November 1998 Gasification Archive

From jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com Thu Jan 1 12:43:45 1998
From: jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com (Jane H. Turnbull)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small Power Thread
In-Reply-To: <199712301816_MC2-2D89-D309@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <34AA245E.4E88@ix.netcom.com>

Tom -

In fact, there is a market in northern California's Sacramento Valley
where about 500,000 acres is planted in high yielding long grain rice.
Historically, the rice farmers burned the fields after harvest to get
rid of the remaining straw; however, the high silica content of the
straw crystalizes into the chryslis form at high temperatures, which if
breathed into the lungs of people in the area can cause silicosis. Thus,
the state legislature has put a limit on the quantities that can be
burned. Several industries which might use rice straw as a raw material
are evolving in the valley, but there is far more straw than can be used
for construction materials, etc.

The straw really isn't seasonal, since it degrades slowly, and the
digester can take it however it comes. The rice mills operate at least
10 months out of the year and could be a user of both the power and
process heat. Some of the waste heat is used to maintain a mesophilic
temperature. The straw works quite well in this system, as the pH
remains steady in the fermentation unit. I'm reluctant to say too much
about the design, as the university is waiting on the patent.

I agree that there are markets overseas, but in light of the pollution
concerns in CA, there also is one closer to home. Rice straw presents a
further opportunity inasmuch as discing the straw into the soil may be
another approach, but one that results in methane into the atmosphere.

We hope to commercialize the technology, but the remaining missing
ingredient is some matching funds. The state ARB and also USDA's NRCS
folk are willing to provide 50%. Ideas are welcome.

Jane

From VHarris001 at aol.com Fri Jan 2 12:42:44 1998
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys.
Message-ID: <4417f336.34ace18f@aol.com>

Warning
Could not process message with given Content-Type:
multipart/mixed;boundary="part0_883745165_boundary"

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sat Jan 3 09:20:16 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Charcoal making from wastes
Message-ID: <199801030924_MC2-2DDF-3E5E@compuserve.com>

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

Thank you for requesting information on commercial systems for charcoal
manufacture. I have a separate file category on charcoal and will file the
responses for my own use - I hope you will produce a useful report on the
options for both commercial and developig processes as reported in these
pages.

I know that one process involves briquetting followed by charring. This
seems very wasteful and expensive since sawdust briquetting requires
expensive equipment and very high pressures (>300 bar) to squeeze the air
out of the wood cells. If the sawdust is carbonized first, it is then so
friable that it can very easily be briquetted in simple machinery (as in
ELK process).

Another consideration however, may be that charcoal yields on briquettes
may be significantly higher than for sawdust, depending on method.

I would also request comments from our readers on these points.

Are all charcoal experts gathered here at GASIFICATION or are there
significant numbers in STOVES and BIOENERGY?

Thanks, TOM REED

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sun Jan 4 03:37:29 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys
Message-ID: <199801040743.UAA28461@powerlink.co.nz>

>
> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:21:01 EST
> From: VHarris001 <VHarris001@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys.
>
> On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Joacim Persson said:
>
> There was a brief discussion about `Superficial Gas Velocity' about a
month
> ago on the list. From the literature (books and articles) from
WW2-period
> I get the impression that the cross section area is crucial for the
> performance of a gasifier when used by a car engine. (Narrower cross
> section -> better idling performance and dynamic response to varying
> load, larger area -> higher maximum load.)
> <snip>

> Tom Reed responded:
>
> My original discussion of the importance of superficial velocity focussed
> mainly on its effect on the flaming pyrolysis zone and I hadn't thought
> much about the char reduction zone. I hope in the near future to run a
> series of test varying ONLY the SV and testing char yield, gas quality,
gas
> composition, bed temperature etc.
>

Tom,

When flaming pyrolysis creeps into your answers, I feel a degree of
confusion unless you are talking about the stratified downdraught system or
combustion. Generally speaking, engine gasifiers must have a carbon bed in
front of the air nozzles, not raw wood and flaming pyrolysis.
Possibly I am not familiar with the way you apply the term, so would
appreciate being "straightened out".

Many thanks

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sun Jan 4 03:37:35 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys
Message-ID: <199801040743.UAA28456@powerlink.co.nz>

Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 07:46:05 EST
From: VHarris001 <VHarris001@aol.com>
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys.

Dear Tom, members, etc.

Attached is a file (gastube2.bmp) that (hopefully) shows what I have in
mind
for the gas collector tube attached directly to the grate in a modified
crossdraft gasifier.

<snip>

Vernon

Before you blow all your money trying to make your MSW gasifier, you should
know more about gasification and how gas is made before you try to resolve
very complex design criteria. In the first instance, bagged MSW would be
the most difficult "stuff" to gasify and certainly not appropriate for
engine application. The most important factor concerning fuel is
consistency of size, moisture and density, qualities not found in bagged
MSW.

Gas making requires high temperature for the oxidation zone (1,000 degrees
C+) through which the descending fuel passes, and then a char bed where the
incandescent CO2 is reduced to CO (exiting at 800-850 degrees C). In order
for this to happen the bed must consist of permeable carbon, not clay
filled papers and other possibly high moisture content waste. Even though
drying of descending fuel is a term commonly used to describe fuel during
the distillation phase, it is only relevant if the condensates are removed
via condensation traps around the fuel hopper walls. You then have a
serious black liquor disposal problem, which is also very unhealthy to
handle.

In order for the high temperature to be achieved, air must only enter the
gasifier through the nozzles in the oxidation zone. This means you cannot
have your gasifier with open ends as uncontrollable air will leak through
and will not be plugged by fuel or ash.

Using water seals introduces steam which will entrain back up into the
reduction zone effectively quenching the heat you need for reduction. All
you are likely to make is CO2 and black liquor. Don't even think about
opening and closing doors on the ash box of a working gasifier. You will
have an instant explosion and risk very severe burns. I speak from an
experienced point of view and cannot emphasise enough the safety aspects
you need to consider when developing this type of technology.

Whilst it is a wonderful concept to used bagged MSW, even sorted, dried and
densified, it still would be unsuitable for engine gasifier fuel due to the
clay fillers and other mineral contamination that melt into sintered
clinker. Over the years Fluidyne has tested a variety of these waste fuels
for clients, nearly all with the same result, clinker!

Your 460 cubic inch engine will derate about 60% on clean producer gas.
Here is a sample fuel and power calculation:
at 2,000 rpm: Shaft H.P. 71.87 Fuel consumption 141 lbs/hour.

So in answer to your question, "will my idea work?" the short answer is no.
My recommendation is to build yourself a smaller system and run it on wood
or charcoal to learn the practical basics, then if money allows you to
pursue your MSW ideas you will have a better perspective of the design
constraints.

Best Regards

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

From english at adan.kingston.net Sun Jan 4 08:55:19 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Producer Gas Explosions
In-Reply-To: <199801040743.UAA28456@powerlink.co.nz>
Message-ID: <199801041500.KAA03523@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Gasification Folks
I would like to know more about how to assess the explosive risk of
trapped producer gas. I would like to know how the variables of
temperature, gas constituents combine for ignition and how they
relate to the ultimate force of the explosion.
My specific interest involves combustible gasses somewhat diluted by
air and CO2.
If this is to involved for the list then how about some
references.

Thanks, Alex

______________
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Jan 4 09:12:44 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys.
Message-ID: <199801040913_MC2-2DFB-3367@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Vern: I got the following message with your MIMED file. Do you think
you can fix?
(If not, I might try).

The following message is an Internet MIME message. It was not decoded
by the CompuServe Internet mail gateway for the following reason(s):

terminating boundary missing in message body

The complete MIME message is attached as a separate part. You may use
a third party MIME decoder to attempt to process the attachment message.

Thanks, TOM REED

From tmiles at teleport.com Sun Jan 4 12:31:20 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys.
In-Reply-To: <199801040913_MC2-2DFB-3367@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19980104093612.00a35290@mail.teleport.com>

Tom, Vern and Others,

If you look at the top of Verns message you find a note from me that I
removed the attachment from the message.

Please do not send attachments to the list. The majordomo sees them as a
message that is too long and they just come to me. If you have an
attachment either convert it to text or make it available where individuals
can retrieve it.

Alternatively we could create a spot on the CREST website where attachments
could be posted for view or retrieval via ftp.

Regards,

Tom Miles

At 09:12 AM 1/4/98 -0500, Thomas Reed wrote:
>Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
>Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Dear Vern: I got the following message with your MIMED file. Do you think
>you can fix?
>(If not, I might try).
>
>The following message is an Internet MIME message. It was not decoded
>by the CompuServe Internet mail gateway for the following reason(s):
>
>terminating boundary missing in message body
>
>The complete MIME message is attached as a separate part. You may use
>a third party MIME decoder to attempt to process the attachment message.
>
>Thanks, TOM REED
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
T.R. Miles, Technical Consultants, Inc.
Portland, Oregon, USA Tel:(503) 646-1198/292-0107
http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/ Fax:(503) 605-0208/292-2919

From english at adan.kingston.net Sun Jan 4 12:57:58 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys.
In-Reply-To: <199801040913_MC2-2DFB-3367@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <199801041902.OAA15439@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Tom,

It is quite possible to attach black and white drawings in GIF format
as small as 5Kb. That takes about around 5 seconds to come through
from my server. Is there any possibility that that would be
acceptable?

> Tom, Vern and Others,
>
> If you look at the top of Verns message you find a note from me that I
> removed the attachment from the message.
>
> Please do not send attachments to the list. The majordomo sees them as a
> message that is too long and they just come to me. If you have an
> attachment either convert it to text or make it available where individuals
> can retrieve it.
>
> Alternatively we could create a spot on the CREST website where attachments
> could be posted for view or retrieval via ftp.

This sound like the logical next step to enhancing the "mailing list
concept".

Thanks again to you and the other folks who maintain the lists.
Alex

> Regards,
>
> Tom Miles
>
>
> At 09:12 AM 1/4/98 -0500, Thomas Reed wrote:
> >Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
> >Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >Dear Vern: I got the following message with your MIMED file. Do you think
> >you can fix?
> >(If not, I might try).
> >
> >The following message is an Internet MIME message. It was not decoded
> >by the CompuServe Internet mail gateway for the following reason(s):
> >
> >terminating boundary missing in message body
> >
> >The complete MIME message is attached as a separate part. You may use
> >a third party MIME decoder to attempt to process the attachment message.
> >
> >Thanks, TOM REED
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
> T.R. Miles, Technical Consultants, Inc.
> Portland, Oregon, USA Tel:(503) 646-1198/292-0107
> http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/ Fax:(503) 605-0208/292-2919
>
>

______________
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

From bburt at adan.kingston.net Sun Jan 4 13:13:21 1998
From: bburt at adan.kingston.net (Brian Burt)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys.
Message-ID: <022d01bd193c$dfc4f100$c730bdcd@bburt.kingston.net>

>Tom, Vern and Others,
>
>If you look at the top of Verns message you find a note from me that I
>removed the attachment from the message.
>
>Please do not send attachments to the list. The majordomo sees them as a
>message that is too long and they just come to me. If you have an
>attachment either convert it to text or make it available where individuals
>can retrieve it.
>
>Alternatively we could create a spot on the CREST website where attachments
>could be posted for view or retrieval via ftp.
>
>Regards,
>
>Tom Miles

Tom;

Is it possible to allow attachments but put a size limit on them (perhaps 50
K)? Often times it could be useful to discussions to have a diagram or image
to explain a point and it is not necessary to send large files to do so. It
would be quite easy to establish a suggested protocol for individuals to
convert the .bmp files or other to compressed .jpg so that they are small
enough to pass the limit. Is there a technical reason this is not possible?

