at steady
>state in the gasifier from the energy balance as
> SFV = r X e (g)X SGV X HG/HF
> These velocities are shown in Table 2. (They are shown in mm/sec because
>they are so small relative to the gas velocities. Multiply by 3.6 to get
>m/hr.)
>
>1.2.2 SUPERFICIAL GAS PRODUCTION (SGP):
> While superficial gas velocity is a measure of gas production per unit
>cross section, the superficial gas production is a measure of production
>rate per unit volume, where h is the active bed height of the of the
>gasifier (where heat losses occur and insulation is required).
>
> SGP = Gas volume per sec/gasifier volume = SGV/ h´A
>(m3gas/m3vessel-sec)
>
>(As a reference, biogas digestors typically produce 1 m3 of gas/m3 of
>vessel per hour. We once calculated the methane production from cow
>stomachs as 7 m3 gas/m3 stomach-hr. It is seen in Table ? that gasifiers
>produce gas at 50-200 times the rate.)
>In fluidized beds, the active zone only depends on the vessel dimensions.
>In fixed bed gasifiers the height of the bed is difficult to determine, and
>depends particularly on fuel size and moisture content. These will be
>discussed in more detail in Volume II. For now the 3,6,9 RULE illustrates
>the calculation. Typically the flaming combustion zone is 3 particle
>diameters and the char gasification zone is 6 particle diameters, so the
>active zone is 9 particle diameters or 36 cm high. Thus the active bed
>height for a 4 cm particle fuel will be Vessels may be much larger, but the
>remainder is typically fuel magazine. The SGP for the various gasifiers
>of Table 1 are shown in Table 2.
>
>1.2.3 Significance of SGV and SGP:
>
> While the SGV is a measure of how big the "footprint" of the gasifier
>will be (cross section area), the SGP is a measure of the volume occupied,
>and the relative mass and construction cost. It is also inversely
>proportional to heat loss. The SGV of a fluidized bed is typically high
>because of the necessity of supporting the fuel on a column of gas, and so
>fluidized bed gasifiers tend to be quite tall. The SGV of fixed bed
>gasifiers is much lower because of the very compact reaction zones.
>However, fixed bed gasifiers typically have higher gas production per unit
>volume as shown by the SGP figures above. ...(Waiting for data on
>fluidized bed SGP and SFV.) But Fbs are typically 3-10 m tall, compared to
>reaction zones of 0.2-1m in fixed bed gasifiers.)
>
>Stovers: I believe that the wood-gas stove gasifier has a superficial gas
>velocity of 0.02 m/s, over an order of magnitude less than the gasifiers
>above. I believe this explains the charcoal yield of 25% rather than <5%
>in the gasifiers above, due to the lower pyrolysis temperatures.
> ~~~~
> I hope some of you will wish to calculate the SGV and SGP figures for
>your own gasifiers and that you may wish to send them to me. I may include
>them in the database, and I will include them in discussion. I also hope
>that you may know other names that are officially used.
>
>Thanks to all, TOM REED
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerod Smeenk
Project Engineer
Iowa State University
1043 Black Engineering
Ames, IA 50011
Phone: (515) 294-6402
Fax: (515) 294-3261

From jsmeenk at iastate.edu Tue Sep 16 12:24:31 1997
From: jsmeenk at iastate.edu (Jerod Smeenk)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Figures of merit for gasifiers and stoves
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970916112636.007d45a0@pop-2.iastate.edu>

Dear Tom and Netters,

I apologize that the message I just sent did not contain the values for the
ISU fluidized bed reactor. I will add the values of interest now.

A similar analysis of the fluidized bed gasifier at Iowa State University
gives the following values:

TYPE - Atmospheric pressure bubbling fluidized bed
ID - 0.46 m
AREA - 0.164 m2
TYPICAL FLOW - 0.085 m3/sec
SGV - 0.52 m/sec
Pth - 2.6 MWth/m2
Pel - 0.78 MWe/m2
SFV - see note below
SGP - 1.29 m3-gas/m3-vessel/sec

I am not sure how the value SFV applies to fluidized bed reactors. I can
understand a fuel velocity in a reactor (downdraft) that contains only
fuel. But a fluidized bed typically contains only 5% fuel by mass in the
bed material and the fuel is well distributed throughout the bed.
Therefore, I'm not sure how to calculate a SFV for a fluidized bed.

