December 1998 Gasification Archive

From granadosgustavo at hotmail.com Tue Dec 1 00:12:36 1998
From: granadosgustavo at hotmail.com (Gustavo Granados)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Updraft gasifier
Message-ID: <199812010512.AAA11744@solstice.crest.org>

I'm looking for some equations or algorithms that help me to calculate
the diameter and the size of an updraft gasifier for baggasse. I would
like to know the content of tar in the gas, and the composition of this
gas. This work will help to create a prototype of laboratory in my
university.
Please, if you have any information, I will really appreciate it.

Thanks.

Gustavo Granados
(El Salvador)

e-mail: granadosgustavo@hotmail.com
fax: (503) 2210382

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From plasencia at ket.kth.se Tue Dec 1 08:46:48 1998
From: plasencia at ket.kth.se (Juan Manuel Plasencia)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fluidised Bed Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19981130074123.007dc790@pop-3.iastate.edu>
Message-ID: <3663F6BD.7FF74343@ket.kth.se>

Dear Robert,
I was reading the web site about the gas flow velocities are required to fluidise
the fuel bed. I would like to thank you it too.

--
Juan Manuel Plasencia
KTH/ Chemical Technology
S-100 44 Stockholm - Sweden
e-mail:plasencia@ket.kth.se
Fax: 46 - 8 - 10 8579 Tel: 46 - 8- 790 8994

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From rcbrown at iastate.edu Tue Dec 1 10:19:35 1998
From: rcbrown at iastate.edu (Robert C Brown)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fluidised Bed Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19981130074123.007dc790@pop-3.iastate.edu>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19981201092903.007e5510@pop-3.iastate.edu>

My pleasure! I teach a course on fluidized beds at ISU and our own work in
gasification is based on fluidized beds.

Robert

At 03:01 PM 12/1/98 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Robert,
>I was reading the web site about the gas flow velocities are required to
fluidise
>the fuel bed. I would like to thank you it too.
>
>--
>Juan Manuel Plasencia
>KTH/ Chemical Technology
>S-100 44 Stockholm - Sweden
>e-mail:plasencia@ket.kth.se
>Fax: 46 - 8 - 10 8579 Tel: 46 - 8- 790 8994
>
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
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
http://webbook2.ameslab.gov/
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From iti at connect-2.co.uk Tue Dec 1 13:20:24 1998
From: iti at connect-2.co.uk (ITI)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Activated Carbon as a Bi-Product of Gasification.
Message-ID: <008301be1d57$612c3540$a18bcdc2@fpgcsxhi>

-----Original Message-----
From: Schmidt, Darren <dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu>
To: 'gasification@crest.org' <gasification@crest.org>
Date: 27 October 1998 17:54
Subject: GAS-L: USMC Project

>Hello, I was the on site engineer at Camp Lejuene. Sounds like you all
>have definite opinions about our experience. I invite questions and
>criticism, and would like to know who has operating systems at 1MWe scale.
>
>Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
>Energy and Environmental Research Center
>PO Box 9018 Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018
>ph. (701)777-5120 fax (701)777-5181

Dear Darren,

To take you up somewhat belatedly on your offer to answer any queries :

I was looking back recently through the Status Report on the Camp Lejeune
Project as presented to the Seventh National Bioenergy Conference in 1996.
In the summary for Camp Lejeune, the following comment may be quoted :

"....The result of this pyrolysis is an activated carbon "char" bed and the
low heating value gas.... The activated carbon is potentially a saleable
bi-product of the system."

I would be interested to know if this aspect of the project was ever
pursued - i.e. the commercialisation of the activated carbon.

Would you (or indeed anyone else on the list) perhaps know if activated
carbon is a viable bi-product of the gasification process ? If not, then
why not ? Are the two processes innately compatible ?

Looking forward to your answers,

Best wishes,

Brian Russell.

Dr. Brian B. Russell,
Innovation Technologies (Ireland) Ltd.,
47 Manse Road,
Ballycarry, Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim,
BT 38 9HP N Ireland.
tel/fax : (0044) (0) 1960 373379
email : iti@connect-2.co.uk

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From antal at wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu Tue Dec 1 15:14:41 1998
From: antal at wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Michael Antal)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Theoretical Yield of Charcoal
In-Reply-To: <199811301450_MC2-61FD-1249@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.HPX.4.03.9812010802140.9414-100000@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu>

Stovers: basically I agree with Tom's comments. Usually I qualify my
reference to charcoal as "high-quality charcoal", which I usually further
define as a charcoal with a VM of 30% or less. Anyone interested in
charcoal needs to define exactly the quality of charcoal, before
discussing yields. Regards, Michael Antal. P.S. We have realized yields
of a high quality charcoal in excess of 60 wt% from some feeds.

On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Tom Reed wrote:

> Dear All:
>
> There is no "theoretical" yield of charcoal (in spite of what Mike Antal
> says). I prefer to think of it as XCOAL where X is the degree of
> devolatilization or volatile cracking. Normal charcoaling at 450C produces
> typically 25% charcoal with 20% volatiles, the typical yield also in our
> inverted downdraft gasifier. Larger pieces can crack more volatilve for
> higher yields. Chemical treatment (ZnCl2 and Na2CO3) can increase yield.
> High pressure can produce up to 50% in Antal's process. But if you don't
> measure the volatile and energy content you don't know how charcoally it
> is. Get a prox-ult analysis.
>
> Higher temperatures can produce much smaller yields like 15% for
> metallurgical charcoal (600C) or 10% for activated charcoal (800C).
>
> So the original question is meaningless without a lot more specification.
>
> Yours, TOM
> REED
>
> Message text written by kchishol
> >
> Elk is getting in the order of 25% charcoal yield from his
> sawdust charcoal operation. If the theoritically attainable
> maximum yield was 26%, he is doing phenomenal. However, if
> the theoretical maximum is 50%, then he has lotsa
> opportunity for improvement.
>
> I would hypothesize that the maximum yield attainable in a
> real world operation would be from a charcoal retorting
> operation, running on bone dry sawdust. Would anyone have
> data on what yield could be expected in this case?
>
> The next question is a bit more difficult.: How can
> pyrolysis gases be processed to recover carbon?
> Specifically, the so-called "creosote" is a low grade form
> of "wood coke", in that it still has some volatiles present.
> The creosote or wood tar fraction is basically a complex
> C-O-H compound of some sort. If the -O-H elements could be
> removed, then there would be an additional yield of solid C.
> How can this be done? How much additional carbon yield could
> be attained, if this was possible?
>
> Kevin Chisholm
> <
>
> Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
> Stoves Webpage
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From a.i.vanberkel at mep.tno.nl Wed Dec 2 04:05:06 1998
From: a.i.vanberkel at mep.tno.nl (A.I. van Berkel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Char yield etc.
In-Reply-To: <199811301450_MC2-61FD-1249@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19981202100349.006aff44@fmt1>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1364 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19981202/d7e52a3e/attachment.bin
From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Dec 2 07:52:48 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: FW: Nondeliverable mail
Message-ID: <199812020752_MC2-6228-5C11@compuserve.com>

Skip:

It is good to have real examples of working systems. Are these steam
turbine systems?

TOM REED

Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>Ok, enough of political theory. Let's talk dollars and cents.
Now, if all you so called 'phd's' were in the same room you could make a
very
convincing argument why the bumble bee couldn't fly.

So, I present two systems that are fueled by biomass or 'wood' by any other

name and they run not on an experimental basis but actually on a 24/7 for
the
last 11 or more years. and , at a profit. No sir, no subsidies or pink
hands
professors here, but dirty fingernailed engineers here. The only break was
in

buying turbo generators salvage from navy ships.
#1 the 8 MW plant in Terra Bella, CA
#2 the 1MW plant in Harrison, AR
All I know is that I have been there and the help has told me that the
paycheck has never bounced! Yes, they are large sawmills, but the point is

they work. Perhaps, this is a good starting point? I am sure that
improvements could be made and that is where the fine 'experts' in this
forum
come in.
Not raggin' here but I must say that folks can go on forever on
''theory" (as long as the grant money flows) and maybe it is time to lend
credibility to the science by going with something that works. I know that

biomass IS the future, but, despite the present American President's
stance,
image is not everything and substance is.

( I know I will get critisizm on this one!)

Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam

--UPIMSRGSMTP10bCCTYsc8wkC6KWl7vjlL4ZYO?F--

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
<

Thomas B. Reed: The Biomass Energy Foundation
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
303 278 0558V; 303 278 0560F
E-mail: reedtb@compuserve.com
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Dec 2 07:52:56 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal vs. Direct Combustion.
Message-ID: <199812020752_MC2-6228-5C18@compuserve.com>

Dear Brian Russell et al:

I may be entering this discussion late. Does it involve Stirling engines
as possible external combustors?

Stirling engines are right around the corner; always have been, may
continue to be.

Steam engines have low efficiencies at levels below 100 MW.

Diesel engines can run long periods on producer gas - if the gas is clean
enough. You have a choice of pressure ignition (with 5--20% diesel) or
spark ignition (possibly with reduced compression ratio. Efficiencies will
be above 25%.

Our company, Community Power Corp., has set a goal of making a very low tar
gasifier to operate a 25 kW turnkey gasifier. We'll let you know when it is
available. When Stirling engines are available at competitive prices, we
can relax the low tar requirement. When fuel cells are available we'll use
them.

Yours truly, TOM REED

Dear Skip and others,

Concerning your "simple question"...

I am interested to note the wide variey of opinions which have been
expressed in response to your fundamental query concerning internal vs.
direct combustion, and especially when looking a power plants of under 1 MW
electrical capacity.

In my own mind there are four main sub-issues :

1. capital cost.
2. Thermal efficiency.
3. maintenance costs.
4. fuel versatility.

Capital Cost.

On the first point, I had been led to believe that a prime benefit of
gasification was to permit the use of lower-cost power units (such as
standard diesel engines). I am no longer sure however if this is valid:
partly because of the alterations which are required to standard engines to
allow than to run efficiently and reliably; and partly after reading you
own
mail of some weeks ago concerning prices for 2nd hand boiler units.

I have, for example, been quoted around £ 1,000stg / kWe for a turn-key
CHP
plant with IC power unit. Would turn-key steam compete with this at say
250
kW ? Could other IC operators offer better value for a reliable and
well-tested CHP power plant design ?

Thermal Efficiency.

Standard theory suggests (in my experience) that small steam cycle plants
are unlikely to deliver more than 5% thermal efficiency in terms of
electrical output - as compared with (say) 25% for a small diesel engine.
I am fully aware that this is over-simplistic, since there are bound to be
additional energy losses in the various stages of gasification.
Nonetheless, I suspect that one could probably anticipate around 2-3 times
the electrical output from dry biomass when operating with an IC engine as
opposed to a boiler.

Set against this, if the fuel is free, then efficiency may not greatly
matter.

Please do challenge my assumptions on this if you believe them to be wrong.

Maintenance Costs.

I suspect that the jury is still out on this issue. On the one hand, many
people might suggest that high pressure steam is inherently more dangerous
than low pressure producer gas, leading to higher daily maintenance costs.

On the other hand, standard diesels do not like running for extended
periods
of time on producer gas; and complete annual strip-downs c/w extensive
replacement of components would not be uncommon (as I understand).
Perhaps this depends on the cleanliness of the producer gas.

Fuel Versatility.

This is one issue where I would have thought that an external combustion
power-plant would win hands-down - and especially in a country like Ireland
where there is no one enormous reserve of biomass waiting to be harnessed
for gasification units. External combustion must also greatly reduce the
pre-processing costs (i.e. chipping and drying).
This aspect of the problem would draw me strongly towards direct combustion
if other issues above could be answered convincingly.

Do Gene Zebley and Arnt Karlsen have any opinions on this ?

With all best wishes,

Brian Russell.

Dr. Brian B. Russell,
Innovation Technologies (Ireland) Ltd.,
47 Manse Road, Ballycarry, Co. Antrim
BT38 9HP Northern Ireland
Tel/Fax 01960 373379

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
<

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Dec 2 07:53:01 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: hypothetical case
Message-ID: <199812020752_MC2-6228-5C13@compuserve.com>

Dear Who are you (message below)??

This must be part of a continuing discussion.

Sounds like you want to make syn-gas - correct?

If you have natural gas for external heat of your hypothetical process, why
not use it as the carbon source and avoid the biomass? Steam reforming is
tried and true (but requires large scale). Oxygen partial combustion works
at a smaller scale.

Your fluidized bed temperatures will want to be quite high to crack the
tars and methane that form under these conditions. Why use fluidized bed?
Forces you to be very large scale.

Why use gas for heat? Use oxygen gasification. (Been there, done that,
got the T shirt.)