Brian

From tmiles at teleport.com Sun Jan 4 13:43:02 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys.
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980104104421.00dc1828@mail.teleport.com>

Alex,

Good idea. 5k gifs should work. I think our message limit is 40 k. The
newer versions of browsers and email clients handle graphics and
attachments very well. They older ones will not decode them.

We have to be aware of the fact that list members are 400+ individuals from
with a wide variety of circumstances that range from very simple email
clients to very sophisticated systems. We don't want to overload the simple
systems with garbage but we do want to communicate in all the forms we have
available.

We've talked about setting up ftp sites or web pages for the bioenergy
lists for some time. Since then BIN, EREN, NREL, Segrest and others have
done rather well with the way they've set up search engines and placed
technical papers online in pdf format. Some kind of a bioenergy "white
board", ftp site or message board on CREST would still be useful. Now if
someone who is handy with html, ftp, etc. and had the time to maintain it
were to volunteer. . .

I can see us having NetMeeting style (message, video, audio, white board +
applications) bioenergy discussions in real time before too long.

Regards,

Tom Miles

At 01:01 PM 1/4/98 -0500, *.English wrote:
>Dear Tom,
>
>It is quite possible to attach black and white drawings in GIF format
>as small as 5Kb. That takes about around 5 seconds to come through
>from my server. Is there any possibility that that would be
>acceptable?
>
>
>> Tom, Vern and Others,
>>
>> If you look at the top of Verns message you find a note from me that I
>> removed the attachment from the message.
>>
>> Please do not send attachments to the list. The majordomo sees them as a
>> message that is too long and they just come to me. If you have an
>> attachment either convert it to text or make it available where individuals
>> can retrieve it.
>>
>> Alternatively we could create a spot on the CREST website where attachments
>> could be posted for view or retrieval via ftp.
>
>This sound like the logical next step to enhancing the "mailing list
>concept".
>
>Thanks again to you and the other folks who maintain the lists.
>Alex
>
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tom Miles
>>
>>
>> At 09:12 AM 1/4/98 -0500, Thomas Reed wrote:
>> >Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
>> >Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >Dear Vern: I got the following message with your MIMED file. Do you
think
>> >you can fix?
>> >(If not, I might try).
>> >
>> >The following message is an Internet MIME message. It was not decoded
>> >by the CompuServe Internet mail gateway for the following reason(s):
>> >
>> >terminating boundary missing in message body
>> >
>> >The complete MIME message is attached as a separate part. You may use
>> >a third party MIME decoder to attempt to process the attachment message.
>> >
>> >Thanks, TOM REED
>> >
>> >
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
>> T.R. Miles, Technical Consultants, Inc.
>> Portland, Oregon, USA Tel:(503) 646-1198/292-0107
>> http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/ Fax:(503) 605-0208/292-2919
>>
>>
>
>______________
>Alex English
>RR 2 Odessa Ontario
>Canada K0H 2H0
>Tel 1-613-386-1927
>Fax 1-613-386-1211
>Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Miles, Jr. tmiles@teleport.com
Technical Consultant Tel (503) 292-0107
5475 SW Arrowwood Lane Fax (503) 292-2919
Portland, Oregon, USA 97225-1353

From tmiles at teleport.com Sun Jan 4 14:03:24 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys.
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980104110736.007703a4@mail.teleport.com>

Brian,

Another good idea. We'll get some guidance from CREST on this.

Regards,

Tom Miles

At 01:16 PM 1/4/98 -0500, Brian Burt wrote:
>Tom;
>
>Is it possible to allow attachments but put a size limit on them (perhaps 50
>K)? Often times it could be useful to discussions to have a diagram or image
>to explain a point and it is not necessary to send large files to do so. It
>would be quite easy to establish a suggested protocol for individuals to
>convert the .bmp files or other to compressed .jpg so that they are small
>enough to pass the limit. Is there a technical reason this is not possible?
>
>Brian
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Miles, Jr. tmiles@teleport.com
Technical Consultant Tel (503) 292-0107
5475 SW Arrowwood Lane Fax (503) 292-2919
Portland, Oregon, USA 97225-1353

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sun Jan 4 22:00:28 1998
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys.
Message-ID: <8361b3da.34b04dca@aol.com>

In a message dated 98-01-04 09:19:05 EST, you write:

<<
Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Vern: I got the following message with your MIMED file. Do you think
you can fix?
(If not, I might try).

The following message is an Internet MIME message. It was not decoded
by the CompuServe Internet mail gateway for the following reason(s):

terminating boundary missing in message body

The complete MIME message is attached as a separate part. You may use
a third party MIME decoder to attempt to process the attachment message.

Thanks, TOM REED

>>
Dear Tom, et. al.

Here is a link to a web page that has the sketch of the grate design I have in
mind.

<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/VHarris001/index.html">Click here for sketch
of grate design for gasifier.</A>

I hope this will work for everyone.

Vern

VHarris001@aol.com

From MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com Sun Jan 4 22:21:24 1998
From: MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Producer Gas Explosions
Message-ID: <199801042220_MC2-2E0B-CDA1@compuserve.com>

Alex,

You wrote:

>I would like to know more about how to assess the explosive risk of
>trapped producer gas. I would like to know how the variables of
>temperature, gas constituents combine for ignition and how they
>relate to the ultimate force of the explosion.
>My specific interest involves combustible gasses somewhat diluted by
>air and CO2.
> If this is to involved for the list then how about some
>references.

The question of explositivity limits is fairly complicated, but any good
text book
on Combustion should provide you with the details you need. My personal
favorite
is "Introduction to Combustion Phenomena" by A. Murty Kanury, Gordon &
Breach Science Publishers.

If need a more detailed analysis (i.e., something to show regulators or for
insurance purposes), I know a fire science firm that specializes in that
sort of work.
Contact me at 72250.16@compuserve.com and I'll give you their address and
phone number.

Jeff Phillips
Bridgewater, Mass.

From VHarris001 at aol.com Mon Jan 5 01:05:26 1998
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small scale MSW gasification in modified cross-draft?
Message-ID: <ef0543e.34b07904@aol.com>

In a message dated 97-12-30 11:13:04 EST, you write:

<< What about this . . . Suppose I put enough water in the ash pit to wet
the
> ash up to the bottom of the firetube. (I should wet the ash anyway, for
ease
> of handling and disposal purposes). That would certainly add a great deal
to
> the ability of the ash plug to restrict the flow of air up from the bottom
of
> the firetube. However, my concern with this method is that the capillary
> effect of the ash, combined with the upward draw of the engine vacuum might
> pull water too near the hearth zone.

tvoivozhd>>>Add a capillary-break? A rotary-grate through which the ashes
sift,
and your spray-head(s) below it?tvoivozhd>>>Depending on amount a water spray
will
turn fine ash into a slurry or cementitious plug. The bane of ash removal,
going
back to coal furnace days was clinkers that had to be broken up to go through
the
grates (or manually-removed through the fire-door).. In your illustration
you
might not get clinkers---or at least such hard, glassy ones, but as in a
powdered-lime hopper of similar consistency to your fine ashes, if you wet
the ash
you could run into "bridging", i.e., your disposal auger would be spinning in
a
void instead of carrying anything away Proper water-metering might avoid
this,
but you would have to establish maximum-minimum amounts and a means of
staying
within them (all subject to Murphy's Law)..

>>

You mentioned a capillary break. I was working with the crossdraft design in
mind only so that the bulky non-combustibles will pass through the gasifier
without being impeded by a grate. Are there designs for a capillary break
that would allow the passage of bulky items? If so, could that same concept
be used to design a grate? I know there are star valves and other items
useful for handling solids, but my experience is that MSW is so variable that
it must be shredded before it can be moved through this sort of system.

In his response to my posting, Doug Williams mentioned steam formation when
introducing water into the ash bin. I hadn't considered that, but I think he
must be correct. If water were introduced it almost certainly would form
steam which would almost certainly create enough pressure to force the
moisture up to the reduction zone. Are you aware of any gasifiers that use
water seals?

I think that is probably a bad idea and one I should abandon forth with.

Any other ideas you might have for removal of ash and bulky solids from the
ash pit on a continuous basis? I've seen many grate designs for large scale
incineration, but I think all are inappropriate for small scale designs.

Thanks,

Vernon Harris
vernon_harris@bigfoot.com
VHarris001@aol.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Mon Jan 5 01:55:30 1998
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small scale MSW gasification in modified cross-draft?
Message-ID: <906e3591.34b084ec@aol.com>

In a message dated 97-12-30 18:20:04 EST, you write:

In your "Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine Systems" several times
you mention problems associated with not keeping the gasifier system airtight.

I was hoping the accumulation of ash in the bottom of the firetube might form
a sufficient plug. Ash would then be augered out at the bottom, a little at a
time so that the plug were maintained. This would certainly be simple.
However, so far I believe the consensus is that this would not suffice.

There must be some theoretical depth at which the ash would form an airtight
plug. However, I know that air pressure will force water up inside a vacuum
pump for many feet. This is probably nearly the same degree of force that
will draw air up through the ash plug in the fire tube when connected to the
intake manifold of an IC engine.

Your Fig. 5-5 on page 32 of the "Handbook" shows a crossdraft gasifier in
operation. I note that the distillation zone encircles both the hearth and
reduction zones. Therefore I assume that if air were drawn up from the bottom
through the ash plug, it would proceed through the distillation and reduction
zones before being drawn into the gas collector tube.

What effect would this have on the overall operation of the gasifier and the
quality of the gas? Is there any combustible material remaining at the bottom
part of the distillation and reduction zones to combust or will the air drawn
up from the bottom only have a deleterious effect?

In other words, if the ash cannot form a plug, can it at least restrict air
flow sufficiently that it not substantially degrade the quality of gas?

Thanks for your detailed text and other books!