I would be interested to hear the values of other FB gasifiers or comments
on these numbers.

Best Regards,

Jerod Smeenk
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerod Smeenk
Project Engineer
Iowa State University
1043 Black Engineering
Ames, IA 50011
Phone: (515) 294-6402
Fax: (515) 294-3261

From jsg at crest.org Thu Sep 18 15:50:43 1997
From: jsg at crest.org (Jon Guth)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Case Studies Solicitation
Message-ID: <34218603.1177@crest.org>

Please excuse this brief message if it is not specific to the exact
topic of this mailing list. It does however deal with renewable energy
and climate change in general, and is therefore, still quite pertinent.

CREST, the Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology, is
developing a project with the support of the EPA, to document and post
on the Internet, case studies and positive results of State and Local
government activities that have resulted in reducing or preventing
greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency and/or renewable
energy technologies, better municipal planning, and progressive
sustainable energy and resource practices.

The general sectors on which the project is focusing are:
Buildings/Residential, Transportation, Industrial Facilities, Municipal
and Public Utilities, and Agriculture. The results that are being
sought include energy savings, cost savings, greenhouse gas savings, and
jobs created.

CREST would appreciate any and all relevant submissions of case studies,
contacts, web sites, other discussion groups or mailing lists, or
reports that might be useful in fulfilling this project.

Please send any electronic files to the project manager, Jon Guth at:
E-Mail: jsg@crest.org
Phone: 202-530-2234
Fax: 202-887-0497

Please mail any hard-copy documents to:
Jon Guth
CREST
1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20036

--
Jonathan Guth, GEM Project Manager
Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology (CREST)
1200 18th St., NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202)-530-2234 Fax: (202)-887-0497
E-Mail: jsg@crest.org Web: http://gem.crest.org

From mezainal at rocketmail.com Fri Sep 19 00:20:27 1997
From: mezainal at rocketmail.com (Zainal Zainal)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: suspension gasifier
Message-ID: <19970919041847.4756.rocketmail@send2.rocketmail.com>

Hi!

Does anyone has some information on suspension gasifier for gasifying
fine biomass material such saw dust or rice husk?

Open core gasification has been done on the rice husk. Fluidized bed
gasification can also be done for fine material as above.
Unfortunately the route to using suspension gasifier is not well
known. My immediate thoughts were to use something like a cyclonic
gasifier or swirl gasifier system.

Information on this would be very much appreciated.

Dr. Zainal A. Zainal

Dr. Zainal Alimuddin Zainal
Lecturer
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Perak Campus
Sri Iskandar, 31750, Perak
Malaysia
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Sep 19 08:22:14 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Figures of merit for gasifiers and stoves
Message-ID: <199709190824_MC2-2110-C494@compuserve.com>

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

You are the first to weigh in with "Figures of Merit". I agree with you
that Fuel Velocity doesn't have much meaning in the fluidized bed.

I hope that others will also calculate figures of merit on their gasifiers.
I have a spreadsheet on which I am entering them. Yours will be the first
Fluidized bed. All of this will appear in Volume II (Science and
Engineering of Gasification.)

Incidentally, do you consider your FB to be bubbling or recirculating? I
am surprised that you can achieve fluidization at such a low velocity.
What is the fuel, fuel density and fuel size?

Thanks for your quick response, Yours truly, TOM REED

Dear Tom and Netters,

I apologize that the message I just sent did not contain the values for the
ISU fluidized bed reactor. I will add the values of interest now.

A similar analysis of the fluidized bed gasifier at Iowa State University
gives the following values:

I would be interested to hear the values of other FB gasifiers or comments
on these numbers.