Yours truly, TOM REED

Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>Reply-To: gasification@crest.org

Let's say the objective were to gasify wood at an industrial scale to
produce syngas for chemical conversion (not combustion) with a minimum of
N2, CO2 or H20 dilution with reasonable thermal efficiencies, simple
operation and low capital cost. Let's say cheap natural gas were available
for combustion. Assuming the highest value product is CO produced from the
wood (not from methane, which in this case we can only use as an energy,
not a carbon or hydrogen source) and therefore that we want to convert as
much of the carbon in the biomass to CO, no liquids, and as little char as
possible. Also, our syngas product needs to be cooled to near ambient
temperature at less than 5 atmosphere pressure.

What's wrong with the following solution?:
--single fluidized bed reactor
--indirectly heated by firing natural gas (avoids consuming biomass as
energy source and avoids dilution of syngas by combustion products)
--fluidizing agent is a slip stream of product gas and possibly steam
--deep reaction zone to allow relatively low operating temperatures and use
of char as gasification catalyst to crack tars
--relatively long residence time to reduce solids to ash and "blow through"
char fines
--cyclone removal of char fines and particulates
--ash removal just above bed plate
--heat from combustor transferred to bed by passing exhaust gases through
heat exchange tubes in reactor above bed plate
--after reactor, combustion exhaust preheats combustion air and dries wood
feed or raises steam
--condenser to cool and dewater product gas
--other scrubbing?

I'm an amateur but my skin is thick and the case could be real, so let me
have it!

Thanks in advance for your comments.

From drasmaju at indo.net.id Wed Dec 2 14:42:32 1998
From: drasmaju at indo.net.id (Derasmaju)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: LAMP WOOD CHARCOAL.
Message-ID: <199812021942.OAA09374@solstice.crest.org>

--------------DB3B71DDD16EE65D63D52AA1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

CV.DERAS MAJU. Fax no: 62-721-259915 email : drasmaju@indo.net.id

Desember 2,1998

Dear sir.

In 1997, palm oil companies burnt large sections of the jungle in
Indonesia especially Sumatra and
Borneo. The fires that happened resulted in another country being
polluted by smoke.

In time the government made regulation to prohibit the burning of the
jungle. So land-clearing
companies got difficulties to finish their job. Our company Who uselly
prodused wood charcoal at
South Sumatra ( Lampung ) was invited to used waste wood to make
charcoal in middle of Sumatra
( propinsi Jambi ).

After 5 years made and sold charcoal in local market, We are planning to
expand into the export
market and we hope to be able to do business with your company.

We are able to supply = 400 ton a month
Specification from the laboratory :
Fixed carbon       > 85 %.
Ash contend        < 3 %.
Volatile matter     < 20 %.
Moisture              < 10 %.
Dry                      < 10 %.
Size              20 - 80 mm
As a smaller company who can respond immediately to market demand, we
can guarantee delivery
on time.

I look forward to your reply in this matter and hope we can do business
in the future.
Yours faithfully:

Eddy Ali.

Address : Jalan P.Antasari Blok V no.9 Bandar lampung , Indonesia.

--------------DB3B71DDD16EE65D63D52AA1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

CV.DERAS MAJU. Fax no: 62-721-259915 email : drasmaju@indo.net.id

Desember 2,1998

Dear sir.

In 1997, palm oil companies burnt large sections of the jungle in Indonesia
especially Sumatra and
Borneo. The fires that happened resulted in another country being polluted by
smoke.

In time the government made regulation to prohibit the burning of the jungle.
So land-clearing
companies got difficulties to finish their job. Our company Who uselly
prodused
wood charcoal at
South Sumatra ( Lampung ) was invited to used waste wood to make charcoal in
middle of Sumatra
( propinsi Jambi ).

After 5 years made and sold charcoal in local market, We are planning to
expand
into the export
market and we hope to be able to do business with your company.

I look forward to your reply in this matter and hope we can do business in the
future.
Yours faithfully:

Eddy Ali.

Address : Jalan P.Antasari Blok V no.9 Bandar lampung , Indonesia.
--------------DB3B71DDD16EE65D63D52AA1--
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From tmiles at teleport.com Wed Dec 2 16:54:37 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: FWD: Charcoal from Palm Oil Wood
Message-ID: <199812022154.QAA18012@solstice.crest.org>

CV.DERAS MAJU. Fax no: 62-721-259915 email : drasmaju@indo.net.id

Desember 2,1998

Dear sir.

In 1997, palm oil companies burnt large sections of the jungle in
Indonesia especially Sumatra and Borneo. The fires that happened resulted
in another country being polluted by smoke.

In time the government made regulation to prohibit the burning of the
jungle. So land-clearing companies got difficulties to finish their job.
Our company Who uselly prodused wood charcoal at South Sumatra ( Lampung )
was invited to used waste wood to make charcoal in middle of Sumatra (
propinsi Jambi ).

After 5 years made and sold charcoal in local market, We are planning to
expand into the export market and we hope to be able to do business with
your company.

We are able to supply = 400 ton a month
Specification from the laboratory :
Fixed carbon > 85 %.
Ash contend < 3 %.
Volatile matter < 20 %.
Moisture < 10 %.
Dry < 10 %.
Size 20 - 80 mm
As a smaller company who can respond immediately to market demand, we
can guarantee delivery
on time.

I look forward to your reply in this matter and hope we can do business in
the future.

Yours faithfully:

Eddy Ali.

Address : Jalan P.Antasari Blok V no.9 Bandar lampung , Indonesia.

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From taykenne at iastate.edu Wed Dec 2 17:33:57 1998
From: taykenne at iastate.edu (Tay A Kennedy)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: veh.& remote app's(was jungle gasifiers)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19981130074123.007dc790@pop-3.iastate.edu>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19981202163620.006f0d88@pop-2.iastate.edu>

Roy and other interested subscribers
At 08:27 AM 11/30/98 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>I joined this list with the idea of having a place to ask future
>questions. I find it, at least at this time, to be involved more in
>high tech gasifiers. I will have to obtain a tractor and a truck and
>outfit them with gasifiers to use bamboo chips as fuel in a
>ecologically oriented project in Costa Rica.

This sounds like batch feed rather than mechanical continuous feed. That
being the case, a vessel large enough to have a reasonable range between
refuelings would be large enough to handle larger pieces of bamboo...so,
why chips?

> I very definitely want
>to use a "low" tech system as these will have to work under "jungle"
>conditions!

I also am interested in small scale and especially vehicle and remote
aplications as are others on the list. "High tech" and "sophisticated"
don't have to mean complicated, high maintainance or fragile (unfortunately
they sometimes do). We should be striving for elegantly robust and simple
(not the same as crude).

> At this time I feel that I should aim at getting these
>vehicles outfitted with over-sized gasoline engines and then
>convert them to gasifiers.

You might consider turbochargers instead.

>Am I in the right place and which way should I leap?

Certainly *a* right place; but you have to decide which way to leap for
yourself.

>
>Roy Lent
>r@costarica.net
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From rbaileyj at prmenergy.com Wed Dec 2 18:09:41 1998
From: rbaileyj at prmenergy.com (Ronald W. Bailey, Sr.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: jungle gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <ee1a7dbe.365f8cb7@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3665CB1C.A9F2BCF5@prmenergy.com>

Dear Roy:

If you are looking for "jungle" gasifiers in the 800kWe to 35MWe range,
Click here to look at PRM Energy
Systems' "experience curve" in developing countries.
Regards,
Ron Bailey

From taykenne at iastate.edu Wed Dec 2 18:43:00 1998
From: taykenne at iastate.edu (Tay A Kennedy)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: jungle gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <ee1a7dbe.365f8cb7@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19981202174521.006db1ec@pop-2.iastate.edu>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1049 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19981202/513d387d/attachment.bin
From taykenne at iastate.edu Thu Dec 3 00:59:32 1998
From: taykenne at iastate.edu (Tay A Kennedy)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: veh.& remote app's(was jungle gasifiers)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19981130074123.007dc790@pop-3.iastate.edu>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19981203000159.006a3050@pop-2.iastate.edu>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1887 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19981203/6d907cfd/attachment.bin
From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Dec 3 01:40:21 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Activated Carbon as a Bi-Product of Gasification.
Message-ID: <199812030642.TAA29276@powerlink.co.nz>

Brian

I think the paragraph you quote means something different to the
interpretation.
After pyrolysis (oxidation) the char bed turns to activated carbon by the
action of incandescent gases passing through the char. It is consumed by
the process of reduction and a small proportion is ejected with the gas.
Our waste charcoal has been analysed and found to be low grade activated
quality. Markets may exist for this but would require investigating. One
thing for sure is that you don't want to be removing it from the process if
gas making is your first priority.

Regards

Doug Williams.

> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 18:20:16 -0000
> From: "ITI" <iti@connect-2.co.uk>
> Subject: GAS-L: Activated Carbon as a Bi-Product of Gasification.
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: Schmidt, Darren <dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu>
> To: 'gasification@crest.org' <gasification@crest.org>
> Date: 27 October 1998 17:54
> Subject: GAS-L: USMC Project
>
> >Hello, I was the on site engineer at Camp Lejuene. Sounds like you all
> >have definite opinions about our experience. I invite questions and
> >criticism, and would like to know who has operating systems at 1MWe
scale.
> >
> >Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
> >Energy and Environmental Research Center
> >PO Box 9018 Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018
> >ph. (701)777-5120 fax (701)777-5181
>
>
>
> Dear Darren,
>
>
> To take you up somewhat belatedly on your offer to answer any queries :
>
>
> I was looking back recently through the Status Report on the Camp Lejeune
> Project as presented to the Seventh National Bioenergy Conference in
1996.
> In the summary for Camp Lejeune, the following comment may be quoted :
>
>
> "....The result of this pyrolysis is an activated carbon "char" bed and
the
> low heating value gas.... The activated carbon is potentially a saleable
> bi-product of the system."
>
>
> I would be interested to know if this aspect of the project was ever
> pursued - i.e. the commercialisation of the activated carbon.
>
>
> Would you (or indeed anyone else on the list) perhaps know if activated
> carbon is a viable bi-product of the gasification process ? If not,
then
> why not ? Are the two processes innately compatible ?
>
>
> Looking forward to your answers,
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Brian Russell.
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Brian B. Russell,
> Innovation Technologies (Ireland) Ltd.,
> 47 Manse Road,
> Ballycarry, Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim,
> BT 38 9HP N Ireland.
> tel/fax : (0044) (0) 1960 373379
> email : iti@connect-2.co.uk

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From r at costarica.net Thu Dec 3 02:43:23 1998
From: r at costarica.net (Roy Lent)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: veh.& remote app's(was jungle gasifiers)
In-Reply-To: <199811301535.KAA10584@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <199812030743.CAA20439@solstice.crest.org>

> Roy and other interested subscribers
> At 08:27 AM 11/30/98 +0000, you wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >I joined this list with the idea of having a place to ask future
> >questions. I find it, at least at this time, to be involved more in
> >high tech gasifiers. I will have to obtain a tractor and a truck and
> >outfit them with gasifiers to use bamboo chips as fuel in a
> >ecologically oriented project in Costa Rica.
>
> This sounds like batch feed rather than mechanical continuous feed. That
> being the case, a vessel large enough to have a reasonable range between
> refuelings would be large enough to handle larger pieces of bamboo...so,
> why chips?
____________
Bamboo comes naturally as a long, hollow tube; in other words, most
its volumn consists of air. If it's chipped many times the weight of
biomass can be placed in the combustion chamber. And you are right,
it will be batch feed.
> > I very definitely want
> >to use a "low" tech system as these will have to work under "jungle"
> >conditions!
>
> I also am interested in small scale and especially vehicle and remote
> aplications as are others on the list. "High tech" and "sophisticated"
> don't have to mean complicated, high maintainance or fragile (unfortunately
> they sometimes do). We should be striving for elegantly robust and simple
> (not the same as crude).
______________
Very true, but if they have to be built here in Costa Rica one has to
be careful of complex to make systems.

>
> > At this time I feel that I should aim at getting these
> >vehicles outfitted with over-sized gasoline engines and then
> >convert them to gasifiers.
>
> You might consider turbochargers instead.
______________
Good suggestion!