Regards,

Vernon Harris
vernon_harris@bigfoot.com or
VHarris001@aol.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Mon Jan 5 03:15:04 1998
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys
Message-ID: <5ca8dd7a.34b07231@aol.com>

In a message dated 98-01-04 03:47:27 EST, you write:

<< Whilst it is a wonderful concept to used bagged MSW, even sorted, dried and
densified, it still would be unsuitable for engine gasifier fuel due to the
clay fillers and other mineral contamination that melt into sintered
clinker. Over the years Fluidyne has tested a variety of these waste fuels
for clients, nearly all with the same result, clinker!
>>

Dear Doug,

Thank you for your detailed response! Being new to the entire gasification
concept, I feel I have little appreciation for many of the associated
problems. However, by perusing various gasification publications and posting
questions for clarification, I had hoped to avoid building a wood gasifier and
go straight to MSW, where my real interest lies.

>From your response (shown above), it appears you maintain that, generally,
MSW
is never suitable for engine gasifier fuel?

In residential MSW, I believe the highest clay content comes from what are
known as "slicks," the material most magazines and newspaper inserts are made
from. Also, of course, cat litter is clay. If these two components of the
residential MSW stream were removed, would MSW still be too laden with mineral
contamination for engine gasifier fuel? If so, what are other materials that
contribute to the contamination problem?

You indicate the char bed in a gasifier must consist of permeable carbon. If
most clay is removed, will the remaining MSW stream ever convert to permeable
carbon? Most residential MSW consists of plastic and paperboard packaging (by
volume) and food waste (by weight). C & D material, yard waste, batteries,
hazardous materials, and many non-combustibles are already being removed from
the waste stream here for separate disposal or recycling. Some non-
combustibles remain, notibly aluminum foil (which I suspect will cause
problems), ceramics and other metals which I had hoped would pass through the
system.

I'll stop there for now because if the clay/minerals problem and the permeable
carbon problem cannot be resolved in MSW gasification, there is little point
in pursuing gasifier design issues.

Yours,

Vernon Harris
VHarris001@aol.com

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Jan 5 09:16:29 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BEF Sale of Gasification Books
Message-ID: <199801050920_MC2-2E13-19C6@compuserve.com>

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

As you know, I sell books on gasification that I think should stay in
print. The number of books sold each year is some indication of the
world's interest in gasification - and also the degree to which I
advertise, and many other factors.

As a 501-c-3 (not for profit) Foundation I am allowed to have an income up
to $25,000/yr on the foundation without making a detailed accounting to the
IRS. I wish! I spend the income on travel to meetings and research.

So I keep accounts relative to the book sales. Here is a summary for the
last 4 years -

YEAR CUSTOMERS BOOKS SOLD
1994 14 64
1995 20 25
1996 25 106
1997 53 166

It would seem from these figures that the interest in gasification is
increasing rapidly, but other factors make this less than certain. In 1998
I will also have a page for the BEF on the WWW and so may increase sales
even further. On the other hand, much of those particularly interested in
gasification will already have the books, so the market is getting
saturated. About half our sales are outside the U.S.

This year we registered our books with Bowker and added ISBN numbers. Now
we can be found in "Books in Print", Amazon.Com etc.

I am appending our list of books in case any of you want to increase your
library. I hope you consider this a service to the community rather than a
sales pitch. I am probably going to increase our prices in the near
future, since the net income from the books sold and shipped yields the BEF
currently <$10/hr for my (and Vivian's) time.

Let's hope Biomass Gasification has a banner year. Success to all,

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.
Thomas B. Reed

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 two decades 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................................ $25.00

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................................. $8.00

TREES - Jean Giono. While we strongly support using biomass for energy, we
are also very concerned about forest destruction. This delightful true
story says more than any sermon on the benefits and methods of
reforestation. ISBN 1-890607-12-6
8pp................................. $1.00

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

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. $25.00 ___ _____

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 $8.00 ___
_____

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 $25.00 ___ _____

CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: A. Das (1989). Test that
gas!
ISBN 1-890607-04-5
32pp $8.00 ___ _____

TREE CROPS FOR ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION ON FARMS: Tom Milne (SERI) Trees to
grow for energy.
ISBN 1-890607-05-3 260
pp $20.00 ___ _____

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 $25.00 ___ _____

GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: A. Kaupp. Applies
gasification to rice hulls and other agricultural residues. ISBN
1-890607-07-X 303pp $25.00 ___ _____

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 $15.00 __ ______

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 $10.00 ___ _____

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 ___ _____

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

TOTAL
:..........................................................................
............................No. ___ ______
ORDER BLANK (see over): Mail, Fax or E-mail to
BOOK TOTAL ‡
(over).....................................................................
.....................................No. ___ _______
Add $3 handling/order + $1.50/book postage (in US)† 3 + $_________= ______
TOTAL ENCLOSED__________
SHIP TO:
Name______________________________________________________________________
Address____________________________________________________________________
________
Mail orders to The Biomass Energy Foundation Press (BEFP), 1810 Smith Rd.,
Golden, CO 80401; FAX 303-278 0560;call 303 278 0558;E-mail
reedtb@Compuserve.com. We'll send invoice with books.

Ordering Information (over): †Shipping: $2.50/book to Canada and Mexico,
all other foreign $9/book (air mail-~1 wk). ‡10% discounts on orders for 3
or more books. Distributor inquiries welcomed. Please include check or
money order with your order. Foreign orders remit by postal order, check
on U.S. Bank or electronic transfer to Bank Rte No: 102 0000 76; Acct. No.
300 800 2911. (Foreign checks can cost $5-10 to clear).

Thanks for your order, Tom Reed

From tk at tke.dk Tue Jan 6 03:45:15 1998
From: tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BEF Sale of Gasification Books
In-Reply-To: <199801050920_MC2-2E13-19C6@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <199801060850.JAA13940@proxy.image.dk>

Could anybody inform me about where it is possible to get a copy of
"A survey og biomass gasification" volume 2 and 3, published by SERI
in 1979.

Regards

Thomas Koch
tk@tke.dk

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Jan 6 07:11:06 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Better E-Mail Browsers
Message-ID: <199801060715_MC2-2E36-825A@compuserve.com>

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

Tom says there are good (new) browsers and primitive browsers and to some
extent we are limited by the primitive ones in sending simple pictures and
files.

Those who have simple browsers should try to update them. I am using
Compuserve 3.01 and I think I'll download 3.04 even though the changes are
minimal.

Is there anyone out there who can tell me whether the MS Explorer E-mail
program is better than Compuserve?

Some of you have trouble with long lines that I can't read directly. I
copy them to a "reply" and then my reader word wraps them so I can read
them easily. I also do this to print copies without the routing garbage.
Then I discard.

All our systems are individually different, so we need to share comments.

Regards, TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Jan 6 07:11:14 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Dimethyl Ether questions
Message-ID: <199801060715_MC2-2E36-8252@compuserve.com>

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

I have long been attracted to dimethyl ether as a propane lookalike
alternate fuel. It is stored as a liquid under moderate pressure and used
as a gas, giving very clean and efficient burning. It is easily made from
or instead of methanol.

I am puzzled by it's being proposed as a DIESEL fuel. I have always
assumed that it is high OCTANE, low CETANE, which would make it a good OTTO
(spark) fuel. Most other oxygenates are.

Producer gas and methanol are both high octane fuels and are often used in
diesel engines, but not optimally. They perform better in spark engines.
Does anyone know the OCTANE/CETANE properties of DME?

Puzzled....... TOM REED

From hboiler at rose.net Tue Jan 6 08:04:15 1998
From: hboiler at rose.net (Gene Zebley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Better E-Mail Browsers
In-Reply-To: <199801060715_MC2-2E36-825A@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <34B22AFD.1225@rose.net>

Thomas Reed wrote:
> Dear Tom, Alex et al:
> Tom says there are good (new) browsers and primitive browsers and to some
> extent we are limited by the primitive ones in sending simple pictures and
> files.
> Those who have simple browsers should try to update them. I am using
> Compuserve 3.01 and I think I'll download 3.04 even though the changes are
> minimal.

Do you remember Telex communication software, kermit transfers and 1200
baud modems? Late nights reading FIDO mail groups? Downloading the
latest zipped software program over a 14 hour period?

And of course, how about Mosaic?

> Is there anyone out there who can tell me whether the MS Explorer E-mail
> program is better than Compuserve?

I've have resolved to leave this tiny corner (communication software) of
my hard drive "Microsoft Free", although I have no choice but to
interface with their operating systems. I've been using Netscape since
the very first beta was released.

Netscape has decent preference options (and the mail reader includes a
word wrap command). Attaching files is simple (we regularly transmit
encoded CAD drawings). I have some customers that I have never spoken
with our transmitted a fax, but have made initial contact, negotiated
terms and developed distribution agreements exclusively with Netscape.

> Some of you have trouble with long lines that I can't read directly. I
> copy them to a "reply" and then my reader word wraps them so I can read
> them easily. I also do this to print copies without the routing garbage.
> Then I discard.

Netscape will display routing information if the viewer is utilized,
otherwise you only see what message information you require and
configure the reader accordingly.

> All our systems are individually different, so we need to share comments.
> Regards, TOM REED

Hear, Hear.

Best regards,

Gene Zebley
Export Sales Manager
Solid Fuel Sales

Hurst Boiler Co. Mailto:hboiler@rose.net
HWY 319 South Phone: (912)346-3545 ext. 139
Coolidge, GA, USA 31738 In USA (800)666-6414
Fax: (912)346-3874
Complete On-Line Catalogue
http://www.thomasregister.com/hurstboiler

From npandit at osf1.gmu.edu Tue Jan 6 09:07:53 1998
From: npandit at osf1.gmu.edu (NITIN PANDIT)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Better E-Mail Browsers
In-Reply-To: <34B22AFD.1225@rose.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95q.980106090616.23099B-100000@osf1.gmu.edu>

On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Gene Zebley wrote:

> Thomas Reed wrote:
> > Dear Tom, Alex et al:
> > Tom says there are good (new) browsers and primitive browsers and to some
> > extent we are limited by the primitive ones in sending simple pictures and
> > files.
> > Those who have simple browsers should try to update them. I am using
> > Compuserve 3.01 and I think I'll download 3.04 even though the changes are
> > minimal.
> I've have resolved to leave this tiny corner (communication software) of
> my hard drive "Microsoft Free", although I have no choice but to
> interface with their operating systems. I've been using Netscape since
> the very first beta was released.

Netscape works fine for me. Microsoft's IE4 destroyed one of my machines.
Don't get fooled by the innocent configuration questions of IE4.
Underneath it, I think it remaps your drive and (essentially changes your
operating system to IE from Windows). Subtle but dangerous.

If you do want to go with IE, I have been told that you should do it from
day 1 by installing windows and IE and then the rest of your software. At
least it will tell you what cannot be installed. In my case, when I tried
to install it (I downloaded it from MS web site) on a machine which had
other software on it, it screwed up the whole environment.