Best Regards,

Jerod Smeenk
<

From iribiom at hol.fr Fri Sep 19 12:57:01 1997
From: iribiom at hol.fr (iribiom)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <199709191659.SAA02816@mail1.isdnet.net>

Vincent SCHEIDECKER
Project Coordinator Sustainable Agriculture - Biomass

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
IRIBIOM
Biomass - Sustainable Agriculture
http://wwwperso.hol.fr/~iribiom/index.html
13, avenue des Droits de l'Homme
45 921 ORLEANS CEDEX 9
FRANCE
Tel: 33 2 38 71 90 52
Fax: 33 2 38 71 91 12
E-mail: iribiom@hol.fr
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Dear sir or madam,

As a graduate in agriculture and a project coordinator at the IRIBIOM, I
noticed your e-mail address on the internet and thought you might be able
to help me find an appropriate position (or short-term appointment) dealing
with:

PROJECT MANAGEMENT / ASSESSMENT OF TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY

AGRICULTURAL USES OF WASTES
and/or
NON FOOD USES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
and/or
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

In October 1996, I graduated from Ecole Superieure d'Agriculture d'Angers
(ESA). ESA is an agricultural college located in Angers, France. ESA's
five-year degree program is equivalent to an M.S. degree in the United
States. During the program I attended interdisciplinary courses related to
agriculture, economics, and project management. I also had numerous
international internships-US 5 months, Ireland 2 months, Italy 5 months,
Spain 2 months and one semester at Clemson University in Clemson, South
Carolina. While at Clemson, I took courses in commodity futures markets,
natural resource economics, agricultural prices, and environmental
management.

My professional experience in France since graduation has focused on
agricultural project management. This experience has expanded my skills in
this important area:

ADEME, French Agency for Environment and Energy, in collaboration with
INRA, Research Institute in Agriculture and Economics--Technical and
economic analysis of producing rape seed oil used as fuel and lubricant and
International synthesis of rape seed and sunflower oil.

IRIBIOM, Institute of Biomass--Technical and economic evaluation of
distillery effluent market development (biofuel or agricultural uses as
feed, fertilizer) and agricultural uses of wastes (compost and sludge).
Also, compiled references and organized seminars on sustainable agriculture
that allowed respect for the environment and economic growth.

In order to have a better understanding of my professional experience in
the U.S. and France, I suggest you contact via e-mail the references listed
on my Curriculum Vitae (http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/4329/).
I also welcome comments and suggestions regarding my efforts to obtain a
position internationally in the environmental or natural resources area.
If my proposal does not fill the need of your organization and if you know
someone that might be interested, would you kindly forward this message to
him or her?

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
CV: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/4329/
------------------------------------------------------
GRADUATE IN AGRICULTURE
Project Management - Technical and economic studies
International relations
------------------------------------------------------

SCHEIDECKER Vincent
Age: 25
Nationality: French

IRIBIOM - Institute of Biomass and Environment
13, avenue des Droits de l'Homme
45 921 ORLEANS CEDEX 9 FRANCE
Tel: 33 238 71 90 52
Fax: 33 238 71 91 12
E-mail: iribiom@hol.fr

------------------------------------------------------
EDUCATION
------------------------------------------------------

Sept 1990 - dec 1995 ESA (Ecole Superieure d'Agriculture d'Angers).

Special study in Environment and project management (5th year).

Clemson University, Department of Applied Economics, South Carolina,
USA(4th year).
4 courses regarding Agriculture and Economics (Natural Resource Economics
(A), Agricultural Prices (A), Environmental Management (A), Commodity
Futures Markets (A), Special study on Global Warming).
Ref.: Dr. WELLS (E-mail: gjwells@clemson.edu).

Bac C (scientific) with honors, Estienne d'Orves high school (Nice,
France).

------------------------------------------------------
WORK EXPERIENCE and INTERNSHIP
------------------------------------------------------

1997
------------------------------------------------------
IRIBIOM, Institute of Biomass (http://wwwperso.hol.fr/~iribiom/index.html)
Project coordinator:10 months (March - December). Projects management,
economic and technical analysis:

Waste market development (distillery effluent used as energy, feed or
fertilizer).

Production of sunflower oil and rape seed oil used as energy (burners) and
meal used as feed.

Industrial use of rape-seed oil (farmers groups, IGOL: lubricant producer,
EUREKA project, http://www.eureka.be/).