Roy Lent

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From r at costarica.net Thu Dec 3 02:43:24 1998
From: r at costarica.net (Roy Lent)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: jungle gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <3665CB1C.A9F2BCF5@prmenergy.com>
Message-ID: <199812030743.CAA20447@solstice.crest.org>

> Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 17:19:56 -0600
> From: "Ronald W. Bailey, Sr." <rbaileyj@prmenergy.com>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: jungle gasifiers
> Reply-to: gasification@crest.org

> Dear Roy:
>
> If you are looking for "jungle" gasifiers in the 800kWe to 35MWe range,
> Click here to look at PRM Energy Systems' "experience curve" in
> developing countries.
> Regards,
> Ron Bailey
______________

Good enough, Ron, but click where? :-)

Roy

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From denys.f at oag.nl Thu Dec 3 03:41:26 1998
From: denys.f at oag.nl (Frank Denys)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: low NOx gasengines
Message-ID: <OG717720D7C@oag.nl>

Dear members,

The reduction of NOx emission by gasturbines is a big issue. Saturation of the fuel gas with
water (steam) or dilution with nitrogen are commonly applied (known). These measures lower the
temperature during the combustion and reduce the amount of thermal NOx. Ofcourse all NH3
must be removed before the gasturbine since this directly reacts to NOx during combustion.

My questions are these:

1 Can you comment on this, are there other measures that can
be taken to reduce formation NOx?

2 Do the above mentioned thermal NOx reducing measures also
apply on gasengines ?

3 What is the maximum concentration of NH3 in fuel gas that a
turbine can handle before you can see right through it ?

Thank You for your comments,

Frank Denys

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Thu Dec 3 07:28:24 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: USMC Project
Message-ID: <199812030727_MC2-6251-5092@compuserve.com>

Dear Gasification:

Someone said...

>Tom Taylor says:

>The production of high levels of oils, tars, results from the low reaction
>and gas velocity from the bed as I indicated in an earlier commentary.
This
>results in other problems such as failing to reduce the char to ash, a
very
>low conversion of carbon and less power than would be generated in a
gasifier
...................

Maybe this means gasification of raw biomass is not the best answer!
E-mail: reedtb@compuserve.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Au Contraire! It means that you must keep your superficial velocity
(m3/sec//m2) above 0.5ms/ if you don't want a lot of tar.

PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELVES IN MAKING COMMENTS.

Yours truly, TOM REED
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From rbaileyj at prmenergy.com Thu Dec 3 09:34:41 1998
From: rbaileyj at prmenergy.com (Ronald W. Bailey, Sr.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: jungle gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <199812030743.CAA20447@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <3666A3D4.C2E5762B@prmenergy.com>

Dear Roy:
For a look at PRM Energy Systems' web site: http://www.prmenergy.com
If you would like to visit a PRME plant in Costa Rica, we can arrange
it.
Regards,
Ron Bailey

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Dec 3 16:27:42 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: low NOx gasengines
Message-ID: <ea017de4.36670217@aol.com>

Mr. Frank Denys,
NOx removal on IC engines can be made by a variety of catalytic conversion
systems on the exhaust. These will add up to $100/Kw to the cost of the plant
and require other considerations such as the catalysts are hazardous materials
and some control of the waste materials is needed. Turbines are easier to
control because the injection of steam will not adversely affect the turbine
operation like it will IC engines.
Ammonia content will be converted somewhat on a molar basis to NOx unless
other compounds are present to scavenge the ammonia or NOx, but this is rare.
Catalyst reduction of NOx on turbines is also rare with concern with back
pressure a factor. I presume it can be done.
With the costs of NOx permits so high, many installations are prohibited by
cost without NOx controls.
An interesting aspect is that combustor/boiler/steam turbine facilities are
often NOx moderated with the injection of ammonia in the system.

Sincerely,

Tom Taylor
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From bywateri at convertech.co.nz Thu Dec 3 16:49:56 1998
From: bywateri at convertech.co.nz (Ian Bywater)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: raw material
Message-ID: <v01540b04b28cc03bc0d1@[202.37.189.17]>

>Maybe this means gasification of raw biomass is not the best answer!

>Au Contraire! It means that you must keep your superficial velocity
>(m3/sec//m2) above 0.5ms/ if you don't want a lot of tar.
>
>PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELVES IN MAKING COMMENTS.

Humble apologies, Tom. I standby my contention, however, that a
biorefinery process BEFORE gasification will lead to less problems with
combustion of the resulting gas. We have carried out some research work on
our process with NZ Forest Research institute which begins to confirm this.
Raw biomass is too variable; turn the problem around and deal with the
inorganic fraction first. Then you will have a near consistent
bio-material to gasify.

Truely

IAN BYWATER

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From denys.f at oag.nl Fri Dec 4 09:12:20 1998
From: denys.f at oag.nl (Frank Denys)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: low NOx gasengines
In-Reply-To: <ea017de4.36670217@aol.com>
Message-ID: <OG720720F97@oag.nl>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 660 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19981204/5848b9d2/attachment.bin
From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Dec 4 11:21:24 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: low NOx gasengines
Message-ID: <764b894c.36680a52@aol.com>

Mr. Frank Denys,
The addition of ammonia to turbine intake or IC engine intake will increase
the NOx levels in direct proportion to the amount added, and reduction in
combustors-that is the conundrum . I haven't thought about the chemistry
behind it. Corrosion of high alloy turbine metals will not be a problem.
Modern high speed IC engines on natural gas will have very low NOx emissions,
down to less than 1gram/hp.hr. This is accomplished by the manners in which
you indicated. If you wish to find out more about this, you may wish to visit
with your Caterpillar or other large engine manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Leland T. Taylor
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Dec 4 11:26:21 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: raw material
Message-ID: <8859321f.36680cde@aol.com>

In response to the variability question of the biomass feedstock, I agree that
the variability is a problem, however, within certain ranges, this is not a
critical issue in production of a gas suitable for engine or turbine
operation, where the low btu gas produced will operate such equipment.
Large systems such as coal, fluidized bed, will be very sensitive to fuel
composition and any variations will lead to upset conditions. There is a large
cement plant here in Albuquerque that used a test run of coal from about 80
miles away and as such, it "upset" the cement kiln which is a fairly simple
combustion device, however, no one could figure out why this occurred when
coal of similar composition and heating value would not explain it.
The critical issue is the basic operational design of the gasifier and then
the cleaning train to produce a suitable gas for use. Variations between woods
may lead to a 20-40BTU/cf gas quality, this is not particularly critical for
an engine that can adapt the carburation, timing and other factors to the gas.
I hope this clarifies my position.

Sincerely,

Tom Taylor
Thermogenics Inc.
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From jphillips at alumni.stanford.org Fri Dec 4 11:58:10 1998
From: jphillips at alumni.stanford.org (Jeffrey N. Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: low NOx gasengines
In-Reply-To: <ea017de4.36670217@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000001be1fa7$558f3280$131c29d8@jnphatch.gis.net>

Frank Denys,

My company specializes in gas turbine related engineering, so I can at
least comment on NOx controls for gas turbines. Besides steam or water
injection to moderate flame temperatures, thermal NOx can be limited by
using "pre-mixed" combustion where the air and fuel are mixed before they
reach the flame zone. This approach also lowers flame temperature by
diluting it with all the excess air that passes through a gas turbine
(frequently 3-4 times stoichiometric). Most gas turbine manufacturers now
offer pre-mixed combustion (or so-called dry, low-NOx combustors), and
typically guarantee no more than 25 ppmv NOx (dry, corrected to 15% O2 in
exhaust) when firing natural gas. For syngas you will probably get even
lower NOx, but you won't get any guarantees without tests before hand.
Pre-mixed combustion typically adds $25/kW to the cost of the turbine.
A second approach to limiting thermal NOx is the use of catalytic
conversion that Tom Taylor mentioned. You can have catalytic combustors
(Catalytica, Inc. of Mtn. View, California is a leader in this area), or you
can put Selective Catalytic Converters (SCR) in the exhaust. SCRs work
best in the 200 to 450 deg C (400 to 800 deg. F) range so you usually don't
see them on simple cycle gas turbine installations, but they are becoming
the norm (at least in the US) in combined cycle projects. Because of their
wide use, the price is coming down significantly. I've heard of prices as
low as $10/kW for large applications. With SCRs you can get down to single
digits in NOx. Another benefit of SCRs is they also remove NOx originating
from nitrogen species in the fuel (e.g., NH3). Dilution, dry low NOx, and
catalytic combustors don't. One downside of SCRs is they use NH3 to react
with NOx (converts it to N2 and water), so you have to have ammonia stored
on site. The catalysts also have to be replaced every 4-5 years. I do know
of at least one company that is now offering an SCR that does not use
ammonia.
A final approach to NOx control is to remove the nitrogen species from the
fuel before it reaches the engine. If NH3 is the only nitrogen specie that
you are concerned about, it can be easily removed by scrubbing the gas with
water in a packed column. Of course, then you have to do something with the
ammonia-tainted water. Depending on where your plant is, this may be very
cheap or very costly. My recommendation is look at SCRs first, because
they allow you to run your engine any way you want, and they'll gobble up
any NOx it produces. That's why my car has a catalytic converter on the
exhaust, it makes the engine (and fuel) designer's life a lot easier.

Jeff Phillips
Fern Engineering, Inc.
P.O. Box 3380 / 55 Portside Drive
Pocasset, MA 02559
USA
1-508-563-7181 (phone) 1-508-564-4851 (fax)
www.capecod.net/ferneng

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org] On
Behalf Of LINVENT@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 4:27 PM
To: gasification@crest.org; denys.f@oag.nl
Subject: Re: GAS-L: low NOx gasengines

Mr. Frank Denys,
NOx removal on IC engines can be made by a variety of catalytic conversion
systems on the exhaust. These will add up to $100/Kw to the cost of the
plant
and require other considerations such as the catalysts are hazardous
materials
and some control of the waste materials is needed. Turbines are easier to
control because the injection of steam will not adversely affect the turbine
operation like it will IC engines.
Ammonia content will be converted somewhat on a molar basis to NOx unless
other compounds are present to scavenge the ammonia or NOx, but this is
rare.
Catalyst reduction of NOx on turbines is also rare with concern with back
pressure a factor. I presume it can be done.
With the costs of NOx permits so high, many installations are prohibited by
cost without NOx controls.
An interesting aspect is that combustor/boiler/steam turbine facilities are
often NOx moderated with the injection of ammonia in the system.

Sincerely,

Tom Taylor
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Dec 4 18:22:35 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: low NOx gasengines
Message-ID: <4a7d3232.36686d0d@aol.com>

Jeff Phillips,
Thank you for the information detailing the NOx issues. We once had a project
in Southern California where the emission credits would cost $1mm for a
relatively small generator set fired on gasifier gas. This in comparison to
the catalytic cost is minimal.
One interesting note is that the CO in producer or medium btu gas is a
significant O2 scavenger and as such, it reduces the NOx so that an engine
will produce about half the NOx than on natural gas.
Some of the IC engine NOx emission figures I said were too low,the real rates
are much higher, 2-5gm./hphr. Lean burn engines will run less, but it is
difficult to get confirmed operational warranties from manufacturers on
producer gas which is necessary for project financing and permitting.
One of the lingering questions is what is the reduction rate? Will a
catalyst remove 100%, 95% as this has significant implications on emission
costs. What is the back pressure? Thanks for any help.
Sincerely,

Tom Taylor
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Dec 6 17:44:28 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Char yield etc.
Message-ID: <199812061743_MC2-62A4-FD5@compuserve.com>

Dear Arij:

Your char yields were quite low compared to most charcoal processes.
Probably due to (a) fast pyrolysis, doesn't allow time for the tars to
crack in the matrix, (b) too high a temperature; 450C is enough, higher
drives out more volatiles.

Yours truly, TOM REED

Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>Dear gasification group,

At the University of Twente, we have done some experiments in a bubbling
fluidized bed with wood particles of 12x25x32 mm. We used particles of
various wood-types (oak, douglas, poplar and beech) and with varying
moisture content. The bed temperature was 70!
0 C.

The objective of the experiments was to measure the pyrolysis times of
these particles as a function of moisture content and wood type. Along with
the pyrolysis time, we also measured the char yield.

We found the char yield to vary between 10% and 15%. More importantly, the
char yield was almost independent of moisture content and wood type.

The pyrolysis time depended non-linearly on the moisture content. The form
of this dependence was the same for all types of wood. However, the
sensitivity to moisture content was different. Douglas and poplar seem to
be less sensitive than oak and beech.

I would like to hear your opinions and findings on this.

Regards,

Arij van Berkel
<

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Dec 6 17:44:39 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Surface combustion....
Message-ID: <199812061744_MC2-62A4-FD8@compuserve.com>

Dear Skip, et al:

Vacation? I was working 7 days a week travelling nights. (Of course, if
you like gasification you'll like that schedule!)

Glad to see you using insulation. I have commented on insulation before in
both the STOVES and GASIFICATION nets, but I feel my comments mostly fall
on deaf ears. Commercial groups use it and succeed; amateurs don't and
don't.