Nitin

****************************************************************************

Nitin Pandit
Tel: (703) 263-0689 3867 Zelkova Court
Fax: (703) 263-0953 Fairfax, VA 22033
Net: npandit@gmu.edu USA

****************************************************************************

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Jan 6 10:54:56 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BEF Sale of Gasification Books
Message-ID: <199801061059_MC2-2E3D-D9A5@compuserve.com>

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

Dear TOM KOCH et al:

You said:
Could anybody inform me about where it is possible to get a copy of
"A survey og biomass gasification" volume 2 and 3, published by SERI
in 1979. Regards Thomas Koch tk@tke.Dk.

I have ONE copy of the three volumes you refer to. They were also
republished by Noyes Press in hardcover in 1980 under the title "Biomass
Gasification: Principles and Technology". Both are as "scarce as hen's
teeth". (What is the Danish expression?)

Volume 1 is the executive summary; Volume 2 is "Principles of
Gasification," and pure gold! Volume 3 is a sad listing of all the hopes
and dreams of gasification in 1979, most of which have evaporated in thin
air.

If you wish, I will make a nice, bound Xerox copy of Volume 2 for
$0.15/page X 215 pp for about $35 and even include any goodies from VOl 1
and 3.

OR - you can wait until I finish Volume 2 "Science and Engineering of
Biomass Gasification" sometime in 1998 - I hope.

How's things in the STRAW capital of biomass gasification?

Onwards....... TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Jan 6 10:55:42 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys
Message-ID: <199801061059_MC2-2E3D-D9AF@compuserve.com>

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

Good advice, Doug (below).

You say that use of producer gas results in 60% derating. Do you mean that
a nominal 100 hp engine becomes 40 hp?

All other data I find indicate more like a 40% derating. This is due
primarily to the low energy of the gas, resulting in less room for air in
the cylinders. Also gas engines in general develp less power than liquid
fuel engines. Comments?

TOM REED
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 07:46:05 EST
From: VHarris001 <VHarris001@aol.com>
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys.

Dear Tom, members, etc.

Attached is a file (gastube2.bmp) that (hopefully) shows what I have in
mind
for the gas collector tube attached directly to the grate in a modified
crossdraft gasifier.

<snip>

Vernon

Your 460 cubic inch engine will derate about 60% on clean producer gas.
Here is a sample fuel and power calculation:
at 2,000 rpm: Shaft H.P. 71.87 Fuel consumption 141 lbs/hour.

Best Regards

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Jan 6 10:55:45 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "Flaming Pyrolysis" Defined
Message-ID: <199801061059_MC2-2E3D-D9B5@compuserve.com>

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

Doug Williams asked........

>When flaming pyrolysis creeps into your answers, I feel a degree of
confusion unless you are talking about the stratified downdraught system or
combustion. Generally speaking, engine gasifiers must have a carbon bed in
front of the air nozzles, not raw wood and flaming pyrolysis.
Possibly I am not familiar with the way you apply the term, so would
appreciate being "straightened out".
~~~~
Since I invented the term "flaming pyrolysis" during my downdraft modelling
days at NREL (1983-86), I guess I am bound to define it as well as
possible.

In combustion the term "flaming combustion" is used to define combustion
with visible flames, either premixed (Bunsen burner type) or diffusion
(match or candle type). It is usually juxtaposed with "glowing combustion"
where the combustion appears to occur at a solid surface (as in charcoal or
coke combustion). Both FC and GC, properly executed, result in complete
combustion. Take a look at the steady progress of the flame of a match:
first the wood is pyrolysed and the gas/vapors burn in FC; then the flame
disappears and the remaining charcoal burns in GC in third world countries.
(In the US and maybe Europe, the match is treated so the charcoal won't
burn in GC and start forest fires.) Note that the processes are serial in
the match; no air can reach the charcoal until ALL the evolving pyrolysis
gases have left.

In the "stratified downdraft gasifier" (now replacing Imbert gasifiers
around the world) air and fuel enter at the top of a cylindrical container
and proceed downward. When the fuel reaches the combustion zone it is
ignited and begins to burn like the match. Initially there is a surplus of
air, but by the time the volatiles (80-90% of wood) have been released the
oxygen is gone and only CO, H2, CO2, H2O and a few 100 or 1000 ppm cracked
tars remain. These gases (at about 1200C) then pass over the resulting
charcoal. And more CO/H2 is made from the CO2/H2O.

While at NREL/SERI we actually constructed a 7.5 cm diam Quartz gasifier
with transparent gold tube insulation (10 cm) and could see these stages
very clearly. That is why the name "stratified downdraft gasifier" was
chosen.

One problem with the SDDG is that with very dry fuel, the flaming pyrolysis
proceeds into the dry fuel faster than the fuel can be fed and eventually
will appear at the top of the cylinder, leaving a full bed of charcoal
underneath. On the other hand if the fuel is too wet (>30% MC) the FP zone
can't propogate upward, and so begins to burn charcoal on the grate.
Charcoal fires can generate temperatures of 1500 C (see any blacksmith) and
so the grate melts. It seems paradoxical, but a wet fuel can melt the
grate in a SDDG.
~~~~
Things are more complex in the Imbert (WWII) style gasifier, which I
presume is the type you manufacture. The fuel enters from above, but the
air is injected 20-30cm above the grate. If the fuel is wet, the FP zone
can't move up easily and so air strikes the fuel producing most of the gas
by FP. If the fuel is quite dry the FP zone moves up, but, finding no air
there stops moving. The air finds charcoal at the nozzles and burns it.
Thus there is automatic stabilization of the zone at the nozzles by
adjusting the degree to which incoming air causes flaming pyrolysis or
glowing combustion.

Could you make a "viewport" nozzle on your gasifier so you could observe
the degree to which you see either diffusion flames (away from surfaces) or
glowing combustion flames?

If you send me a video of that, I will send you a video of our transparent
gasifier.

Pardon the length of this definition, but reality can be sometimes quite
complicated. If you like, I will extend this discussion to what happens in
fluidized beds and updraft gasifiers.

Regards, ........... TOM REED

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

>> On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Joacim Persson said:
>
> There was a brief discussion about `Superficial Gas Velocity' about a
month
> ago on the list. From the literature (books and articles) from
WW2-period
> I get the impression that the cross section area is crucial for the
> performance of a gasifier when used by a car engine. (Narrower cross
> section -> better idling performance and dynamic response to varying
> load, larger area -> higher maximum load.)
> <snip>

From Kerstetterj at energy.wsu.edu Tue Jan 6 11:37:29 1998
From: Kerstetterj at energy.wsu.edu (Jim Kerstetter)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Dimethyl Ether questions
Message-ID: <211C700D2F73D1119D020020AFD209CE015136@ems02.energy.wsu.edu>

Tom, et al

Check out the SAE technical paper series #950061 titled "A New Clean
Diesel Technology: Demonstration of ULEV Emissions on a Navistar Diesel
Engine Fueled with Diemethyl Ether" by folks from Amoco, Navistar,
Haldor Topsoe and AVL Powertrain..

On the production side see Chemical and Engineering News in May 29, 1995
article on Amoco/Haldor Tospso production

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Reed [SMTP:REEDTB@compuserve.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 4:14 AM
> To: Pecci; GASIFICATION; BIOENERGY
> Subject: Dimethyl Ether questions
>
> Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
> Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Pecci, Harry et al:
>
> I have long been attracted to dimethyl ether as a propane lookalike
> alternate fuel. It is stored as a liquid under moderate pressure and
> used
> as a gas, giving very clean and efficient burning. It is easily made
> from
> or instead of methanol.
>
> I am puzzled by it's being proposed as a DIESEL fuel. I have always
> assumed that it is high OCTANE, low CETANE, which would make it a good
> OTTO
> (spark) fuel. Most other oxygenates are.
>
> Producer gas and methanol are both high octane fuels and are often
> used in
> diesel engines, but not optimally. They perform better in spark
> engines.
> Does anyone know the OCTANE/CETANE properties of DME?
>
> Puzzled....... TOM REED
>
>

From pecci at pointest.com Tue Jan 6 13:01:55 1998
From: pecci at pointest.com (Pecci)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: R: Dimethyl Ether questions
Message-ID: <199801061724.SAA05036@keats.pointest.com>

According several tests performed in Italy DME cetane number is about 50
and octane number (expressed as RON+MON)/2) is about 90.
DME is the only compound that present a suitable behaviour as OTTO and
DIESEL fuel, but it is a gas and then there are many problems to overcome
as an automotive fuel. Amoco, Topsoe and other companies have also recently
shown a great interest for the compound.
Its feasibility as an automotive fuel has been carried out by TNO Reasearch
Institute and the conclusions are very positive.

Giancarlo Pecci

----------
> Da: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
> A: Pecci <pecci@pointest.com>; GASIFICATION <gasification@crest.org>;
BIOENERGY <bioenergy@crest.org>
> Oggetto: Dimethyl Ether questions
> Data: martedì 6 gennaio 1998 13.14
>
> Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
> Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Pecci, Harry et al:
>
> I have long been attracted to dimethyl ether as a propane lookalike
> alternate fuel. It is stored as a liquid under moderate pressure and
used
> as a gas, giving very clean and efficient burning. It is easily made
from
> or instead of methanol.
>
> I am puzzled by it's being proposed as a DIESEL fuel. I have always
> assumed that it is high OCTANE, low CETANE, which would make it a good
OTTO
> (spark) fuel. Most other oxygenates are.
>
> Producer gas and methanol are both high octane fuels and are often used
in
> diesel engines, but not optimally. They perform better in spark engines.

> Does anyone know the OCTANE/CETANE properties of DME?
>
> Puzzled....... TOM REED
>
>

From VHarris001 at aol.com Tue Jan 6 19:59:23 1998
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys
Message-ID: <2903a60c.34b2d20c@aol.com>

Doug,

Thanks for the detail outlined in your response to my posting. Let me see if
I can consolidate and clarify just a bit.

My specific interest lies in small scale gasification of MSW for use in
internal combustion engines. I've found nothing in the literature so specific
and therefore have been trying to extrapolate wood gasification text to my
purpose, which is how I find myself in this particular forum.

To reduce tar production, I initially contemplated downdraft gasification, but
I suppose that bagged trash will prevent downdraft of air unless there is
significant front end processing (shredding, drying).

Also, bulky non-combustibles must be able to pass through the gasifier while
in operation. Since the grate is on the side of the crossdraft gasifier,
allowing non-combustibles to pass through to the ash pit, I began pursuing
that design as the only viable alternative to updraft gasification.