Establishment of references from farmers on pesticides uses and
organization of a seminar on sustainable agriculture.

1996
------------------------------------------------------
ADEME, Environment and Energy Agency in Paris (http://www.ademe.fr) and the
INRA, National Institute in Agronomy (http://www.inra.fr).
Internship and work experience: 13 months (February-march 97). Feasibility
study (technical and micro-economic):

3 projects (farmers groups) of rape seed oil production used as energy (in
tractors) and meal production used as feed.

European synthesis of bioenergy projects.

Ref.: Mr. POITRAT, ADEME (AGRICE@imaginet.fr); Dr. SOURIE, INRA
(SOURIE@ecgn.grignon.inra.fr).

1994
------------------------------------------------------
Experimental internship (University of Bologna, Italy): 3 months (Study of
non food crops). Internship on a dairy farm (Barcelona, Spain): 2 months.

1993
------------------------------------------------------
Summer work experience in an organic cooperative (Pisa, Italy): 2 months.
Associate member of this cooperative.

Industrial training internship in a coffee processing factory (Belfast, N.
Ireland): 2 months. Technical and economic study (Research of the Optimal
Length for Coffee Packs).

1992
------------------------------------------------------
Summer work experience in an alligator skin processing factory (Sebring,
Florida, USA): 4 months. Mr. GEIGER (swampy@ct.net).

------------------------------------------------------
SKILLS
------------------------------------------------------

Languages
------------------------------------------------------
French: fluent
English: fluent (1st Cambridge certificate; TOEFL: 1994, 580 points). 2
months of internship in Ireland; 10 months of work experience, courses and
internship in the US.
Italian: fluent. 5 months of internship and work experience in Italy.
Spanish: read, written, spoken. 2 months of internship in Spain.

Computers
------------------------------------------------------

Office 97, micro-economic analysis (linear programming), web sites (html,
java).

From prmesron at mail.snider.net Fri Sep 19 18:21:27 1997
From: prmesron at mail.snider.net (Ron Bailey, Jr.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: suspenion gasifier
Message-ID: <3422FABC.83A70554@mail.snider.net>

You may be able to get some information on a cyclonic rice hull system
from Burnas Bhd., formally Lembaga Padi Dan Buras. I understand that
they built one in cooperation with Tenaga in the late 70's.

Ron Bailey, Jr.
PRM Energy Systems, Inc.

From dmjbaker at erols.com Mon Sep 22 07:21:34 1997
From: dmjbaker at erols.com (John Baker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Where can I get plans for a gasification system?
Message-ID: <3421D5B5.586E@erols.com>

Hello,

I am interested in getting plans or instructions to build a test
gasification system.

Please respond to DMJBAKER@EROLS.COM

Thank You
John

From bacaicoa at posta.unizar.es Mon Sep 22 10:52:06 1997
From: bacaicoa at posta.unizar.es (Pedro Garcia Bacaicoa)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Where can I get plans for a gasification system?
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970922053231.006e6450@posta.unizar.es>

At 09:30 PM 18/09/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I am interested in getting plans or instructions to build a test
>gasification system.
>
>Please respond to DMJBAKER@EROLS.COM
>
>Thank You
>John
>
>
>

We can design and build a gasification plant (downdraft gasifier with air)
for biomass in the range of 50 - 300 kWe. You can visit our gasifiers (pilot
plants) here in Spain.

Thanks

Pedro
*********************************************************
Pedro Garcia Bacaicoa
Departamento de Ingeniería Química y Tecnologías del Medio Ambiente
(Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering)
Centro Politécnico Superior
María de Luna, 3. 50015-Zaragoza (Spain)
ph: +34-976761880
fax: +34-976761861
e-mail: bacaicoa@posta.unizar.es

From tmiles at teleport.com Mon Sep 22 15:08:05 1997
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bioenergy Lists and Commands
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970922111254.009f007c@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 five 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: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@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)
Pat Wheeler (patrick.wheeler@aeat.co.uk)
Richard Nelson (rnelson@oz.oznet.ksu.edu)
Dave Stephenson (cdstephenson@tva.gov)

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),
Archive: <http://www.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/>
Digest: stoves-digest@crest.org

o Bioconversion (bioconversion@crest.org)
Moderators: Tom Jeffries <twjeffri@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Archive:
<http://www.crest.org/renewables/bioconversion-list-archive/>
Digest: bioconversion-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 fourth 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.