As to the possible catalytic effect, this may be too strong a word. Flames
don't like told metal surfaces; they love hot ceramic surfaces, so burn
fine at the interface. We've had the same experience of clean burning on
riser sleeve surfaces.

~~~~~
In a related field, I am interested in "surface Combustion". I just bought
a propane heater for my lab (Winter is definitely here in Golden) and will
test it tomorrow, but the ceramic will probably glow at 900C. Does anyone
know of a good source of information on surface combustion? Specifically,
on my trip around the world I asked a number of "experts" and none knew.

In particular, I am puzzled by why the premixed air-fuel mixture doesn't
flash back to the mixer and burn rather than prefering the surface.

In particular, I am interested in whether some of the combustion air
arrives at the surface from the outside which would explain lake of
flashback..

In particular, I am interested in whether the Wellsbach Mantle lamp is
surface stabilized and gets air from outside.

Comments???

Yours truly, TOM REED

Message text written by "skip goebel"
>dear tom,
hope you enjoyed your vacation.
i want your 2 cents worth on something that i have discovered.
in my boiler fireboxes, i use to use 1/4" cerablanket soaked in rigidizer
and
it was excellent refractory. i recently changed to 1/2" and spray on the
rigidizer now.
well, the old stuff was smooth and furry while the new stuff is frizzy like

fiberglass.
even after a good fire, the entire firebox is spotless! with a good fire,
it
gets extreemely bright when you open the door and all the expanded metal
retainer is bright red. this is with dirty wet wood and is no doubt due to

the high refraction properties. ok. withthe old stuff, there would be a
soot
mark here and there but with this new stuff, nothing! the only thing that
i
come up with is that with the fibers extended instead of smooth and pleated
i
must be getting a catalitic reaction of sorts, the fibers being a few
thousands of an inch apart and the gasses passing over them??? must be
something cuz the metal retainer is red hot and the fire itself aint. if
this is so, then perhaps we have a cheap catalyst here. if one took a 6"
tube
say and kinda frizzed the material and lined the inside of the tube then
sprayed inthe rigidizer, you should have a reaction type tube of sorts.

nowdays i am so busy that i am not subscribed to the forum, but you could
post
this along with your comment to the forum if you wish.
if i am missing something here, sure would appreciate a response from you.
thanx
skip goebel
sensible steam

From jphillips at alumni.stanford.org Mon Dec 7 16:35:18 1998
From: jphillips at alumni.stanford.org (Jeffrey N. Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: low NOx gasengines
In-Reply-To: <4a7d3232.36686d0d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000a01be2229$5e5e6280$f22f29d8@jnphatch.gis.net>

Mr. Taylor,

An SCR installation can usually achieve 95% conversion of NOx. You can get
even higher conversions but at the cost of some ammonia slip through the
catalyst. Also, the conversion is a function of the amount of catalyst you
use. We did one study that looked at having an exhaust gas with 245 ppmv of
NOx. To get that down to 9 ppmv (96% conversion) cost 36% more than the
system need to get down to 25 ppmv (90% conversion). Of course, for areas
with steep emissions taxes (cor credits) the higher conversions may be
economically justified.

Pressure drop across a system that achieves 95% conversion should be no more
than 1" H2O (2.5 mbar).

Jeff Phillips
Fern Engineering, Inc.
P.O. Box 3380 / 55 Portside Drive
Pocasset, MA 02559
USA
1-508-563-7181 (phone) 1-508-564-4851 (fax)
www.capecod.net/ferneng

-----Original Message-----
From: LINVENT@aol.com [mailto:LINVENT@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 6:15 PM
To: gasification@crest.org; jphillips@alumni.stanford.org
Subject: RE: GAS-L: low NOx gasengines

Jeff Phillips,
Thank you for the information detailing the NOx issues. We once had a
project
in Southern California where the emission credits would cost $1mm for a
relatively small generator set fired on gasifier gas. This in comparison to
the catalytic cost is minimal.
One interesting note is that the CO in producer or medium btu gas is a
significant O2 scavenger and as such, it reduces the NOx so that an engine
will produce about half the NOx than on natural gas.
Some of the IC engine NOx emission figures I said were too low,the real
rates
are much higher, 2-5gm./hphr. Lean burn engines will run less, but it is
difficult to get confirmed operational warranties from manufacturers on
producer gas which is necessary for project financing and permitting.
One of the lingering questions is what is the reduction rate? Will a
catalyst remove 100%, 95% as this has significant implications on emission
costs. What is the back pressure? Thanks for any help.
Sincerely,

Tom Taylor

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From nitinpandit at hotmail.com Mon Dec 7 21:17:01 1998
From: nitinpandit at hotmail.com (Nitin Pandit)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: low NOx gasengines
Message-ID: <199812080217.VAA03127@solstice.crest.org>

A new development is very reliable laser diode based instrumentation to
measure ammonia slip in-situ and in real time to control the process
more accurately - yes, within standards.

Nitin Pandit

>From owner-gasification@crest.org Mon Dec 7 13:41:59 1998
>Received: from portal.gmu.edu (portal.gmu.edu [129.174.1.8])
> by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA04682
> for <npandit@osf1.gmu.edu>; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:41:16 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from solstice.crest.org (solstice.crest.org [209.67.217.1])
> by portal.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA01174
> for <npandit@gmu.edu>; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:41:15 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
> by solstice.crest.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA08929;
> Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:40:54 -0500 (EST)
>Received: by solstice.crest.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 7 Dec 1998
16:35:29 -0500
>Received: (from majordom@localhost)
> by solstice.crest.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA08431
> for gasification-outgoing; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:35:18 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from home.gis.net (home.gis.net [208.218.130.20])
> by solstice.crest.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA08426
> for <gasification@crest.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:35:16 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from jnphatch.gis.net (ppp31-231.gis.net [216.41.31.231] (may
be forged)) by home.gis.net (8.8.8/8.8.8+djf) with SMTP id QAA21076;
Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:33:58 -0500 (EST)
>From: "Jeffrey N. Phillips" <jphillips@alumni.stanford.org>
>To: <LINVENT@aol.com>, <gasification@crest.org>
>Subject: RE: GAS-L: low NOx gasengines
>Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:34:28 -0500
>Message-ID: <000a01be2229$5e5e6280$f22f29d8@jnphatch.gis.net>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
>Importance: Normal
>In-Reply-To: <4a7d3232.36686d0d@aol.com>
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
>Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
>
>Mr. Taylor,
>
>An SCR installation can usually achieve 95% conversion of NOx. You can
get
>even higher conversions but at the cost of some ammonia slip through
the
>catalyst. Also, the conversion is a function of the amount of catalyst
you
>use. We did one study that looked at having an exhaust gas with 245
ppmv of
>NOx. To get that down to 9 ppmv (96% conversion) cost 36% more than
the

>system need to get down to 25 ppmv (90% conversion). Of course, for
areas
>with steep emissions taxes (cor credits) the higher conversions may be
>economically justified.
>
>Pressure drop across a system that achieves 95% conversion should be no
more
>than 1" H2O (2.5 mbar).
>
>Jeff Phillips
>Fern Engineering, Inc.
>P.O. Box 3380 / 55 Portside Drive
>Pocasset, MA 02559
>USA
>1-508-563-7181 (phone) 1-508-564-4851 (fax)
>www.capecod.net/ferneng
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: LINVENT@aol.com [mailto:LINVENT@aol.com]
>Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 6:15 PM
>To: gasification@crest.org; jphillips@alumni.stanford.org
>Subject: RE: GAS-L: low NOx gasengines
>
>Jeff Phillips,
> Thank you for the information detailing the NOx issues. We once had a
>project
>in Southern California where the emission credits would cost $1mm for a
>relatively small generator set fired on gasifier gas. This in
comparison to
>the catalytic cost is minimal.
> One interesting note is that the CO in producer or medium btu gas is a
>significant O2 scavenger and as such, it reduces the NOx so that an
engine
>will produce about half the NOx than on natural gas.
> Some of the IC engine NOx emission figures I said were too low,the
real
>rates
>are much higher, 2-5gm./hphr. Lean burn engines will run less, but it
is
>difficult to get confirmed operational warranties from manufacturers on
>producer gas which is necessary for project financing and permitting.
> One of the lingering questions is what is the reduction rate? Will a
>catalyst remove 100%, 95% as this has significant implications on
emission
>costs. What is the back pressure? Thanks for any help.
>Sincerely,
>
>Tom Taylor
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Tue Dec 8 02:05:33 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: veh.& remote app's(was jungle gasifiers)
Message-ID: <199812080707.UAA22637@powerlink.co.nz>

Dear Roy and Tay

As you both are embarking on a journey of discovery with your mobile
gasifiers, there are a few points to keep in mind. Hopefully you have
access to some books on the subject, and if nothing else you should read
the total Gasification archive that members of this list have built on the
subject.

Whilst it may appear to be sophisticated gasifiers that we discuss on this
list, to understand the basic principles and incorporate them in designing
of the gasifier (even simple ones) should be your priority. Before you do
anything you need baseline figures to work with for calculations.

(a) How big is your engine(c.c)
(b) What RPM is operating average
(c) How much does a 20 litre bucket weigh of the prepared dry fuel wood
(d) How big is the wood block or chip
(e) What is the fuel other than bamboo

Put some answers to the above and it should be possible to then give you
some dimensions.
In Answer to your questions Tay:

1: What you are suggesting is just a deepening of the oxidation zone that
in effect reduces the total blast rate and size of each oxidation lobe.
The larger volume of char in this zone will be of lower temperature, than a
zone with just a single row of nozzles. Your idea is likely to increase
the amount of tar reaching the throat and the lower temperature will not be
sufficient to crack it into permanent gases.

2: If you have tar you cannot remove it with filters and certainly not
woodchips.

3: Turbos will be in serious trouble if you don't make tar-free gas. Buy a
12-18" disc type fan with 2.1/2" inlet connection and use that to test your
gasifier rather than an engine. Its cheaper and easier to clean out the
tar. About 15" WG is OK for suction.

4: Turbos may improve the engine output if you have good gas but it is
unlikely you will restore full power in the variable output of a mobile
installation.

5: Somehow all the fuel must move eventually to the centre line of the
throat. If you increase the diameter of the fuel hopper you will
experience bridging as the centre burns out of the descending fuel. Your
nozzles will also be too far apart to obtain overlap and saturation of the
oxidation zone.

Building gasifiers anywhere requires access to basic welding equipment, a
reasonable selection of steel sections, plate angle, light tube and good
steel fabrication skill.

Mobile gasifiers are a lot of fun when you have liquid fuel available to
help you through the learning curve. When you have to rely on them as Roy
proposes for his project, doing it yourself without supervision could be a
waste of slender financial resources. It is worth the time required to
make sure you start in the right way without reinventing the basics.

Hope this helps.

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From J.S.Clancy at tdg.utwente.nl Tue Dec 8 10:36:57 1998
From: J.S.Clancy at tdg.utwente.nl (Clancy, J.S. (T&M))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: environmentally friendly disposal method for gasfier tars
Message-ID: <199812081536.KAA04693@solstice.crest.org>

I am looking for an environmentally friendly method of disposing of tars
produced in small gasifiers linked to a diesel engine (less than 100kWe)
suitable for application at the village level in developing countries.
Tried and tested field examples please - not laboratory results.

Thanks

Joy Clancy
Technology and Development Group
University of Twente
PO Box 217
7500 AE Enschede
The Netherlands
tel: +31-53-4893537 (direct)/ 3545 (sec)
fax: +31-53-4893087
TDG Web Site: http://www.utwente.nl/tdg
ENERGIA Web Site: http://www.ENERGIA.org

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From taykenne at iastate.edu Tue Dec 8 15:28:18 1998
From: taykenne at iastate.edu (Tay A Kennedy)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: veh.& remote app's(was jungle gasifiers)
In-Reply-To: <199812080707.UAA22628@powerlink.co.nz>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19981208143021.006e2828@pop-2.iastate.edu>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 5464 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19981208/8f4ffbcf/attachment.bin
From mbeychok at home.com Tue Dec 8 18:41:38 1998
From: mbeychok at home.com (Milton R. Beychok)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Air Pollution Dispersion Modeling
Message-ID: <366DB8F8.1612B667@home.com>

Anyone interested in air pollution dispersion modeling should visit the
website at:

...................... http://www.air-dispersion.com

to learn about "FUNDAMENTALS OF STACK GAS DISPERSION" ... the most
comprehensive single-source reference book on dispersion modeling of
continuous, buoyant pollution plumes. The website provides a brief
description of the book, peer reviews published in technical and
scientific journals, the book's complete table of contents, and
information on how to obtain copies.

Topics covered in the book include: classifying atmospheric stability;
determining of buoyant pollution plume rise; Gaussian dispersion
calculations and modeling; developing windspeed profiles; trapped
pollution plumes; fumigated plumes; flare stack plumes; meteorological
parameters, and much more.

Milton Beychok
2233 Martin St. # 205, Irvine, CA 92612, USA
Phone & Fax: 949-833-8871
E-mail: mbeychok@air-dispersion.com
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From mbeychok at home.com Tue Dec 8 18:47:04 1998
From: mbeychok at home.com (Milton R. Beychok)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Error Propagation In Air Dispersion Modeling
Message-ID: <366DBA3D.68BD323E@home.com>

Read the feature article at this website to become acquainted with the
accuracy of air dispersion models:

..... http://www.air-dispersion.com/feature.html

You will find it most informative and useful.

Milton Beychok
Irvine, California, USA
E-mail: mbeychok@home.com
Website: http://www.air-dispersion.com

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From tk at tke.dk Wed Dec 9 10:22:21 1998
From: tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: environmentally friendly disposal method for gasfier
In-Reply-To: <199812081536.KAA04693@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <199812091518.QAA06752@mail100.image.dk>

From: "Clancy, J.S. (T&M)" <J.S.Clancy@tdg.utwente.nl>
To: "'gasification@crest.org'" <gasification@crest.org>
Subject: GAS-L: environmentally friendly disposal method for gasfier tars
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 12:43:19 +0100
Reply-to: gasification@crest.org

If you find one please let everybody know. Then you have solved a
major problem

Thomas Koch

Thanks

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Dec 9 16:49:49 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: environmentally friendly disposal method for gasfier
Message-ID: <c67a1003.366eeddc@aol.com>

Dear Thomas Koch,
Many years ago we were operating a water based gas cleaning train and had a
problem with the tars produced in the gas cleaning train. The tars are
actually quite nasty when looked at for health considerations. There are
several superfund sites in the US where town gas generators operated and the
tars were dumped in the 30's and 40's.
By removing the tars and recycling to the gasifier, the output gas quality is
improved significantly as the high carbon content increases the heating value
of the gas beyond what would otherwise be produced. Selectively removing the