Briefly, my conception was to have bagged MSW serve as a fuel plug for the top
of the gasifier. To have air inlet points down the side of the fire tube just
enough to be below the point where the bags began to heat enough to lose their
restrictivity to air flow (in other words not a true crossdraft design, but
rather a combination downdraft and crossdraft). Once air is into the drying
or distillation zone I hoped it would act more like a downdraft than
crossdraft gasifier. Except, of course, the grate would have to be on the
opposite side of the air inlet points.

After gasification, I hoped the ash would proceed down the firetube (extending
about 2.5' below the the grate) to form an ash plug on the bottom portion of
the firetube and eventually feeding into the ashpit (to be augured out).

I extrapolated the tube dimensions from the table on page 52 of "Construction
of a Simplified wood Gas Generator" from the Biomass Energy Foundation Press.
I calculate from that table that a firetube for a 460 c.i. 245 hp engine would
be about 20.5" in diameter and 41" tall. Do you believe these figures to be
in error or not applicable to MSW gasification?

In a message dated 98-01-04 03:47:27 EST, you write:

<<
Vernon

Before you blow all your money trying to make your MSW gasifier, you should
know more about gasification and how gas is made before you try to resolve
very complex design criteria. In the first instance, bagged MSW would be
the most difficult "stuff" to gasify and certainly not appropriate for
engine application. The most important factor concerning fuel is
consistency of size, moisture and density, qualities not found in bagged
MSW.

>> As you know, MWS has none of the above consistencies without substantial
pre-processing prior to being gasified. It is variable in moisture content.
It has a great deal of packaging consisting primarily of plastics and
paperboard. There are a lot of magazines and newspaper slicks (clay), and
depending on neighborhoods, a lot of food waste (garbage) which can be very
high in moisture content. Would you say that this unprocessed, bagged MSW can
be gasified or not? If not, can it be gasified if it is processed (shredded,
dried)? If so, can it be cleaned sufficiently to fuel IC engines?

In order for the high temperature to be achieved, air must only enter the
gasifier through the nozzles in the oxidation zone. This means you cannot
have your gasifier with open ends as uncontrollable air will leak through
and will not be plugged by fuel or ash.

>>If the gasifier were operating similar to the downdraft design, would it
matter that some air leaked in from the open top?

The 6 foot length of pipe you plan to use at 20 inches, is too large in
diameter. Even if you put air nozzles all around the outside, air would
not penetrate to the centre creating a cold hole through which
distillation gases will pass uncracked. At this stage of your
investigation, I have the impression you have little appreciation of the
problems associated with uncracked hydrocarbons and how fast they block up
your cooling, cleaning, and engine systems.

Whilst it is a wonderful concept to used bagged MSW, even sorted, dried and
densified, it still would be unsuitable for engine gasifier fuel due to the
clay fillers and other mineral contamination that melt into sintered
clinker. Over the years Fluidyne has tested a variety of these waste fuels
for clients, nearly all with the same result, clinker!

Your 460 cubic inch engine will derate about 60% on clean producer gas.
Here is a sample fuel and power calculation:
at 2,000 rpm: Shaft H.P. 71.87 Fuel consumption 141 lbs/hour.

So in answer to your question, "will my idea work?" the short answer is no.
My recommendation is to build yourself a smaller system and run it on wood
or charcoal to learn the practical basics, then if money allows you to
pursue your MSW ideas you will have a better perspective of the design
constraints.

Best Regards

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

>>
>> As you know, MWS has none of the above consistencies without substantial
pre-processing prior to being gasified. Would you say that unprocessed,
bagged MSW can be gasified or not? If so, can it be cleaned sufficiently to
fuel IC engines?

From VHarris001 at aol.com Tue Jan 6 20:29:48 1998
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys
Message-ID: <8c91dc3a.34b2d735@aol.com>

Doug, et al,

Please disregard the last post by me under this heading - it is edited out
snippets of a posting I already made.

Sent by accident - OOPS!

Vernon

From ChumH at tcplink.nrel.gov Wed Jan 7 00:22:18 1998
From: ChumH at tcplink.nrel.gov (Chum, Helena)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Thermochemical Technology Characterizations
Message-ID: <199801070522.AAA11007@solstice.crest.org>

Greetings to all and a great 1998!!!

The DOE/EPRI Technology Characterizations which outline the "best
guess" efficiency and cost projections for most renewable
electricity
generating technologies through the year 2030 have been published.

The report number is:

EPRI TR-109496 December 1997

They are also available on the web at:

http://www.eren.doe.gov/utilities/techchar.html

Please forward this information to anyone you think might have
interest in or use for it.

Thanks,

The NREL Biomass power folks -- Kevin Craig, Rich Bain, Ralph
Overend
and Helena Chum

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Wed Jan 7 02:04:35 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys
Message-ID: <199801070609.TAA01962@powerlink.co.nz>

Vernon

We accessed your drawing O.K. and you might take note of the following
points based on your idea to maintain reduction zone temperature.

(1) Traditional cross-draught designs have only one air nozzle and the
oxidation lobe pulls in a straight line towards the gas exit. The
oxidation doesn't spread out over the whole area and meander across the
width, it cuts through like a knife, leaving the fuel on each side
untouched.

(2) In a variable load situation it is the nozzle velocity that changes and
it is far more logical and easier to make your nozzle adjustable to
maintain the velocity and temperature of the oxidation lobe.

(3) All ash that originates in the oxidation lobe is going to be entrained
with the gas, and multiple outlet pipes will maintain high gas velocities.
This will not only entrain the ash up passed your butterfly valves, but
maintain the gas temperature over 500 degrees C, causing it to reform into
soot and CO2.

(4) Cross draught designs are limited to fuels with very low ash and low
volatile content, such as charcoal or hard coals. They require very stable
and consistent fuel flow, so you cannot mechanically disturb the ash pile
on which the oxidation and reduction char must sit. Slagging of the nozzle
is a major problem for this design of gasifier.

(5) That piece of 20" pipe is going to cause you a lot of unnecessary
problems if you want to build an engine gasifier, or do you want to just
dispose of MSW and run an engine as a bonus?

I will address your questions to me in the next day or so.

Regards

Doug Williams

Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

From Murat.Dogru at newcastle.ac.uk Wed Jan 7 07:10:17 1998
From: Murat.Dogru at newcastle.ac.uk (DOGRU)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Symposium
Message-ID: <B45D3857324@TOWN7.ncl.ac.uk>

Dear List members,

Annoucement for TIEES-98.

> SECOND TRABZON
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT SYMPOSIUM
>

> July 26-29, 1998
>
> Karadeniz Technical University
> Trabzon, Turkey
>
> organized by
>
> Mechanical Engineering Department,
> Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey.
>
> Mechanical Engineering Department,
> King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), Saudi Arabia.
>
> Mechanical Engineering Department, IESVic, and CEOR,
> University of Victoria, Canada.
>
> Mechanical Engineering Department and Clean Energy Research Institute,
> University of Miami, USA.
>
> Mechanical Engineering Faculty,
> Istanbul Technical University, Turkey.
>

> Symposium Committee
> General Chair: Prof.Dr. Teoman Ayhan
>

> Cooperating Institutions and Companies
> British Council
> Center for Earth and Ocean Research (CEOR)
> Institute for Integrated Energy Systems (IESVic)
> International Center for Heat and Mass Transfer
> Istanbul Technical University
> Karadeniz Technical University
> King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM)
> Nagoya University
> Pacific Center of Thermal Fluids Engineering
> The Governorship of Trabzon
> The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)
> Tokyo University of A & T
> Turkish Society of Mechanical Engineers
> Ulusoy Karadeniz Tourism Establishment Co. Ltd.
> Ulutur Travel Agency
> University of Miami
> University of Victoria
>
>
> International Advisory Committee
> F. Aliyev Azerbaijan
> N. Arai Japan
> O. Arici USA
> F. Arinc Turkey
> Y. Bayazitoglu USA
> I. Benko Hungary
> M.O. Budair Saudi Arabia
> E. Ekinci Turkey
> O.L. Gulder Canada
> E. Hahne Germany
> F. Hamdullahpur Canada
> G.J. Hwang Taiwan
> S. Kakac USA
> D. Karman Canada
> I.B. Kilkis USA
> F. Kreith USA
> T.M. Liou Taiwan
> C.H.M. Machielsen Netherlands
> A.A. Malik UK
> F. Mayinger Germany
> J.T. McMullan UK
> T. Miura Japan
> S. Mochizuki Japan
> D. Morris UK
> M. Owen UK
> V.N. Parmon Russia
> S.D. Probert UK
> B.S. Reddy India
> M.A. Rosen Canada
> D.S. Scott Canada
> B. Tabarrok Canada
> V.I. Ugursal Canada
> A. Ulku Turkey
> T.N. Veziroglu USA
> M.J. Whiticar Canada
> W.-J. Yang USA
> T. Yavuz Turkey
> B.S. Yilbas Saudi Arabia
> T. Yilmaz Turkey
> A. Zemel Israel
>
> Contact Addresses
> Dr. Hayati Olgun
> TIEES-98
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
> Karadeniz Technical University
> Trabzon 61080, Turkey
> Tel: (462) 325-3223
> Fax: (462) 325-5526
> E-mail: tiees-98@ovms02.bim.ktu.edu.tr
> &
> Dr. Ibrahim Dincer
> TIEES-98
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
> KFUPM
> Box 127
> Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
> Tel: (966-3) 860-4497
> Fax: (966-3) 860-2949
> E-mail: idincer@dpc.kfupm.edu.sa

> Objectives and Scopes

> The First Symposium, TIEES-96 covered 13 keynote papers, nearly 200
> technical papers from over 30 countries, and over 20 exhibitors. By all
> considerations this meeting was a great success, as it brought together
> researchers from different backgrounds and different countries, all of whom
> have a common interest in energy and the environment.
> Now the second Symposium, TIEES-98 will build up on that success and widen
> its international and local participation. The TIEES-98 is organized by the
> Karadeniz Technical University, King Fahd University of Petroelum and
> Minerals, University of Victoria, University of Miami and Istanbul
> Technical University. The TIEES-98 is planned to provide a forum for
> researchers and practitioners from all over the world to exchange
> information, present new developments, and discuss the future direction and
> priorities in the field of energy and environment.
> Papers describing current research on energy and environment from
> fundamental sciences to applied technologies are hereby solicited. Some key
> areas of the TIEES-98 include, but are not limited to:

> * Biomass and Bioenergy
> * Climate Change/Atmosphere
> * Combustion
> * Energy and Environment Modeling
> * Energy Conservation
> * Energy, Environment and Buildings
> * Environment and Pollution
> * Environment Protection and Control
> * Fuels and Alternatives
> * Geothermal and the Environment
> * New and Clean Energy Technologies
> * Nuclear Energy
> * Solar Energy
> * Thermal Energy Storage
> * Thermal Parameters and Measurement
> Techniques
> * Thermal Systems
> * Thermodynamics, Heat and Mass Transfer,
> and Fluid Flow
> * Trace Gas Emissions and Monitoring
>
> Venue
> The TIEES-98 will be held in Trabzon, the largest and the most attractive
> city on the East Black Sea Region of Turkey. Being located on the Black
> Sea Coast, Trabzon can be easily reached by air, coach or ferry. The city
> contains many historical and touristic sites such as the old city walls,
> mosques, temples, and it offers a variety of cultural events which will
> make your stay a lasting memory.