SPONSORS AND CONTRIBUTIONS

While there is no fee to subscribe to the lists 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@xyz.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@xyz.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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Thomas R. Miles, Jr., Consultant tmiles@teleport.com

1470 SW Woodward Way http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/
Portland, Oregon, USA 97225 Tel (503) 292-0107 Fax (503) 605-0208

From bourgois at term.ucl.ac.be Tue Sep 23 00:43:35 1997
From: bourgois at term.ucl.ac.be (Frederic Bourgois)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas composition
In-Reply-To: <9708128740.AA874066064@ccmailgw.im.battelle.org>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.16.19970923062235.31ef06f8@spot.term.ucl.ac.be>

At 07:59 12/09/1997 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Both the gas composition given and the one achieved in your reactor could be
>considered "typical" for air blown gasification reactors. The CO (and
hydrogen)
>content will vary depending on the amount of steam added to the gasifier.

In your gasifier, no steam is added.
>
>You can find more "wood derived" gas analyses in "Modern Gas Producers" by
>Rambush.
>

Would it be possible to obtain more detailed references of this book
(publisher, date)

Thank you

>Mark Paisley
>Battelle Columbus
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: GAS-L: Gas composition
>Author: gasification@crest.org at ~internet
>Date: 9/12/97 2:14 AM
>
>
>
>Dear gasifiermen,
>
>In the litterature, we found typical wood gas composition as following :
>
>CO : 23 %
>CO2 : 10 %
>H2 : 18 %
>CH4 : 2 %
>N2 : 47 %
>
>Are these values also yours ? I would be very interested to obtain your
>mean gas composition. Indeed, our gasifier (down-draft, design derived from
>Imbert, 150 kWe)produces a gas with very high CO content. Typical mean gas
>composition :
>
>CO : 27.6 %
>CO2 : 8.2 %
>H2 : 14.5 %
>CH4 : 2 %
>N2 : 47 %
>LHV : 5.75 MJ/M3N
>Fuel is poplar chips at 11% of moisture.
>
>We regularly obtain CO content as high as 30 %. I haven't seen such CO
>levels in the litterature.
>
>Thank you for your gas compositions and your analysis
>oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>Frederic Bourgois
>Ingenieur de recherches
>
>Universite catholique de Louvain
>Unite TERM
>2, place du Levant
>B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
>Belgique
>
>tel : 32-(0)10-47.83.98
>fax : 32-(0)10-45.26.92
>
>ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>
>
>
>
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Frederic Bourgois
Ingenieur de recherches

Universite catholique de Louvain
Unite TERM
2, place du Levant
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgique

tel : 32-(0)10-47.83.98
fax : 32-(0)10-45.26.92

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

From bourgois at term.ucl.ac.be Tue Sep 23 01:08:46 1997
From: bourgois at term.ucl.ac.be (Frederic Bourgois)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L:gasification scheme
In-Reply-To: <199709121513.IAA27396@brutus.transport.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.16.19970923064757.31ef8d0e@spot.term.ucl.ac.be>

At 08:08 12/09/1997 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>You wrote: >How do you plan>to feed the fuel to the gasifier.
>
>The GAZEL gasifier is automatically feeded
>
>Is this gasifier commercially available?

Not yet. It's a pilot plant. Perhaps in a few years, if results are good
enough ...

>Are there brochures and drawings available on the gasifier?

We published a booklet describing the SRC-GAZEL project. It's not yet on
the web. If you are interested send me your address.

>It would please me (and perhaps others) greatly if you could make
available a cross section drawing of the GAZEL unit.

As the current gasifier is funded by an electricity company and the
regional government, we may not give all this infomation. However, you are
welcome in our lab.