tars by temperature control on the process stream reduces the water content so
that they are more useful. The gasifier has to be able to handle the viscous,
solids contaminated tars which ours is able to.
If these are not contemplated or designed into the process which you are
working with, we can provide the methodology to accomplish this solution.
Sincerely,

Leland T. Taylor
Thermogenics Inc.
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From r at costarica.net Wed Dec 9 17:34:52 1998
From: r at costarica.net (Roy Lent)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: environmentally friendly disposal method for gasfier
In-Reply-To: <199812081536.KAA04693@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <199812092234.QAA10743@internet.informatica.co.cr>

Wood tars? Weren't they prized in olden times as natural wood
preservatives? Perhaps better than the chromium and arsenic salts
used today?

Roy Lent
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From jocoats at nemonet.com Wed Dec 9 23:28:15 1998
From: jocoats at nemonet.com (John Coats)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis
Message-ID: <199812100428.XAA25375@solstice.crest.org>

I am a city alderman for Monroe City Mo. We have been approached by a
company about helping start a plant that perfroms a recycling of
used tires called Pyrolysis. We are seeking information to confirm the
claims that this company makes on the sale of the byproducts of this
process of gas, Fuel oil, steel, and carbon black and the safe
enviromental conditions that exist with this process. Can you be of any
assistance or direct me to assistance on this matter.

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From tmiles at teleport.com Thu Dec 10 00:49:19 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Sponsor the Gasification List
In-Reply-To: <199811130336.TAA26633@mail.easystreet.com>
Message-ID: <199812100549.VAA27396@mail.easystreet.com>

List Members

We need sponsors for the Bioenergy Lists for 1999.

We can list two sponsors at the bottom of each message at a cost of
$300/each per list per year.

The list archives receive more than 2500 hits per day.

To sponsor Bioenergy, or one of the other lists (bioconversion, digestion,
gasification, or stoves) please fill out the form at:

http://crest.org/services/biolist-spons.shtml

and send a check to CREST as instructed.

These lists receive no other funding or subsidy.

Thanks

Tom Miles
Bioenergy Lists Administrator

T.R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
1470 SW Woodward Way http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles
Portland, OR 97225
Tel 503-292-0107 Fax 503-605-0208
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From K.K.Prasad at phys.tue.nl Thu Dec 10 06:30:56 1998
From: K.K.Prasad at phys.tue.nl (K. K. Prasad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: environmentally friendly disposal method for gas
Message-ID: <199812101124.MAA00243@silicon.tue.nl>

Joy Clancy, Roy Lent and others

I did send a reply to Joy independently without bothering everybody
on the list since I had to say other things to Joy. But the response
from Roy Lent lends a new perspective to Joy's question.

What I have to say goes back some 50 or more years to a steel town in
South India where I grew up. The steel mill used a blast furnace that
used charcoal than coal - coal was too far away and there were plenty
of forests around. The plant used the so-called non-destructive
distillation of wood. One of the byproducts of the process was
creosote - I presume tar. This was used for treating railway
sleepers made out of wood.

The question is: can we use a similar approach. While the steel plant
I am talking of is puny compared to the present day plants, it still
is gigantic compared to Joy's gasification devices. Thus for the tar
to be used as wood preservative it has tobe collected over a long
period of time, properly stored and sold to a prospective user - I
suspect railway sleepers are no longer made out of wood.

It should be possible, but Harry's economics will probably intervene
rather violently and the result would be the cheap and cheerful
statement "buggar the environment".

Cheers, Prasad

PS: While the plant still exists, it no longer uses charcoal. It uses
electric arc furnace (hydro electricity). The reson: forests
disappeared in spite of an enlightened conversion technology. P.

From: "Roy Lent" <r@costarica.net>" <roylent@costarica.net>"
To: gasification@crest.org
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 16:35:06 +0000
Subject: Re: GAS-L: environmentally friendly disposal method for gasfier
Reply-to: gasification@crest.org

Wood tars? Weren't they prized in olden times as natural wood
preservatives? Perhaps better than the chromium and arsenic salts
used today?

Roy Lent
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Dec 11 08:44:01 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: veh.& remote app's(was jungle gasifiers)
Message-ID: <199812110843_MC2-634E-9126@compuserve.com>

Dear Roy and Tay:

You should be aware that Doug William's comments apply only to the
throated, nozzled WWII gasifiers. THey are more complex to build than the
stratified downdraft that we developed at NREL in the 1980-87 period and
which have been improved by the Combustion, Gasification Propulsion (CGP)
Laboratories in Bangalore to give less than 100 ppm tar in the raw gas.
This makes final filtering much easier.

Secondly, you should make sure that your superficial velocity (m3of
gas/sec//m2 of reactor) is greater than 0.6 to have very low tar gas and to
minimize excess charcoal production. (Remember that 1 kg/hr produces 1
kWh, a little more than a horsepower; that 1 kg/hr produces about 2.5 kg/hr
of gas.)

Finally, consider insulating the inside of the outer chamber very well.

Good luck, keep in touch,

Your moderator Tom Reed

Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>
Dear Roy and Tay

Put some answers to the above and it should be possible to then give you
some dimensions.
In Answer to your questions Tay:

2: If you have tar you cannot remove it with filters and certainly not
woodchips.

4: Turbos may improve the engine output if you have good gas but it is
unlikely you will restore full power in the variable output of a mobile
installation.

Building gasifiers anywhere requires access to basic welding equipment, a
reasonable selection of steel sections, plate angle, light tube and good
steel fabrication skill.

Hope this helps.

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
<

From kcact at wollongong.starway.net.au Fri Dec 11 16:09:26 1998
From: kcact at wollongong.starway.net.au (Kerrie Christian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: environmentally friendly disposal method for gas
In-Reply-To: <199812101124.MAA00243@silicon.tue.nl>
Message-ID: <36717F88.840ADEA8@wollongong.starway.net.au>

I understood that there was a company called Koppers who used by-product tars to
treat timber - also in the paint industry there are products based on coal tar
epoxies - which are used for protection of steel structures in corrosive
environments - could be worth checking the paint and chemical industry to see if
the tar could be used in such environments

Railway sleepers may be made from steel as well as wood

Kerrie Christian

"K. K. Prasad" wrote:

> Joy Clancy, Roy Lent and others
>
> I did send a reply to Joy independently without bothering everybody
> on the list since I had to say other things to Joy. But the response
> from Roy Lent lends a new perspective to Joy's question.
>
> What I have to say goes back some 50 or more years to a steel town in
> South India where I grew up. The steel mill used a blast furnace that
> used charcoal than coal - coal was too far away and there were plenty
> of forests around. The plant used the so-called non-destructive
> distillation of wood. One of the byproducts of the process was
> creosote - I presume tar. This was used for treating railway
> sleepers made out of wood.
>
> The question is: can we use a similar approach. While the steel plant
> I am talking of is puny compared to the present day plants, it still
> is gigantic compared to Joy's gasification devices. Thus for the tar
> to be used as wood preservative it has tobe collected over a long
> period of time, properly stored and sold to a prospective user - I
> suspect railway sleepers are no longer made out of wood.
>
> It should be possible, but Harry's economics will probably intervene
> rather violently and the result would be the cheap and cheerful
> statement "buggar the environment".
>
> Cheers, Prasad
>
> PS: While the plant still exists, it no longer uses charcoal. It uses
> electric arc furnace (hydro electricity). The reson: forests
> disappeared in spite of an enlightened conversion technology. P.
>
> From: "Roy Lent" <r@costarica.net>" <roylent@costarica.net>"
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 16:35:06 +0000
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: environmentally friendly disposal method for gasfier
> Reply-to: gasification@crest.org
>
> Wood tars? Weren't they prized in olden times as natural wood
> preservatives? Perhaps better than the chromium and arsenic salts
> used today?
>
> Roy Lent
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From sonnichsen at sonnichsen.com Tue Dec 15 12:42:41 1998
From: sonnichsen at sonnichsen.com (Tim Sonnichsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: environmentally friendly disposal method for gasfier tars
In-Reply-To: <199812081536.KAA04693@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <3676A103.3C1CE87C@sonnichsen.com>

I am new to the group so forgive me if I am out of line. I have worked for
a number of years for a small scale incinerator manufacturer in Canada that
may have equipment suitable for your needs. Kindly send information on the
quantities and materials involved and I will respond.

Regards,

Tim W. Sonnichsen, P.E.
Sonnichsen Engineering, LLC

Clancy, J.S. (T&M) wrote:

> I am looking for an environmentally friendly method of disposing of tars
> produced in small gasifiers linked to a diesel engine (less than 100kWe)
> suitable for application at the village level in developing countries.
> Tried and tested field examples please - not laboratory results.
>
> Thanks
>
> Joy Clancy
> Technology and Development Group
> University of Twente
> PO Box 217
> 7500 AE Enschede
> The Netherlands
> tel: +31-53-4893537 (direct)/ 3545 (sec)
> fax: +31-53-4893087
> TDG Web Site: http://www.utwente.nl/tdg
> ENERGIA Web Site: http://www.ENERGIA.org
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From frayvo.martin at wanadoo.fr Wed Dec 16 03:07:05 1998
From: frayvo.martin at wanadoo.fr (Franck)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ash from gasifier
Message-ID: <000b01be28cb$0fccba60$0c34010a@martin>

We intend tu build a gasifier which would run
with biomass waste, and we want to minimize the ash quantity. What will be the
best system Updraft, Downdraft....
And for the choosen one what parameters could
really influence the ash quantity ?

Thank you

regards,

Franck Martin
BRENNUS
CP 68
56000 VANNES
FRANCE

From jan_janmaat at hotmail.com Thu Dec 17 23:25:53 1998
From: jan_janmaat at hotmail.com (Jan Janmaat)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Seagrass!
Message-ID: <199812180425.UAA10320@law-f107.hotmail.com>

G'Day everyone,

A lake near my home is being dredged and 100+ ton/day of seagrass is
being sent off to landfill.

I was wondering if it is viable for seagrass to be applied as feedstock
in a gasification/pyrolysis process despite its clearly high moisture
content? What about if an evaporative drying stage is included?

Finally, is anyone aware of a study into or the commercial
application(!)of seagrass?

Thanks and season greetings to you,

Jan.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From jan_janmaat at hotmail.com Thu Dec 17 23:47:28 1998
From: jan_janmaat at hotmail.com (Jan Janmaat)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Seagrass!
Message-ID: <199812180447.UAA16067@law-f107.hotmail.com>

G'Day everyone,

A lake near my home is being dredged and 100+ ton/day of seagrass is
being sent off to landfill.

Finally, is anyone aware of a study into or the commercial
application(!)of seagrass?

Thanks and season greetings to you,

Jan.

From phoenix at transport.com Fri Dec 18 01:53:23 1998
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Seagrass!
Message-ID: <199812180652.WAA13416@mail2.transport.com>

G'Day Jan,

Might I be so bold as to suggest that the 100 tons per day be composted for
it's organic addition to soil. Not everything needs to be burned or
converted to energy - especially when it is a high moisture feedstock.

Art Krenzel

----------
> From: Jan Janmaat <jan_janmaat@hotmail.com>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Seagrass!
> Date: Thursday, December 17, 1998 8:47 PM
>
> G'Day everyone,
>
> A lake near my home is being dredged and 100+ ton/day of seagrass is
> being sent off to landfill.
>
> I was wondering if it is viable for seagrass to be applied as feedstock
> in a gasification/pyrolysis process despite its clearly high moisture
> content? What about if an evaporative drying stage is included?
>
> Finally, is anyone aware of a study into or the commercial
> application(!)of seagrass?
>
> Thanks and season greetings to you,
>
> Jan.
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From phoenix at transport.com Fri Dec 18 02:01:02 1998
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Seagrass
Message-ID: <199812180701.XAA06361@spanky.transport.com>

G'Day Jan,

Art Krenzel

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From gldthrp at nznet.gen.nz Fri Dec 18 04:52:13 1998
From: gldthrp at nznet.gen.nz (The Goldthorpes)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Seagrass!
Message-ID: <199812181006.XAA01521@bo.nznet.gen.nz>

Jan,

I suggest that unless the moisture content of the biomass can be reduced to
well below 40% (wet basis) then gasification is most unlikely to be worth
considering.

However, if the seagrass is a large component of the landfill then the
landfill gas produced (from anaerobic digestion) is likely to be high. Over
the ensuing years this could yield a high proportion of the energy in
biomass as a fuel gas. The installation of a gas collection system as the
landfill is constructed could greatly influence the ability to capture this
renewable energy resource. The use of landfill gas for power generation via
a gas engine is well established technology.

This type of "natural gasifier" may be a more appropriate answer for this
resource. In addition capturing and burning the landfill gas has significant
greenhouse gas emission advantages. Please let me know if there is an
opportunity to try to put some hard numbers to these ideas.

Best wishes

Steve Goldthorpe
Energy Systems Analyst
Woodward-Clyde (NZ) Ltd
email to:- Steve_Goldthorpe@URScorp.com

At 20:47 17/12/98 PST, you wrote:
>G'Day everyone,
>
>A lake near my home is being dredged and 100+ ton/day of seagrass is
>being sent off to landfill.
>
>I was wondering if it is viable for seagrass to be applied as feedstock
>in a gasification/pyrolysis process despite its clearly high moisture
>content? What about if an evaporative drying stage is included?
>
>Finally, is anyone aware of a study into or the commercial
>application(!)of seagrass?
>
>Thanks and season greetings to you,
>
>Jan.
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Dec 18 07:31:36 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Old, new charcoaling
Message-ID: <199812180731_MC2-6412-8564@compuserve.com>

Dear Yuri, Ron et al:

While I regret that all of the knowledge of charcoal making in Russia and
the world is dying, things are not as black as you paint. There is a great
deal of knowledge still about old methods of charcoal making, for instance
in "Industrial Charcoal Making", by Walter Emrich and Harry Booth, FAO
Forestry paper #63, available for a few dollars from the FAO, via delle
Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. I hope that someone will assemble a
bibliography of other available books on charcoal making for this group.

It is my impression that "Top Down Charcoal Making" (alias "inverted
downdraft gasification" for those of us who are more interested in the
gas/vapor products for cooking and power) is a new twist on charcoal making
and does not occur in any of the classical methods. I made my first top
down charcoal/stove in 1995 after a trip to Africa, working on stoves for
the black homelands. Harry LaFontaine and Fred Hottenroth tried to
commercialize the stove aspects in a "GasiFire" model in 1990, but it
fizzled out. (Harry died in 1995, Fred in October 1998.) Ron Larson
joined me about 1992 and was more interested in the charcoal than the
cooking. Many people here at Stoves and Gasification have used variations
for charcoal, heat or both.

Does anyone know of top "down charcoal/inverted downdraft" before that
time?

Glad to hear that Svaliava is still pristine. Hope to visit there before I
fizzle out.

Yours truly, TOM
REED