> Accommodation forms will be sent to contributors and participants with the
> Final Announcement. Trabzon has a wide variety of hotels close to Karadeniz
> Technical University, where the Symposium will be held.
>
> Proceedings
> The proceedings will contain all general and keynote papers, and will be
> published by BEGELL HOUSE, Inc. in the USA. The proceedings will be sent to
> the contributors by the Publisher some time after the Symposium. A Book of
> Abstracts will be included in the registration package.
>
> Language
> The official language of the Symposium is English. Simultaneous translation
> services will not be available.
>
> Deadlines
> March 15, 1998: Paper due
> April 30, 1998: Notification of paper acceptance
> for publication in the Proceedings
> July 26, 1998: Final paper due
>
> Registration Fee
> Before May 31, 98 After May 31, 98
> Full Delegate USD 300 USD 350
> Student Delegate USD 150 USD 200

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Jan 7 15:44:14 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Old but good - 1979 Survey of Biomass Gasification
Message-ID: <199801071548_MC2-2E6D-A1FD@compuserve.com>

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

OK, will make you a special "presentation copy" of the "Best of Survey '79"
and include snips of the best stuff in Vols 1 and 3 from the original 1979
"Survey of Biomass Gasification VOL 1,2,3". But please send mailing
address. Also, first class mailing (air) is $9, slow boat $4. Which do
you prefer?

Tom Reed

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Jan 7 15:44:16 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: "Flaming Pyrolysis" Defined
Message-ID: <199801071548_MC2-2E6D-A1F8@compuserve.com>

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

Assuming you have absorbed the DOWNDRAFT discussion of flaming pyrolysis:

In UPDRAFT gasification air (oxygen) first contacts only charcoal and burns
it and the O2 (and the hearth if you don't cool it) up. Then very hot
CO-N2 (1200-1400C) rises through the fuel, pyrolysing it at (initially)
tempatures above 700C to generate "wood tars", then higher up at
temperatures below 500C generating "wood oil", then even higher drying the
incoming fuel to add water to the tar/oil/gas mess. Hence the tar content
of UPDRAFT gasifiers is typically 10-25%.

FLUIDIZED BED gasifiers are intermediate in O2 contact, and therefor tar
generation between UPDRAFT and DOWNDRAFT gasifiers. Some of the incoming
air/O2 contacts charcoal (as in updraft) and some of it contacts fresh fuel
(as in downdraft). Result: tars 1-5%.

Interested in the difference between wood tar and wood oil?
Cheers, TOM

> If you like, I will extend this discussion to what happens in
>fluidized beds and updraft gasifiers.

>Regards, ........... TOM REED

Please continue.

______________
Alex English
<

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Jan 7 15:44:55 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: R: Dimethyl Ether questions
Message-ID: <199801071548_MC2-2E6D-A1FB@compuserve.com>

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

Thank you for the very knowledgable response on DME. It is always nice to
meet (e-mail fashion) one knowing more than I do. (I'm not dumb, but I
don't know everything - I'm working on it.)

Only one thing puzzles me. You say that compressed gases have trouble in
automotive (Otto) engines. Delivering CG as a gas requires a minor heat
input to the liquid - easily solved in propane use. But delivering a
premixed air/gas mixture eliminatess the need for carburetor and/or
injectors, so isn't it a wash?

Puzzled, TOM REED

From MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com Wed Jan 7 21:40:52 1998
From: MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: "Flaming Pyrolysis" Defined
Message-ID: <199801072145_MC2-2E74-6F76@compuserve.com>

Tom,

Thank you for your very interesting description of the Stratified Downdraft
Gasifier and its "cousins", the fluidized bed and updraft gasifiers. I
don't mind reading long e-mails when they are as informative as yours.

I'm wondering if the use of oxygen instead of air has any dramatic
differences in the performance of the 3 types of gasifiers? Obviously the
"flame" temperatures of an oxygen-blown gasifier will be hotter than those
of an air-blown gasifier. Does this have much influence on tar production
in any of the three models?

Jeff Phillips
Bridgewater, Mass.

From pecci at pointest.com Thu Jan 8 04:09:32 1998
From: pecci at pointest.com (Pecci)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: R: GAS-L: R: Dimethyl Ether questions
Message-ID: <199801080832.JAA07911@keats.pointest.com>

Thank you for the fair words.

In my opinion the problems associated to the use of compressed gases in
automotive engines are not engine problems but logistic problems
(distribution, tank on the car, etc.) above all.
Barriers aginst market introduction of DME are similar to those encountered
by LPG and natural gas; furthermore in the case of DME there is no large
scale production which makes demonstration programs and the first phase
introduction very costly.

Giancarlo Pecci
Energy Consultant
Italy
----------
Da: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
A: INTERNET:gasification@crest.org; Pecci, Giancarlo <pecci@pointest.Com>
Oggetto: GAS-L: R: Dimethyl Ether questions
Data: mercoledì 7 gennaio 1998 21.48

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

Thank you for the very knowledgable response on DME. It is always nice to
meet (e-mail fashion) one knowing more than I do. (I'm not dumb, but I
don't know everything - I'm working on it.)

Puzzled, TOM REED
----------

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Fri Jan 9 03:46:44 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: gasification-digest V1 #603
Message-ID: <199801090751.UAA29202@powerlink.co.nz>

> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 10:59:17 -0500
> From: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
> Subject: GAS-L: "Flaming Pyrolysis" Defined
>
> Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
> Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dear Doug et al:
> <snip>~~~~
> Since I invented the term "flaming pyrolysis" during my downdraft
modelling
> days at NREL (1983-86), I guess I am bound to define it as well as
> possible.
Tom

After digging out one of your original papers on stratified gasification, I
feel the need to comment and clarify some points. I have no recent design
criteria to review the modern stratified downdraught gasifiers which you
say are replacing the old Imbert gasification principle. If anyone "out
there" would like to send me a drawing explaining thew principles of their
successful operation and application, I would be much obliged.

The 7.5cm diameter quartz tube used for your studies provides a principle
of gasification quite unique to the concept.
I have no comment regarding the principle or concept of flaming pyrolysis
in this situation, but it doesn't fit in to describing downdrought
gasifiers (correctly working) based on the Imbert concept. i.e. Round,
multi nozzles, throat reduction etc.

Descending raw wood is subject to radiated heat, and distillation is
accomplished in the absence of free oxygen. Completely carbonised char
should then enter the oxidation zone and on contact with the air stream
producing an incandescent, not glowing, char bed. If you see flames it
isn't incandescent, the fuel is bridging, or too large or wet, and the
gasifier is in the process of consuming the reduction charcoal. You will
also see flames if the dimensions are oversized.
Distillation gases descending into the incandescent oxidising packed bed,
must first pass through the boundary layer of reducing atmosphere that
exists around the outer limits of the oxidising char. Not a lot of
attention is paid to this aspect or the resulting phenomena which is the
source of carbon blacks in the gas stream. Apart from the effect of
passing through this reducing boundary layer, the non flaming distillation
gases are in a reverse situation to the quartz tube where by the
incandescent char is consuming the free oxygen inhibiting flaming
pyrolysis. Having said all that, perfection is not possible with biomass
and you see all sorts of interesting behaviour of the oxidising carbon as
seen through the ignition air nozzle. Whenever we do any testing, it is
one eye on the nozzle, one eye on the manometer and ears on the engine, and
I should mention that reading the bed colour is part of our operators
training programme. Understanding what we see is confirmed by unstacking
the bed which remains intact for 100mm above the nozzles and a very clear
profile of char behaviour is there to observe.

So yes we do see into the char bed and we have a video of the colour, but
it will take some finding.
Our New Zealand system is also incompatible with U.S.A. video so will need
converting somewhere. I will assemble something from our project videos in
due course (if all the cameras still work)!

Finally the 60% derating of engines on producer gas was a careless figure
to quote when discussing modern high compression engines. An average
derating of 40% is correct and up to 60% on old low compression engines.
The sample calculation for Vernons V8 isn't changed and the fuel
consumption and output will be close enough for a country job! I'll ask
the team to review all our engine data calculations against the recorded
performance of the test programme in Germany, and will make comment later
in the year.

Hope the above is fairly interesting, if not, hit delete.

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

From english at adan.kingston.net Fri Jan 9 08:08:37 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: gasification-digest V1 #603
In-Reply-To: <199801090751.UAA29202@powerlink.co.nz>
Message-ID: <199801091313.IAA03580@adan.kingston.net>

> Hope the above is fairly interesting, if not, hit delete.
>
> Regards
> Doug Williams
> Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

Doug,
I hit save.I would be interested in any comments you might have on
the effects of various fuel moisture levels, that Tom briefly
touched upon.

Alex

______________
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

From arcate at email.msn.com Fri Jan 9 15:06:16 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (James R. Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Charcoal from Residues
Message-ID: <097154310200918UPIMSSMTPUSR01@email.msn.com>

As Tom Reed said earlier "One of the problems of ethanol from cane or corn
is that 10-20% of the
plant becomes the ethanol feedstock while the rest of the plant (bagasse,
stover, cobs, field trash, ....) has very little use."

Is anyone interested in making charcoal as a co-product from these residues?
Also how about charcoal from "straw bales"?

I am researching biomass charcoal for energy applications and would
appreciate any referrals to the organizations and people producing these
"biomass resources".

Jim Arcate

From arcate at email.msn.com Fri Jan 9 15:08:21 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (James R. Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Charcoal from Residues
Message-ID: <02ab92912200918UPIMSSMTPUSR04@email.msn.com>

As Tom Reed said earlier "One of the problems of ethanol from cane or corn
is that 10-20% of the plant becomes the ethanol feedstock while the rest of
the plant (bagasse,
stover, cobs, field trash, ....) has very little use."

Is anyone interested in making charcoal as a co-product from these residues?
Also how about charcoal from "straw bales"?

I am rearching biomass charcoal for energy applications and would appreciate
any referrals to the organizations and people producing these "biomass
resources".