>
>
>You wrote:<What is your interest in so technical details ? Are you
>developping
>gasifiers ?
>
>I suspect there are quite a few engineers "lurking" around this discussion
>group who have a great deal of interest in gasification. In my case, I was
>a young Chemical Engineer who was very satisfied with his life until I met
>Tom Reed. We did some experiments together and made site visits and since
>then I have thirsted for more information on gasification, charcoal
>manufacturing, small scale stoves, etc. I must admit that I was a willing
>candidate to be led down this dark path of no return.
>
>So to sum it all up - I am Chemical Engineer very interested in the
>chemical and mechanical systems necessary to gasify biomass for use in a
>sustainable energy system. You seem to have a very nice design which is
>under evaluation and I am very interested in the results and the design. I
>do not manufacture gasifiers.

>
>Art Krenzel
>phoenix@transport.com
>
>
>
>
>
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Frederic Bourgois
Ingenieur de recherches

Universite catholique de Louvain
Unite TERM
2, place du Levant
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgique

tel : 32-(0)10-47.83.98
fax : 32-(0)10-45.26.92

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Sep 23 12:34:19 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: suspension gasifier
Message-ID: <199709231236_MC2-2182-C90A@compuserve.com>

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

You asked.....

Hi!

Does anyone has some information on suspension gasifier for gasifying
fine biomass material such saw dust or rice husk?

Information on this would be very much appreciated.

My initial reaction to this was that SUSPENSION gasification requires very
long path lengths for all except the fines fuels - eg sander dust.
However, when you mentioned cyclonic gasifier I remembered that Ivor
Bateman at the Morbark company in Winn Michigan built a cyclonic gasifier.
Our 1981 book says "The gasifier produces a low BTU gas at below ash
fusion temperatures. It is ideally suited for direct coupling to a boiler,
drier or any application where heat is required and also as a retrofit for
gas or oil burners. Ash removal is continuous and automatic. Particulate
emission is in the order of 500 ppm. Gasification is achieved with a
partial burning process. Primary air required for gasification is 1.25 lb
air/lb fuel."

There is a photograph showing a flame being discharged from a 20 inch
diameter nozzle from an experimental 5 MBtu/hr gasifier. I believe it was
primarily designed to burn sawdust.

If you decide to track this down, you might still find Mr. Bateman - or
patents issued to him - or talk to Morbark. I believe the approach has
merit for this size fuel.

If you find anything active, I would appreciate it if you could let me
know. We might include it in our data base.

Yours truly, TOM REED

From phoenix at transport.com Wed Sep 24 12:36:06 1997
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L:gasification scheme
Message-ID: <199709241640.JAA18656@brutus.transport.com>

Dear Frederic,

I would be very interested in receiving information on your gasification
system.

Thank you very much.

Art Krenzel
10505 NE 285th Street
Battle Ground, WA 98604 USA
(360)666-1883

----------
> From: Frederic Bourgois <bourgois@term.ucl.ac.be>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L:gasification scheme
> Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 11:47 PM
>
> At 08:08 12/09/1997 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >You wrote: >How do you plan>to feed the fuel to the gasifier.
> >
> >The GAZEL gasifier is automatically feeded
> >
> >Is this gasifier commercially available?
>
> Not yet. It's a pilot plant. Perhaps in a few years, if results are good
> enough ...
>
> >Are there brochures and drawings available on the gasifier?
>
> We published a booklet describing the SRC-GAZEL project. It's not yet on
> the web. If you are interested send me your address.
>
> >It would please me (and perhaps others) greatly if you could make
> available a cross section drawing of the GAZEL unit.
>
> As the current gasifier is funded by an electricity company and the
> regional government, we may not give all this infomation. However, you
are
> welcome in our lab.
>
> >
> >
> >You wrote:<What is your interest in so technical details ? Are you
> >developping
> >gasifiers ?
> >
> >I suspect there are quite a few engineers "lurking" around this
discussion
> >group who have a great deal of interest in gasification. In my case, I
was
> >a young Chemical Engineer who was very satisfied with his life until I
met
> >Tom Reed. We did some experiments together and made site visits and
since
> >then I have thirsted for more information on gasification, charcoal
> >manufacturing, small scale stoves, etc. I must admit that I was a
willing
> >candidate to be led down this dark path of no return.
> >
> >So to sum it all up - I am Chemical Engineer very interested in the
> >chemical and mechanical systems necessary to gasify biomass for use in a
> >sustainable energy system. You seem to have a very nice design which is
> >under evaluation and I am very interested in the results and the design.
I
> >do not manufacture gasifiers.
>
> >
> >Art Krenzel
> >phoenix@transport.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> Frederic Bourgois
> Ingenieur de recherches
>
> Universite catholique de Louvain
> Unite TERM
> 2, place du Levant
> B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
> Belgique
>
> tel : 32-(0)10-47.83.98
> fax : 32-(0)10-45.26.92
>
> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