~~~~~

>Dear Ron and all,
>Is it similar to what you have described in the past as being developed in
your
own laboratory? Are the pyrolysis gas vented or flared? What is the
conversion efficiency by weight? Etc.

The factory uses horizontal retorts from a brick. They round in section,
diameter 1.6 m, length 3m. The trolleys with fire wood drive to retorts on
rails. The walls of trolleys semicircular also are made in the form of a
lattice of a steel strip. Inside the trolleys between rails pass pipes (4
pieces). Diameter of pipes 100 mm. Pyrolysis gases burn inside these pipes
and give warmly for process. The output of a charcoal makes from 90 up to
120 kgs on 1 meter of cubic fire wood (It from 25 up to 35 %). Charcoal
usually contains up to 90 % notfly carbon, but they can on the order
do(make) from 70 % up to 94%.Pyrolysis gases leave from a retort in a
scrubber. The cooled condensate acts in a scrubber from above. The
condensate follows from below and gets in a tank. Tar there is separated.
The condensate passes a refrigerator. The part it comes back in a scrubber.
Other part acts in shop on manufacture of an acetic acid and solvent. The
gases are taken away from a scrubber by the fan and submits on burning. A
lack of heat compensate at the expense of natural gas. The refrigerator can
stand instead of a scrubber in the other variant. A design of retorts
original. It is a good design for a small factory. One retort gives about
1000... 1200 tons / years of a charcoal. Such retorts were in many
countries of east Europe. The engineers of Austrian - Hungarian firm
"Solva" have developed it in the beginning 20 centuries. And Svaliava has
improved a design.

>What a shame that these are not available in all our native languages. Are
these magazines and brochure no longer being produced?

It is very a pity, but the very large work of the Russian experts charcoal
remains latent for other world behind a language barrier. I for a long time
was convinced, that in the world repeat experiments, which results can be
found in clauses of the Russian researchers 50 - 60y. Russia has large
woods and beginning since 30 years has created largest in the world
factories charcoal. The wide experience them works now is not necessary and
gradually people having this experience die. The mankind tomorrow will
begin all at first and it is insulting.

> Is it possible that some of the downturn in production has occurre
because of the nuclear fallout following the accident? If contamination
would have affected the trees in this part of the Ukraine, would it perhaps
be better to totally combust all of the biomass (probably mainly for
electricity production) and depend on filtration to contain "All" of the
radioactive residue? Have there been tests to show that both the charcoal
and the chemical by-products are " clean?

Mountains of Carpathians stand between Svaliava and Chernobyl. It
ecologically clean place. The mountains have protected this territory and
all analyses negative. In general, it piece of paradise forgotten on ground
- the very beautiful and cosy world. The inhabitants of this territory -
motley mix of all languages, peoples, religions live amicably. They accept
the visitors how it are able to make only in mountains. The good luck of
Switzerland, that few people knows this territory. Differently Switzerland
will be ruined.
Sincerely Yury Yudkevitch (Rossia)

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Dec 18 07:32:08 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ash from gasifier
Message-ID: <199812180731_MC2-6412-8562@compuserve.com>

Dear Franck:

You are very brave. If you use oxygen, you can use a slagging updraft
gasifier and you will get minimal ash as a molten frit. Otherwise use
downdraft to minimize tars, but all minerals will show up in char-ash.