Jim Arcate

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sat Jan 10 00:22:04 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: gasification-digest V1 #602
Message-ID: <199801100522.AAA09272@solstice.crest.org>

> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 00:39:59 EST
> From: VHarris001 <VHarris001@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys
>
> In a message dated 98-01-04 03:47:27 EST, you write:
>
> << Whilst it is a wonderful concept to used bagged MSW, even sorted,
dried and
> densified, it still would be unsuitable for engine gasifier fuel due to
the
> clay fillers and other mineral contamination that melt into sintered
> clinker. Over the years Fluidyne has tested a variety of these waste
fuels
> for clients, nearly all with the same result, clinker!
> >>
>
>
> Dear Doug,
>
>
> Thank you for your detailed response! Being new to the entire
gasification
> concept, I feel I have little appreciation for many of the associated
> problems. However, by perusing various gasification publications and
posting
> questions for clarification, I had hoped to avoid building a wood
gasifier and
> go straight to MSW, where my real interest lies.
>
> >From your response (shown above), it appears you maintain that,
generally,
> MSW
> is never suitable for engine gasifier fuel?
>
> In residential MSW, I believe the highest clay content comes from what
are
> known as "slicks," the material most magazines and newspaper inserts are
made
> from. Also, of course, cat litter is clay. If these two components of
the
> residential MSW stream were removed, would MSW still be too laden with
mineral
> contamination for engine gasifier fuel? If so, what are other materials
that
> contribute to the contamination problem?
>
> You indicate the char bed in a gasifier must consist of permeable carbon.
If
> most clay is removed, will the remaining MSW stream ever convert to
permeable
> carbon? Most residential MSW consists of plastic and paperboard
packaging (by
> volume) and food waste (by weight). C & D material, yard waste,
batteries,
> hazardous materials, and many non-combustibles are already being removed
from
> the waste stream here for separate disposal or recycling. Some non-
> combustibles remain, notibly aluminum foil (which I suspect will cause
> problems), ceramics and other metals which I had hoped would pass through
the
> system.
>
> I'll stop there for now because if the clay/minerals problem and the
permeable
> carbon problem cannot be resolved in MSW gasification, there is little
point
> in pursuing gasifier design issues.
>
> Yours,
>
> Vernon Harris
> VHarris001@aol.com

Vernon

In answer to your questions regarding MSW

(1) Who can know what people really put in their garbage bags, but one
thing is for sure, this is one factor that cannot be controlled without
pre-sorting.

(2) Paper and cardboard will not become a permeable carbon bed although
reduction could eventuate in a type of blizzard phenomena. The biggest
problem would be the entrainment and ejection of the oxidising material
before reduction could eventuate.

(3) Everybody puts food wastes into garbage bags, and there is no way this
material will dry without releasing steam reducing the oxidation
temperatures. I suppose there will also be disposable nappies (diapers) in
the garbage (a major problem in New Zealand) which will also make poor
fuel!

(4) Metal tie wire, foil, glass, dirt and dust from vacuum bags all
contribute to forming slag nodules, which then gather up other non
combustibles and form a lump of friable clinker, usually in the reduction
zone.

(5) Within my own personal knowledge of gasification, MSW is for the moment
a none starter for engine fuel, (even separated).

(6) Don't believe all you read about how to size an engine gasifier, and
the dimensions will always then be adjusted to suit the type of fuel wood
you will be using.

(7) Give some consideration to building a stationary plant using a car
engine with an alternator or water pump load bank attached. If you feel
you can handle a lot of construction detail yourself, I'll sort you out
with some dimensions that will work.

Gasification isn't for the faint hearted!

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

From BerryVery at aol.com Sat Jan 10 23:48:41 1998
From: BerryVery at aol.com (BerryVery)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: kielns
Message-ID: <1dd3c800.34b8504c@aol.com>

Hi, My husband has also promised to build me a kieln but I can't find info on
the net. If you have had any luck I would really appreciate any info you have
recieved. thanks

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sun Jan 11 02:50:47 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: : GAS-L: Re: gasification-digest V1 #603
Message-ID: <199801110655.TAA20141@powerlink.co.nz>

>
> Doug,
> I hit save.I would be interested in any comments you might have on
> the effects of various fuel moisture levels, that Tom briefly
> touched upon.
>
> Alex
>
> ______________
> Alex English
> RR 2 Odessa Ontario
> Canada K0H 2H0
> Tel 1-613-386-1927
> Fax 1-613-386-1211
> Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html
>
Alex,

I am not sure how you want me to comment on fuel moisture so will relate
your question to our experience in gasification and you can ask anything
specific later.

Generally speaking, the drier the fuel, the better the gas, and it would
appear that the average practical air dried fuel is about 15% moisture
content. The maximum moisture content we have successfully used was 33% in
Papua New Guinea, and its acceptability was determined by the ability of
the oxidation zone to maintain its incandescent colour. Under no
circumstances should anyone reading this use 33% as being some new
acceptable standard for down draught gasification. It requires very tight
design parameters and no one was more surprised than I was when all the
calculations were sorted out later!

In order to understand the effect of moisture both within combustion and
gasification processes, think of a single wood chip about 1/2 x 1x1 inch
(the size really doesn't matter). Tom has already explained how the
distillation phase must be completed before consumption of the carbon
begins, and there was mention of velocities which of course relates to the
air flow which must impinge onto our fuel particle.

When the particle is heated and distillation of the volatile including
moisture form on the outer surface, the air velocity should sweep it off
where it then burns in the interstitial space. This of course refers more
to combustion but a similar situation exists in packed bed gasifiers. If
there are excessive amounts of moisture naturally it is going to be harder
to burn but that is only part of the problem. On the surface of the fuel
particle we get a stagnant film of steam which diverts the air (if of weak
velocity) to bigger or drier channels in the packed bed. When your fuel
particles are all touching and surrounded by steam vapour, it is not hard
to understand the importance of the air velocity. As the name of the game
is to oxidise the carbon, the hydrocarbon content must be swept off to
establish air contact with the carbon. So if your moisture content is
higher than normally expected, higher velocities 'might' provide a better
pathway to oxidation.

Having just written this, I've remembered a furnace job years ago that
burnt waste cardboard and old wood. It must have smouldered since it was
built, that is until I increased the air velocity. Remember there is only
one source of ignition in a sustained oxidation phase and that's when the
air is impinging on the carbon. Which way and what to do with the
distillation gases depends on how the fuel is being used.
Answering questions in a general way doesn't necessarily provide specific
answers to the problem you and others may be trying to resolve. Everyone
can benefit from a specific question and well reasoned and logistical
answers, which I hope others will also provide to your inquiry.

Hope this helps a little.

Regards

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification

From emdad at hafez.shirazu.ac.ir Sun Jan 11 04:35:42 1998
From: emdad at hafez.shirazu.ac.ir (Farnaz Emdad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Would you help me getting more information about using biomas for producing electricity.
Message-ID: <34B9029C.388E@hafez.shirazu.ac.ir>

Dear Sir/Madam
I am interested in using biomas and swage to produce electricity and
methane as heating sources. I have seen a few digester (anearobic) in
Sourth East Asia and now eagerly looking for more information (books,
documents, articles or websites) on how to setup a system here in Iran.
I would be very greatful if you could let me have more informaiton.
Best wishes and regards.
Dr Mansour EBRAHIMI
AQUATIC RESEARCH GROUP
School of Vet. Med.
Shiraz University
Shiraz, 71345 - 1731
IRAN

Email: ebrahimi@succ.shirazu.ac.ir

NB: Would you please reply to my email not to this server I am using
now.

Best wishes and hopes.

From malcolm.scott at which.net Mon Jan 12 01:06:32 1998
From: malcolm.scott at which.net (malcolm.scott@which.net)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Use of Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <01BD0ADA.7F388240@ao069.du.pipex.com>
Message-ID: <34B8D406.73A2C49@which.net>

For the most part, your heat users will not require heat all year
round. Obviously for CHP to work efficiently, near 100% use must be
made of the heat output. Assuming year round operation of the plant, I
expect this requires industrial heat loads not residential. Could the
plant be located near to industrial loads?
Please excuse my ignorance, but could producer gas be mixed with natural
gas, and therefore be simply sold to the gas company by pumping it into
the nearest gas line? I believe there is great promise in CHP and would
like to see industrial users of low grade heat generating electricity
for the grid as a by-product.
Malcolm Scott

Jim Birse wrote:

> Two commercial demonstration CHP units (both 100kWe) have recently
> been commissioned by members of British BioGen in Northern Ireland.
> Both of these units will ultimately run completely on wood-chip from
> sustainable Short Rotation Coppice (SRC, willow) plantations.
>
> The heat is being used on one site to heat several houses and cottages
> as well as to dry grain and wood-chips, on the other it is used to
> heat a "Museum of Industrial History" and associated offices and
> workshops.

From tk at tke.dk Mon Jan 12 05:10:15 1998
From: tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Charcoal from Residues
In-Reply-To: <097154310200918UPIMSSMTPUSR01@email.msn.com>
Message-ID: <199801121015.LAA22323@proxy.image.dk>

From: "James R. Arcate" <arcate@email.msn.com>
To: "GASIFICATION" <gasification@crest.org>, <strawbale@crest.org>
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Charcoal from Residues
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:08:21 -1000
Reply-to: gasification@crest.org

Hi Jim

Charcoal form straw and other related biomasses are not easy to burn
without slagging.
There is a straw pyrolysis plant i Haslev (Denmark) producing
200-300 kg strawchar an hour. The char is currently burned in a large
boiler (20 MW).

What type of technology and applications do you have in mind?

Regards

Thomas Koch

Is anyone interested in making charcoal as a co-product from these residues?
Also how about charcoal from "straw bales"?

I am researching biomass charcoal for energy applications and would
appreciate any referrals to the organizations and people producing these
"biomass resources".

Jim Arcate

From pdg at del2.vsnl.net.in Mon Jan 12 05:50:00 1998
From: pdg at del2.vsnl.net.in (Dr P D Grover)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ELECTRIFY VILLAGE PROJECT
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.980112161512.22833B-100000@del2.vsnl.net.in>

Dear Mr. Domac,
We "ENERGY RESEARCH APPLICATIONS" an NGO, are engaged in improving the
village life by providing suitable enrgy alternatives for their
applications. We concentrate on small technologies which are easy to
operate. Recently we have provided many villages with a carboniser and a
stove to be used for cooking purposes. These are beehive briquettes with
stoves.
We are now interested in popularising your technology to electrify
villages. Different biomass, locally available, can be used for the
purpose.

If we want to float such a project, kindly let us know what kind of
formalities to be completed. We will be pleased to know if any kind of
incentives or innternational funding is available.

In any case, kindly send the details so that we formulate such a project
for the benefit of remote villages in India.
Thanking you
(S.K.Mishra) for Energy Research Applications, Delhi

From jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com Mon Jan 12 12:10:00 1998
From: jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com (Jane H. Turnbull)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Use of Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <01BD0ADA.7F388240@ao069.du.pipex.com>
Message-ID: <34B9E00E.1985@ix.netcom.com>

Malcolm -

You are quite right in noting that an economically successful CHP
facility will need a heat load which closely matches the power load.
There are some commercial or institutional options, such as eating
establishments (24 hour Denny's and the like), and some hospitals or
schools, as well as industrial opportunities. If you have some gas
storage, you can allow for time of day peaking.