From electo at poisson.iem.efei.rmg.br Wed Sep 24 16:33:57 1997
From: electo at poisson.iem.efei.rmg.br (Electo Silva Lora)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L:gasification scheme
Message-ID: <199709242039.RAA13711@poisson.iem.efei.rmg.br>

Dear gasification-men:

We are working now in a project about small scale electricity generation
(about 45 kWe) for isolated communities. We have some experience in the
construction and testing of fixed and fluidized bed biomass gasifiers in
our laboratory, but none experience in commercial equipment.....We have the
following questions:

1- Which is the market price of a fixed bed gasifier of about 200 kW
thermal capacity, supplied with the feeding system and instrumentation?

2- Do you consider perspective the use of gas microturbines for
decentralized electricity generation with biomass gasifiers?

We would like to invite a Faculty Professor to stay with us 1-3 months. In
this period he will lecture a graduate course about biomass gasification
and help us in the different projects and thesis we are carrying on. We
have the finantial support from the Brazilian National Research Council.
For further details contact me by e.mail.

Sincerely yours,

Prof. Electo Silva
Itajuba Federal Engineering School
Minas Gerais State
Brazil

----------
> De: Art Krenzel <phoenix@transport.com>
> Para: gasification@crest.org
> Assunto: Re: GAS-L:gasification scheme
> Data: Quarta-feira, 24 de Setembro de 1997 13:35
>
> Dear Frederic,
>
> I would be very interested in receiving information on your gasification
> system.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Art Krenzel
> 10505 NE 285th Street
> Battle Ground, WA 98604 USA
> (360)666-1883
>
> ----------
> > From: Frederic Bourgois <bourgois@term.ucl.ac.be>
> > To: gasification@crest.org
> > Subject: Re: GAS-L:gasification scheme
> > Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 11:47 PM
> >
> > At 08:08 12/09/1997 -0700, you wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >You wrote: >How do you plan>to feed the fuel to the gasifier.
> > >
> > >The GAZEL gasifier is automatically feeded
> > >
> > >Is this gasifier commercially available?
> >
> > Not yet. It's a pilot plant. Perhaps in a few years, if results are
good
> > enough ...
> >
> > >Are there brochures and drawings available on the gasifier?
> >
> > We published a booklet describing the SRC-GAZEL project. It's not yet
on
> > the web. If you are interested send me your address.
> >
> > >It would please me (and perhaps others) greatly if you could make
> > available a cross section drawing of the GAZEL unit.
> >
> > As the current gasifier is funded by an electricity company and the
> > regional government, we may not give all this infomation. However, you
> are
> > welcome in our lab.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >You wrote:<What is your interest in so technical details ? Are you
> > >developping
> > >gasifiers ?
> > >
> > >I suspect there are quite a few engineers "lurking" around this
> discussion
> > >group who have a great deal of interest in gasification. In my case,
I
> was
> > >a young Chemical Engineer who was very satisfied with his life until I
> met
> > >Tom Reed. We did some experiments together and made site visits and
> since
> > >then I have thirsted for more information on gasification, charcoal
> > >manufacturing, small scale stoves, etc. I must admit that I was a
> willing
> > >candidate to be led down this dark path of no return.
> > >
> > >So to sum it all up - I am Chemical Engineer very interested in the
> > >chemical and mechanical systems necessary to gasify biomass for use in
a
> > >sustainable energy system. You seem to have a very nice design which
is
> > >under evaluation and I am very interested in the results and the
design.
> I
> > >do not manufacture gasifiers.
> >
> > >
> > >Art Krenzel
> > >phoenix@transport.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> > Frederic Bourgois
> > Ingenieur de recherches
> >
> > Universite catholique de Louvain
> > Unite TERM
> > 2, place du Levant
> > B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
> > Belgique
> >
> > tel : 32-(0)10-47.83.98
> > fax : 32-(0)10-45.26.92
> >
> > ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Sep 24 19:07:55 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: New book on gasifiers
Message-ID: <199709241856_MC2-21AD-7B96@compuserve.com>