Good luck, TOM REED

~~~~~
BOOKS FROM THE BEF PRESS

PURPOSES OF THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS

Biomass energy and particularly biomass gasification is a field where
publications are often difficult to find. We make available information on
biomass at reasonable prices. We will also make available at $0.15/page
other papers from our extensive library of technical papers on gasification
dating back to the turn of the century. We also act as a clearinghouse to
locate technical assistance for biomass projects. We also publish other
technical books.
HANDBOOK OF BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS
T. B. Reed and A. Das Over a million wood gasifiers were used to power
cars and trucks during World War II. Yet, after twodecades of interest,
there are only a few companies manufacturing gasifier systems. The authors
have spent more than 20 years working with various gasifier systems, In
this book they discuss ALL the factors that must be correct to have a
successful "gasifier power system."
ISBN 1-890607-00-2 200pp ...
$25.00
FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED DOWNDRAFT
GASIFIER - T. B. Reed, M. Graboski and B. Levie. In 1980 the Solar Energy
Research Institute initiated a program to develop an oxygen gasifier to
make methanol from biomass. A novel 1 ton/day gasifier was designed and
studied for five years at SERI on air and oxygen. Now a 25 ton/day
gasifier has been operated on both air and oxygen. This book describes the
theory and operation of the two gasifiers in detail and also discusses the
principles and application of gasification as learned in eight yearsby the
author-gasifier team. Initially published by DOE with lavish
illustrations. ISBN 1-890607-03-7 250pp....... $30.00
CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS - A. Das. Long engine life
and reliable operation requires a gas with less than 30 mg of tar and
particulates per cubic meter (30 ppm). The simplified test methods
described here are adapted from standard ASTM and EPA test procedures for
sampling and analyzing char, tar and ash in the gas.
ISBN 1-890607-09-5
32pp....................... $10.00
TREES - Jean Giono. While we strongly support using biomass for energy, we
are also very concerned about forest destruction. This delightful story
says more than any sermon on the benefits and methods of reforestation.
ISBN 1-890607-12-6 8pp $1.00
EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES FOR THE TREATMENT OF
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - W. Niessen et al. 1996 NREL report by Camp Dresser
and McKee on MSW conversion processes198 pp.$25.00

BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS & ORDER BLANK
No. Cost
BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: T. Reed and A. Das,
(SERI-1988).
ISBN 1-890607-00-2 140pp $25.00 ___ _____

GENGAS: THE SWEDISH CLASSIC ON WOOD FUELED VEHICLES: English translation,
(SERI-1979; DAS 1982) edited T.Reed, D. Jantzen and A. Das, with index.
This is the "Old Testament" of gasification, written by the people involved
in successfully converting 90% of transportation of WW II Sweden to wood
gasifiers.
ISBN 1-890607-01-0 340pp. $30.00 ___ _____

PRODUCER-GAS: ANOTHER FUEL FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT: Ed. Noel Vietmeyer (The
U.S. National Academy of Sciences-1985) A seeing-is-believing primer with
historical and modern pictures of gasifiers. An out-standing text for any
introductory program. ISBN 1-890607-02-9 80pp $10.00 ___ _____

FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED DOWNDRAFT
GASIFIER: T. Reed, M. Graboski and B. Levie (SERI 1988).Operation of a 1 to
25 ton/day system for power and syn-gas..
ISBN 1-890607-03-7 290pp $30.00 ___ _____

CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: A. Das (1989). Test that
gas!
ISBN 1-890607-04-5 32pp $10.00 ___ _____

TREE CROPS FOR ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION ON FARMS: Tom Milne (SERI) Trees to
grow for energy.
ISBN 1-890607-05-3 260 pp $25.00 ___ _____

SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER-ENGINE SYSTEMS: by A. Kaupp and J. Goss. (1984)
Updates GENGAS and contains engineering data indispensable for the serious
gasifier projects.
ISBN 1-890607-06-1 278pp $30.00 ___ _____

GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: A. Kaupp. Applies
gasification to rice hulls and other agricultural residues. ISBN
1-890607-07-X 303pp $30.00 ___ _____

WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: Nils Nygards (1973). Translation of
recent results of Swedish Agricultural Testing Institute. ISBN
1-890607-08-8 50 pp. $4.00 ___ _____

THE PEGASUS UNIT: THE LOST ART OF DRIVING WITHOUT GASOLINE: by Niels A.
Skov and Mark L. Papworth. Description and detailed drawings of various
gasifiers and systems from World War II.
ISBN 1-890607-09-6 80 pp $20.00 __ ______

BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: Ed. T. B. Reed and M. Graboski.
Expert articles on biomass to methanol. ISBN 1-890607-10-X 331 pp
$30.00...___ _____

CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLIFIED WOOD GAS GENERATOR: H. LaFontaine (1989) -
Over 25 drawings and photographs on building a gasifier for fueling IC
engines in a Petroleum Emergency (FEMA RR28).
ISBN 1-890607-11-8 68pp $15.00 ___ _____

TREES: by Jean Giono, 1953. A delightful story which says more than any
lecture on the need for reforestation.
ISBN 1-89060712-6 8 pp $1.00 ___ _____
EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES FOR THE TREATMENT OF
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - W. Niessen et al. 1996 NREL report by Camp Dresser
and McKee on MSW conversion processes198 pp.$25.00
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
ORDER BLANK
BOOK TOTAL
...........................................................................
...............................No. ___ _______
10% discount to booksellers and orders of 3 or more books = _________
BOOK TOTAL.____________
Add $3 handling/order + $1.50/book postage (in US & Can) $_________= ______
TOTAL ENCLOSED__________
SHIP TO:
Name______________________________________________________________________
Address____________________________________________________________________
________
Foreign orders - $9/book air mail; $6/book regular

E-mail order to reedtb@Compuserve.com or Mail orders to The Biomass Energy
Foundation Press (BEFP), 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401; FAX 303-278
0560;call 303 278 0558;. We'll send invoice with books. Pay by postal
order or check on US Banks. (No foreign checks - can cost $25 to clear!).
Or send check to the Biomass Energy Foundation, Norwest Bank Colorado, NA;
bank number 10 20000 76; depositor 300800 2911.

From CharlesFederle at webtv.net Fri Dec 18 08:21:53 1998
From: CharlesFederle at webtv.net (Charles S Federle)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Seagrass!
In-Reply-To: <gldthrp@nznet.gen.nz>
Message-ID: <16267-367A5706-141@mailtod-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net>

Gas from landfills is a bad mistake.
Gases result from the microbial action on a mixture of acetic,
propionic, and butyric acids.
Those acids are the result of microbial action
on cellulose in sea grass.
Those acids are worth sixty cents.
Gases made from those acids are worth four cents, and contain mostly
carbon dioxide;
A much better idea is to gassify cellulose very quickly at 175 C., to
yield 70 cents worth of monomers of plastics.
Solid waste, sea grasses, and similar materials. are too valuable to
be put in a landfill.

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From r at costarica.net Fri Dec 18 10:18:54 1998
From: r at costarica.net (Roy Lent)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Seagrass!
In-Reply-To: <gldthrp@nznet.gen.nz>
Message-ID: <199812181518.JAA09824@internet.informatica.co.cr>

Taking anything out of landfills seems a poor idea. This is man's
main point to take carbon out of the atmospheric carbon cycle and tie
it up. Hummm. Lots of different viewpoints showing here, no?

Roy Lent
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Dec 18 11:59:54 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Seagrass!
Message-ID: <66f01a4.367a88d9@aol.com>

Roy Lent,
The best manner of tying up carbon is to get plants to grow. Even landfills
will evolve "greenhouse gases" with the evolution of CO2, CH4, etc. Efficient
use of carbon for energy production is the second best. Landfill reserves of
carbon are useless, negative investment of carbon.
Growing plants consume carbon to form plant matter. This long term storage
also pulls carbon out of the atmosphere and the soil for production of fixed
carbon.
Trying to escape the carbon cycle in the atmosphere is like trying to manage
a hurricane. High C levels in the atmosphere are not achievable because of
the solubility of CO2 and other carbon compounds in water, rain, the theory of
increased atmospheric temperature will only increase water content both from
the intrinsic ability of the atmosphere to hold water at higher temperatures
and the increased water evaporation from seawater and other sources. Increased
solvent content, water, only increases the removal rate of carbon compounds
from the atmosphere. Increased CO2 will increase plant growth rate also, up
to twice the growth rate with small increases. This in turn increases the
carbon removal rate.
In long term consideration, the best use of carbon is construction. Where
trees may have a 20-50 year lifetime before succumbing to the aging process in
nature, laying on the forest soil and decomposing giving off various
compounds, building a house with the same tree may result in preserving the
carbon for 200 years such as in the houses on the East Coast that have been
around for that period of time or longer. No one has made that comment.
In actuality, most of the carbon in the earth has been stored in limestone
and other carbonates.

Sincerely,

Leland T. Taylor
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From r at costarica.net Fri Dec 18 14:08:06 1998
From: r at costarica.net (Roy Lent)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: atmospheric carbon
In-Reply-To: <66f01a4.367a88d9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <199812181907.NAA13269@internet.informatica.co.cr>

Leland T. Taylor
I agree with much of what you say about carbon sequestering from the
atmosphere but the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have to be managable.
If we are causing such levels to rise then we must have the ability
to cause them to drop. You can't have one thing possible and not the
other!

If a planted tree farm is harvested, only a small part of its total
of fixed carbon will be involved in permanent construction,
furniture, etc. Most (leaves, branches, roots, saw mill waste and
other vegetation) will shortly rot and release its carbon back to the
atmosphere. In many countries of the world, including Costa Rica,
where I live, wood is considered a second rate construction material,
and it is only used in low level rural construction by the poor. This
excepts roof beams, doors, window frames, etc. In these countries a
major use of lumber is for concrete forms, after which it rots or is
burned.

You also may have forgotten that increased temperatures and increased
CO2, causing increased evaporation of water, means increased
dissolving of atmospheric CO2 thus higher acidity of said rain water
causing greater dissolution of carbonate rocks releasing higher
levels of their contained CO2. What is obvious is that we haven't yet
got a real grasp on the incredibably complex atmospheric carbon cycle
as yet!

I've heard it said that the real answer to the problem is to have a
great increase of the burial of dead humans in wooden coffins, tying
up the carbon both in the body and the coffen and at the same time
there would be fewer live humans left to burn fossil fuels! There's
something to be said about this solution, as long as I'm not one of
those in the coffins! :-)

Roy Lent
r@costarica.net
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From arcate at email.msn.com Fri Dec 18 15:35:57 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Renewable energy project analysis software
Message-ID: <001401be2ac5$98d56b80$0100007f@localhost>

Merry Christmas Gasification (http://www.techtp.com/merry%20xmas.htm )

Jim Arcate
www.techtp.com

==========
Forwarding Message
Date: Friday, December 18, 1998 8:46 AM

SUBJECT: Renewable Energy Project Analysis Software - RETScreenTM

The CANMET Energy Diversification Research Laboratory (CEDRL) of Natural
Resources Canada would like to inform you about RETScreen, the renewable
energy project analysis software that it has developed. RETScreen can be
used to identify the best opportunities for cost-effective implementation of
projects based on renewable energy technologies (RETs) such as: wind energy,
small hydro, photovoltaics, biomass heating, solar air heating ....

Since its release in May 1998, RETScreen has been very well received. To
date, the software has more than 1,700 users in over 80 countries. Electric
utilities, consulting engineering firms, independent power producers,
governments and development agencies, are taking advantage of the fact that
RETScreen can significantly reduce the cost and time required to identify
cost-effective electricity generation and space heating RET projects
anywhere in the world.

RETScreen can be downloaded free-of-charge at the following Web Site:

http://retscreen.gc.ca.

For more information about RETScreen, please contact the RETScreen
Commercialisation Officer at CEDRL : Tel: +1-450-652-4621 ; Fax:
+1-450-652-5277 ; e-mail: rets@nrcan.gc.ca

==========

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Dec 18 15:55:37 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: atmospheric carbon
Message-ID: <57f3cb23.367ac13b@aol.com>

Dear Mr. Roy Lent,
I believe that in a few years or decades when the atmospheric analysis has
settled down, that CO2 based atmospheric "heating" will be a comma in a
sentence of the book of this. If the number of tons of harvested wood vs.
native wood which decomposes in the forest on it's own is accounted for, there
is very little us humans can do to affect the CO2 balance in the atmosphere.
The same is true of the forest fires, volcanos, natural gas leakage in the
bottom of the ocean and other contributors.
In my opinion, the only affect increased carbon or other gases in the
atmosphere has upon the thermal layers is conductivity which accelerates the
velocity of the gas in the atmosphere. This will be reflected in greater
turbulence and resultant storms. I have read articles on both increases and
decreases in storm activity as some connection to heating.
Measuring glacial activity is the best manner of determining changes in
atmospheric conditions. I have not heard of massive slow downs in glacial
activity which would arise from reduced snowfall from heating.
There is a group also in contrary to global warming which is "the coming ice
age", predicting cooler atmospheric from increased greenhouse gases. This has
some sense when you discuss the loss of heat from a higher conductive
atmosphere to space. It goes along with the higher turbulence thoughts,
although I am not sure if they subscribe to this also.
One serious pollution problem may be the reflection of incident radiation
back into space which would cause more cooling. Comparing the "clouds" of
pollution vs. normal cloud cover would be an interesting exercise to see if it
has any merit.
Once again, nature's regulatory system is at work, if there is more
evaporation from heating, there would be more cloud cover to reflect the heat
back into space.
We market agricultural products in Costa Rica, and are aware of the need of
proper plant nutrients for plant growth. Your soils there are in serious need
of limestone from the high rainfall and leaching of calcium. This also causes
latteritic soils and reduces production in South American rainforests after
clear cutting. Our program replaces the cation exchange capacity of the soil
allowing increased nutrient uptake on latteritic soils.
I appreciate your comments. We may all end up in coffins sooner or later,
except for us who wish to relink to the carbon cycle as CO2 when we are
cremated, a faster way into the carbon cycle. We as living organisms are much
more contributors to the carbon cycle on a continuous basis and burying us
does remove us as contributors to this cycle.
On to contributing to the carbon cycle!
Tom Taylor
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From Don.Stevens at pnl.gov Fri Dec 18 15:57:00 1998
From: Don.Stevens at pnl.gov (Stevens, Don J)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Brazilian Gasifier/Gas Turbine
Message-ID: <7A04D1887189D2118EEB00A024BF29DA3A7762@PNLMSE2>

Does anyone have up-to-date information or references regarding the Brazilian
gasifier/gas turbine project? Information on the world-bank site is more than a
year old. Any help would be appreciated.

Don.Stevens@pnl.gov
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From dgill at myhost.ccsinc.com Fri Dec 18 23:10:23 1998
From: dgill at myhost.ccsinc.com (Dan Gill)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Old, new charcoaling
In-Reply-To: <199812180731_MC2-6412-8564@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <199812190410.XAA01106@solstice.crest.org>

Tom, Yuri and others,

I also often think we are ploughing old ground. I think of the period
from 1750 to 1900 when industrial processes were being developed and
refined. There was a great deal of practical and technical knowledge
applied then that was not preserved or has been lost. The Russian
journals may contain basic knowledge which has lapsed in other parts of
the world.

Tom, I have seen several references by you to top down burning as a
recent discovery (or practice). I recall an article about masonry
heaters which discussed top down burning. I believe the technique has
historically been used with with these devises in Russia. The
descriptions of charcoal clamps in use during recent centuries also
suggest a top down method. After the clamp or pile was constructed, the
central chimney was filled with combustible material, lit from the top
and loosely covered. Here is an interesting quote from

http://www.connerprairie.org/fuel.html :
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Burn

Most often the pile was "charged" by dropping burning charcoal into the
chimney and covering
the opening with a "bridgen" of three billets (the ever experimenting
Thomas Jefferson lit his pile
from the bottom). If the burn proceeded properly, the "fire" burned
downward and out, like a
cone. The pile had to be watched until the final raking out of the
charcoal. The collier and his
assistants kept a wary eye on the steaming, smoking pile to guard
against blowouts that might lead
to a flaming of the pile. If blowouts occurred, the dirt remaining in
the ring was used to seal them.
Controlling the oxygen to the pile was a delicate matter. Too much might
mean the pile would
catch fire, too little would result in an unsatisfactory burn. Colliers
often had to cut or dig holes at
various spots on the pile to ensure proper air flow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously, the clamp method was a dirty process as the pile smouldered
and pyrolysis gasses were vented and not flared. I have seen no
descriptions of how masonry or steel charcoal kilns were historically
fired, but they afforded the opportunity to recover distillates as
described by Yuri.

This is all said in the spirit of discussion, not argument.

Dan

http://members.tripod.com/~DanGill/Charmake.htm

Tom Reed wrote:
>
> Dear Yuri, Ron et al:
>
> While I regret that all of the knowledge of charcoal making in Russia and
> the world is dying, things are not as black as you paint. There is a great
> deal of knowledge still about old methods of charcoal making, for instance
> in "Industrial Charcoal Making", by Walter Emrich and Harry Booth, FAO
> Forestry paper #63, available for a few dollars from the FAO, via delle
> Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. I hope that someone will assemble a
> bibliography of other available books on charcoal making for this group.
>
> It is my impression that "Top Down Charcoal Making" (alias "inverted
> downdraft gasification" for those of us who are more interested in the
> gas/vapor products for cooking and power) is a new twist on charcoal making
> and does not occur in any of the classical methods. I made my first top
> down charcoal/stove in 1995 after a trip to Africa, working on stoves for
> the black homelands. Harry LaFontaine and Fred Hottenroth tried to
> commercialize the stove aspects in a "GasiFire" model in 1990, but it
> fizzled out. (Harry died in 1995, Fred in October 1998.) Ron Larson
> joined me about 1992 and was more interested in the charcoal than the
> cooking. Many people here at Stoves and Gasification have used variations
> for charcoal, heat or both.
>
> Does anyone know of top "down charcoal/inverted downdraft" before that
> time?
>
> Glad to hear that Svaliava is still pristine. Hope to visit there before I
> fizzle out.
>
> Yours truly, TOM
> REED
>

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From greensue at hotmail.com Fri Dec 18 23:33:16 1998
From: greensue at hotmail.com (Susanne Machler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Seagrass!
Message-ID: <19981219043308.25854.qmail@hotmail.com>

Art!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Does this mean you have returned from your sabbattical?? Hope everything
worked out for the best for you.....man.. a lot has happened since we
spoke... good stuff....!!
When you up and running Ive got some questions if you are up to them..
Take care...

Sue Maechler

From: "Art Krenzel" <phoenix@transport.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Seagrass!
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 22:52:13 -0800
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org

G'Day Jan,

Might I be so bold as to suggest that the 100 tons per day be composted
for
it's organic addition to soil. Not everything needs to be burned or
converted to energy - especially when it is a high moisture feedstock.

Art Krenzel

----------
> From: Jan Janmaat <jan_janmaat@hotmail.com>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Seagrass!
> Date: Thursday, December 17, 1998 8:47 PM
>
> G'Day everyone,
>
> A lake near my home is being dredged and 100+ ton/day of seagrass is
> being sent off to landfill.
>
> I was wondering if it is viable for seagrass to be applied as
feedstock
> in a gasification/pyrolysis process despite its clearly high moisture
> content? What about if an evaporative drying stage is included?
>
> Finally, is anyone aware of a study into or the commercial
> application(!)of seagrass?
>
> Thanks and season greetings to you,
>
> Jan.
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

Sue Maechler
Colibri Cove
http://members.tripod.com/~colibri_cove/myindex.htm
greensue@hotmail.com
If you truly want to understand something, try and change it!!
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From sturn at hawaii.edu Mon Dec 21 14:45:17 1998
From: sturn at hawaii.edu (Scott Turn)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Brazilian Gasifier/Gas Turbine
In-Reply-To: <7A04D1887189D2118EEB00A024BF29DA3A7762@PNLMSE2>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981221075536.29144F-100000@uhunix5>

You might find the following papers useful.

Waldheim, L. and E. Carpentieri. 1998. Update on the progress of the
Brazilian wood BIG-GT demonstration project. Presented at the ASME Turbo
Expo 98. June 2-5, 1998, Stockholm, Sweden.

Journal: Biomass and Bioenergy
ISSN : 0961-9534
Volume : 15
Issue : 3
Date : 03-Sep-1998
pp 229-232
WBP/SIGAME, The Brazilian BIG-GT demonstration project actual status and
perspectives
E Carpentieri, A Silva

On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Stevens, Don J wrote:

> Does anyone have up-to-date information or references regarding the Brazilian
> gasifier/gas turbine project? Information on the world-bank site is more than a
> year old. Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Don.Stevens@pnl.gov
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From max.lauer at joanneum.ac.at Fri Dec 25 19:54:11 1998
From: max.lauer at joanneum.ac.at (Lauer Maximillian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Brazilian Gasifier/Gas Turbine
Message-ID: <199812260054.TAA18895@solstice.crest.org>

id LAA12377
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification

Dear Don Stevens,

Try to turn on

TPS Termiska Processor AB
Mr. Erik Rensfelt
e-mail: erik.rensfelt@tps.se

At 12:55 18.12.98 -0800, you wrote:
>Does anyone have up-to-date information or references regarding the Brazilian
>gasifier/gas turbine project? Information on the world-bank site is more
than a
>year old. Any help would be appreciated.
>
>Don.Stevens@pnl.gov
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
>
Maximilian Lauer Tel Nr. ++43 316 876 1336
JOANNEUM RESEARCH Fax Nr.:++43 316 876 1320
Institut für Energieforschung
Elisabethstr. 5
A-8010 Graz

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From agm at intouch.com Fri Dec 25 19:54:13 1998
From: agm at intouch.com (Dr. Ahmed Gad El Mawla)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: rice husks gasification
Message-ID: <199812260054.TAA18914@solstice.crest.org>

Dear Sir,
I like to introduce myself as Prof.Dr.Eng.Ahmed Gad ElMawla.
I have some experience in the utilization of Rice Husks as fuel for
boilers. We have our own design for special furnaces burning up to 4 tons
of husks per hour in fire tube boilers.
We did some lab. work on rice husk gasification.
I would like to know if there is any commercial gasifiers that can be
connected to boilers, also if there is any available units (
gasifier/boiler) with capacities up to 15 tons of steam per hour.

Prof. Ahmed Gad ElMawla
E-mail address : agm@intouch.com
Fax : 0202876383

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From rbaileyj at prmenergy.com Mon Dec 28 09:21:56 1998
From: rbaileyj at prmenergy.com (Ronald W. Bailey, Sr.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: rice husks gasification
In-Reply-To: <199812260054.TAA18914@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <368795ED.434744C7@prmenergy.com>

Dear Prof. Ahmed Gad ElMawla:

PRM Energy Systems (USA) has 17 PRME gasifiers operating on rice
husks in high demand industrial applications. These PRME gasifiers
are located on four continents and range in size from 3 TPH to 65 TPH steam
production. These rice husk gasifiers are close coupled to boilers
to produce steam/electricity with the boiler exhaust being used for paddy
rice drying. The first PRME rice husk gasifiers were installed in 1982
and have operated around the clock for nearly 17 years with minimum maintenance
and supervision.

PRME also offers a full range of biomass fired engine generators (BFEG)
and biomass fired turbine generators (BFTG) from 750kW to 35MW in both
simple and combined cycle.

Please visit our web site at: http://www.prmenergy.com
and contact us for additional information at our Email address: rbaileys@prmenergy.com.
or fax:501-767-6968.

Regards and Happy New Year!
Ron Bailey

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Wed Dec 30 15:52:30 1998
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (William B. Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: WORKING gasifiers?
Message-ID: <001401be343e$01627900$e3f346cf@newmicronpc>

To:       Anyone
who has demonstrated a commercially viable gasifier for MSW.

Subj.:   Request for
particulars.

From:   Hauserman Associates, Inc.
hauserman@corpcomm.net

For some
years, I have followed the progress of quite a few biomass gasifiers, in various
stages of subsidized proof-of-feasibility type demonstrations. But lately, I
have not been following them so closely. I am, however, looking at several
fairly "hot" potential applications. So, does anybody out there have
a commercially available gasifier design, to handle from
100 to 300 Tons per day of municipal solid waste, either crude or partially
processed and sorted? The product must be at
least clean, hot, low-Btu gas, for use in a closely coupled,
conventional boiler, as a substitute for gas or oil. A higher Btu gas,
cooled but delivered with reasonable overall thermal efficiency, would be at
least as acceptable. If you have such a gasifier, for which you could
---
Submit a serious proposal.
Deliver it and supervise construction or
installation
Offer a guarantee of
performance
Show at least installation unit in sustained,
commercial operation
--- then please contact me directly with some
details.

<FONT
size=2>
Many thanks.

<FONT color=#000000
size=2>
W.B.Hauserman

From mlefcort at compuserve.com Wed Dec 30 17:28:45 1998
From: mlefcort at compuserve.com (Malcolm D. Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: WORKING gasifiers?
Message-ID: <199812301728_MC2-650E-CEB5@compuserve.com>

Mr. Hauserman,

Would you consider an external, two-stage combustor supplying 2,200F
products of combustion into your boiler? There is likely to be some boiler
derating because of the reduction of radiant heat transfer to the furnace
water walls and to the superheater. Fitting an economizer to your boiler
would minimize the derating. Of course, with a brand new waste heat boiler
there wouldn't be any derating.

The precursor to the two-stage Heuristic EnvirOcycler has been in
continuous service in the forest products industry burning wet hog fuel
(wet bark and cut off saw sawdust) while direct firing two rotary dryers in
a waferboard plant in Minnesota. Shredded MSW from an MRF (Material
Recycling Facility) is nothing more than dirty hog fuel. We did burn RDF
from a Raytheon designed MRF in Monroe County, NY in the late 1970's

Malcolm Lefcort
Heuristic Engineering Inc
Vancouver, BC

tel: 604-263-8005
fax: 604-263-0786
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Thu Dec 31 08:46:48 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Welcome to Gasification
Message-ID: <199812310846_MC2-651F-69FD@compuserve.com>

To Old and New Members of GASIFICATION:

Welcome to the GASIFICATION mailing list!

Please save this message for future reference. Thank you.

If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list,
send the following command in email to
<gasification-request@crest.org>:

unsubscribe

Or you can send mail to <Majordomo@crest.org> with the following
command in the body of your email message:

unsubscribe stoves

or from another account, besides "Your Email Address"

unsubscribe stoves "Your EMail Address"

If you ever need to get in contact with the owner of the list,
(if you have trouble unsubscribing, or have questions about the
list itself) send email to <owner-stoves@crest.org> .
This is the general rule for most mailing lists when you need
to contact a human.