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

Michael Cox asked:

>Dear Sir:
You have mentioned that your new book on gasifiers
is to be ready for publishing this October.
Are we still on track?
How can I purchase a copy?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Cox

I will keep you all posted on the GASIFICATION node as to when the
manuscript goes to NREL, when they publish it, and where copies will be
available. Don't hold your breaths. Also I will announce there when the
data base is available on the WWW .

Thanks for your patience.... TOM REED

From prmesron at mail.snider.net Thu Sep 25 13:06:51 1997
From: prmesron at mail.snider.net (Ron Bailey, Jr.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ARTICLE
Message-ID: <342A99DF.DE687F18@mail.snider.net>

Tom AND ALL,

Follow this link < http://www.ardemgaz.com/today/dbriefs25.html > and
scroll down to see an article about Primenergy, our U.S. Licensee.
"Two firms to test poultry waste as fuel -- TULSA --"

Ron Bailey, Jr.
PRM Energy Systems, Inc.

From phoenix at transport.com Thu Sep 25 16:34:57 1997
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ARTICLE
Message-ID: <199709252037.NAA23534@s.transport.com>

Hi Ron,

I scrolled down your link and the subject related to biogas rather than
gasification. Fortunately there are others at CREST. Tom Miles posted a
list only recently. I have included this information for your record and
perhaps you could forward them the information as well.
Thanks !
Art Krenzel
phoenix@transport.com
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

----------
> From: Ron Bailey, Jr. <prmesron@mail.snider.net>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: ARTICLE
> Date: Thursday, September 25, 1997 10:05 AM
>
> Tom AND ALL,
>
> Follow this link < http://www.ardemgaz.com/today/dbriefs25.html > and
> scroll down to see an article about Primenergy, our U.S. Licensee.
> "Two firms to test poultry waste as fuel -- TULSA --"
>
> Ron Bailey, Jr.
> PRM Energy Systems, Inc.

From prmesron at mail.snider.net Fri Sep 26 11:27:58 1997
From: prmesron at mail.snider.net (Ron Bailey, Jr.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Article
Message-ID: <342BD454.620DB5C6@mail.snider.net>

Thanks Art:

I considered placing the mail in a different list, but since our system is a
gasification system, I felt that this is where it belonged.

Regards,

Ron Bailey, Jr.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> * To: <gasification@crest.org>
> * Subject: Re: GAS-L: ARTICLE
> * From: "Art Krenzel" <phoenix@transport.com>
> * Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:36:16 -0700
> * Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
> * Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> I scrolled down your link and the subject related to biogas rather than
> gasification. Fortunately there are others at CREST. Tom Miles posted a
> list only recently. I have included this information for your record and
> perhaps you could forward them the information as well.
> Thanks !
> Art Krenzel
> phoenix@transport.com
> 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
>
> ----------
> > From: Ron Bailey, Jr. <prmesron@mail.snider.net>
> > To: gasification@crest.org
> > Subject: GAS-L: ARTICLE
> > Date: Thursday, September 25, 1997 10:05 AM
> >
> > Tom AND ALL,
> >
> > Follow this link < http://www.ardemgaz.com/today/dbriefs25.html > and
> > scroll down to see an article about Primenergy, our U.S. Licensee.
> > "Two firms to test poultry waste as fuel -- TULSA --"
> >
> > Ron Bailey, Jr.
> > PRM Energy Systems, Inc.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * Prev by Date: GAS-L: ARTICLE
> * Prev by thread: GAS-L: ARTICLE
> * Next by thread: GAS-L: New book on gasifiers

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

September 1997 Gasification Archive