~~~~~

The purpose of the GASIFICATION list is to enhance the information exchange
about
small and large scale biomass gasifiers.

We hope that a lot of people will join the list. Lurkers are welcome, but
we hope all of you will contribute where your expertise applies.
Everything that helps one in this field helps all, since GASIFICATION has a
bed reputation because of so many failures.

Here's to GASIFICATION reaching its true potential early in the 21st
century.

Your moderators,

TOM REED Esteban
Chornet

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Thu Dec 31 08:47:41 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Shell Biomass
Message-ID: <199812310847_MC2-651F-6A08@compuserve.com>

Dear Biomass et al:

Did a web search on Shell and biomass.

See this page: http://www.shell.com/about/content/0,1369,1506-3090,00.html
. They had some nice quotes concerning company policy. Hope they are
serious.

1. Shell Companies will only obtain the biomass feedstock from sustainably
grown sources, that is, where the harvested biomass is continuously
replaced by new biomass in an environmentally and socially
responsible manner. These sources may be from dedicated plantations or as
residues harvesting and processing operations. Shell Companies will not use
biomass derived from native forests.

2. Conversion efficiencies can be increased if the biomass is first
gasified and then (depending on the process) the gas or bio-oil is used to
fuel a gas turbine equipped with waste heat recovery.
The schematic shows such a process to generate electricity.
The challenge is to ensure that the equipment can produce electricity &
heat reliably and in a cost-effective manner.

3. Trials are already in progress in Uruguay and Chile and there is
close collaboration between Shell Companies and various international
experts and
institutions. Shell also has its own forest research centre at East
Malling in
the United Kingdom. In parallel, state of the art technologies to convert
biomass more efficiently into electricity and heat are also being
identified, tested and further developed.

4. Over the last 18 years, Shell Companies have developed experience in
growing trees for pulpwood and sawn timber and its current area of
plantations is 129 000 hectares Shell Forestry is among the
world leaders in tree improvement and large scale tree production.

Yours truly, TOM
REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Thu Dec 31 08:48:21 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Generalizations
Message-ID: <199812310848_MC2-651F-6A20@compuserve.com>

Dear Cresters:

For 100,000 years Humans have been burning and pyrolysing biomass, guided
by experience and instincts. No more improvements down that line. For 100
years we have been making more headway, understanding the processes in a
quantitative way. If you are still thinking qualitatively, here are some
generalizations that I find helpful.
BIOMASS GENERALIZATIONS
COMBUSTION
1 kg "typical biomass" (10% moisture,ash free basis, 18 MJ/kg) wil generate
5 kWt when completely combusted.
1 kg biomass requires 6.4 kg air for complete combustion to 7.4 kg CO2 +
0.7 H2O

GASIFICATION
1 kg "typical biomass" will generate, 1 kWe (@20% efficiency)
1 kg biomass requires 1.6 kg air to make 2.6 kg producer gas
1 m3 producer gas weighs 1 kg
1 m3 air generates 1.7 m3 producer gas
1 kg biomass + 1.6 kg air ==> 2.6 kg producer gas; + 4.8 kg air ==>7.4 kg
(CO + 0.7 H2 + 4 N2)

AIR
1 m3 air weighs 1.2 kg at 20°C
Dry air contains: 21.0% O2; 78.0% N2; 0.9 % A; and 0.04% other by volume
Dry air contains: 23.2% O2; 75.5% N2; 1.3 % A; and .04% other by weight
Molecular Weight: 29.0
Nitrogen in dry air is 3.76 X oxygen (by volume) or 3.31 X oxygen (by
weight)

I have a lot more that will eventually appear in "Science and Engineering
of Gasification", but these are a minimum set of understanding.
Personally, I have made a chart in BIG letters and posted it on my wall.
but better to remember them in the brain for rapid navigation.

Yours truly, TOM REED

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

December 1998 Gasification Archive