During the early '80s, Pacific Gas and Electric Company put a good deal
of energy and money into trying to clean up landfill gas sufficiently to
inject it into the natural gas supply system, because purchasers of
natural gas are paying for an energy resource with a consistent Btu. It
proved to be far too expensive.

Jane Turnbull

From arcate at email.msn.com Mon Jan 12 15:06:48 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (James R. Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Charcoal from Residues
Message-ID: <021542211200c18UPIMSSMTPUSR01@email.msn.com>

Hello Tom:

>> What type of technology and applications do you have in mind?

Technology: An indirect heated charcoal process, e,g., as developed by Dr.
Michael Antal (HNEI) in Hawaii, or maybe a combination of processes.

Applications: Biomass charcoal power using fluidized bed combustion,
initially co-firing with coal. (Of course, charcoal could also be used as
a feedstock for a gasification based powerplant.) Potential co-products
include activated charcoal & recreational charcoal.

Development sites? I like Hawaii because I live here. But the concept could
have wide appeal,e.g., to meet Green Power objectives. Would a coal
fired utility rather co-fire charcoal or "wood chips"? If you ran a natural
gas C/T cogen plant would you want to process biomass to produce and co-fire
a low Btu gasifier product gas?

Back to Hawaii:
On Oahu: AES Barbers Point could co-fire biomass charcoal made from C&D
"urban wood waste" in their 180 MW coal fired atmospheric fluidized bed
powerplant.
Maui: HC&S could convert excess sugar cane bagasse to charcoal
for co-firing with coal in their Puunene powerplant.
On the Big Island, the HCPC site at Hilo is a good possibility for biomass
charcoal and coal co-firing.

In the future, larger more efficient biomass charcoal / coal power plants
(e.g. PFBC plants) could be constructed on Maui and Hilo.

Anybody interested?

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Koch <tk@tke.dk>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Monday, January 12, 1998 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Biomass Charcoal from Residues

From: "James R. Arcate" <arcate@email.msn.com>
To: "GASIFICATION" <gasification@crest.org>,
<strawbale@crest.org>
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Charcoal from Residues
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:08:21 -1000
Reply-to: gasification@crest.org

Hi Jim

What type of technology and applications do you have in mind?

Regards

Thomas Koch

From malcolm.scott at which.net Mon Jan 12 19:04:24 1998
From: malcolm.scott at which.net (malcolm.scott@which.net)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Use of Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <01BD0ADA.7F388240@ao069.du.pipex.com>
Message-ID: <34BAA38C.FF62223A@which.net>

Jane,
Our local hospital runs a CHP plant, installed within the last year or
two. I believe there is a strong movement for hospital CHPs here. It
seems to be a good match.
I don't know the definition of producer gas, but I thought the
discussion was only on gasifier gas not landfill, which I thought was
mostly methane, like natural gas. There is a landfill site in my area
which I am almost sure injects its gas into the grid. I am also sure
that grid gas is not consistent. Certainly there is provision in the
billing system to vary the charging according to the calorific value.
Malcolm Scott

Jane H. Turnbull wrote:

> There are some commercial or institutional options, such as eating
> establishments (24 hour Denny's and the like), and some hospitals or
> schools, as well as industrial opportunities. If you have some gas
> storage, you can allow for time of day peaking.
>
> During the early '80s, Pacific Gas and Electric Company put a good
> deal
> of energy and money into trying to clean up landfill gas sufficiently
> to
> inject it into the natural gas supply system, because purchasers of
> natural gas are paying for an energy resource with a consistent Btu.
> It
> proved to be far too expensive.
>
> Jane Turnbull

From jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com Mon Jan 12 20:21:14 1998
From: jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com (Jane H. Turnbull)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Use of Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <01BD0ADA.7F388240@ao069.du.pipex.com>
Message-ID: <34BA5327.C16@ix.netcom.com>

Malcolm -

The Btu content of natural gas is at least 1000, while digester gas is
around 550-650 and landfill gas around 550. The latter two have
significant CO2 concentrations, and landfill is likely to have some
volatile acidic contaminants. Gasifier gas will be between 125 and 550,
depending on the process. Air blown gasification results in producer gas
that will be predominantly N2, which will not please your local natural
gas distributor one bit.

In each case, I think you are better off developing a CHP project
directly without trying to sell the gas as a fuel.

What is the capacity of your local hospital system? Do you know whose
boiler is being used and if they have had any problems?

Jane

From ecfujd at slt.lk Mon Jan 12 22:50:45 1998
From: ecfujd at slt.lk (Energy Conservation Fund)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CHP of British BioGen
Message-ID: <199801130355.JAA20848@lakdiva.slt.lk>

Attn: Dr. Jim Birse:

Please let me have the e-mail address of British BioGen who have
commissioned the two CHP plants in Northen Ireland.

Plese reply to:

Attn: P.G.Joseph

ecfujd@slt.lk

From MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com Mon Jan 12 23:39:58 1998
From: MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Use of Producer Gas
Message-ID: <199801122344_MC2-2F10-8B0B@compuserve.com>

Malcolm,

Low BTU producer gas could be mixed with natural gas to produce a "medium"
BTU gas (circa 500 BTU/scf) which could easily be fired in almost any
conventional combustion turbine engine with very little retrofit. The
nitrogen in the producer gas would act as a dilutent, lowering the flame
temperature and hence thermal NOx production. As long as there was no
ammonia or HCN in the producer gas, fuel-NOx would not increase.

When the "Demkolec" integrated gasification combined cycle power plant in
Holland switches from firing on natural gas to the medium BTU gas produced
by the (coal) gasifier, the NOx emissions of the turbine plummet. GE has
also conducted tests on the effects of adding low BTU gas to natural gas in
combustion turbines and has reached the same conclusions (i.e., lower NOx).

Jeff Phillips
Bridgewater, Mass.

From VHarris001 at aol.com Tue Jan 13 08:35:42 1998
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Use of Producer Gas
Message-ID: <23da1630.34bb6eaf@aol.com>

In a message dated 98-01-12 12:17:39 EST, you write:

<<
During the early '80s, Pacific Gas and Electric Company put a good deal
of energy and money into trying to clean up landfill gas sufficiently to
inject it into the natural gas supply system, because purchasers of
natural gas are paying for an energy resource with a consistent Btu. It
proved to be far too expensive.
>>

The economics of landfill gas (LFG) management have changed dramatically in
the last year. Many landfills now are subject to air emission standards and
now must solve their emission problems. You will now see a great deal of
money thrown at LFG recovery and processing.

The least costly solution will ultimately prevail and it appears that most are
opting to generate electricity and dump it on the local power grid. BFI,
using Caterpillar technology opened a new electric generating facility just
last month.

However, where natural gas systems are in place it would make sense to pump
the gas into that system. Is is complicated or expensive to upgrade LFG to
the required 1000 BTU?

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Fri Jan 16 03:46:24 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Use of Producer Gas C.H.P.Realities
Message-ID: <199801160750.UAA20214@powerlink.co.nz>

>
> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:15:35 +0000
> From: malcolm.scott@which.net (malcolm.scott@which.net)
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Use of Producer Gas
>
> For the most part, your heat users will not require heat all year
> round. Obviously for CHP to work efficiently, near 100% use must be
> made of the heat output. Assuming year round operation of the plant, I
> expect this requires industrial heat loads not residential. Could the
> plant be located near to industrial loads?
> Please excuse my ignorance, but could producer gas be mixed with natural
> gas, and therefore be simply sold to the gas company by pumping it into
> the nearest gas line? I believe there is great promise in CHP and would
> like to see industrial users of low grade heat generating electricity
> for the grid as a by-product.
> Malcolm Scott
>
> Jim Birse wrote:
>
> > Two commercial demonstration CHP units (both 100kWe) have recently
> > been commissioned by members of British BioGen in Northern Ireland.
> > Both of these units will ultimately run completely on wood-chip from
> > sustainable Short Rotation Coppice (SRC, willow) plantations.
> >
> > The heat is being used on one site to heat several houses and cottages
> > as well as to dry grain and wood-chips, on the other it is used to
> > heat a "Museum of Industrial History" and associated offices and
> > workshops.
>
Malcolm,

Whilst it goes without saying that CHP adds considerably to the economics
of electrical power generation via gasifiers, the waste heat itself can
only be used where either existing heating systems are in place, or new
ones installed.
The seasonal demand for heating means that existing heating plant also have
seasonal problems, and to purchase waste heat from another source further
jeopardises their economics. This isn't the situation everywhere, but it
is a problem for us in Germany.

Answers to any of these problems will have to wait until there is legal
obligation to purchase renewable energy, and consumers accept the higher
charges.
Possibly with the ice storms proving the vulnerability of centralised
electricity production in the U.S.A., local CHP from biomass would have to
offer an attractive sustainable alternative.

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

From jim.birse at dial.pipex.com Fri Jan 16 05:56:30 1998
From: jim.birse at dial.pipex.com (Jim Birse)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Use of Producer Gas C.H.P.Realities
Message-ID: <01BD226D.F60BF3C0@ac176.du.pipex.com>

Dear Readers,

Obviously the economics of biomass CHP will be at their best where the heat output has a use and thus a value all of the time. There are many markets that fit the bill in this respect, including rural industry; Sawmills with drying kilns on-site for example, large laundry operations serving rural hotels and restaurants, rural leisure centres and boarding schools (swimming pools have great potential as heat stores / dumps) etc.

Often the heat product will have a variety of uses; heating residential property, drying grain, drying wood-chip etc. which may allow use of the heat to be maximised.

In some circumstances it may prove economic to convert the heat product in to a cold water product during warmer months for use in office/residential air conditioning systems. The experience of CitiGen in running natural gas CHP in the City of London is that their cold water product for air conditioning is their most saleable product.

Markets for biomass CHP are potentially huge, realising this potential is simply a matter of developing biomass CHP products that meet the demands and desires of those markets.

Best Regards,

Jim Birse

===================================================================================
Jim Birse Tel: 0171 831 7222
British BioGen Fax: 0171 831 7223
7th Floor info@britishbiogen.co.uk
63-66 Hatton Garden www.britishbiogen.co.uk
London EC1N 8LE
British BioGen are Trade Association to the UK Bio-Energy Industry

-----Original Message-----
From: Graeme Williams [SMTP:graeme@powerlink.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 1998 8:46 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Cc: malcolm.scott@which.net
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Use of Producer Gas C.H.P.Realities

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sat Jan 17 16:12:11 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: cold fusion
Message-ID: <199801171616_MC2-2FAC-8C72@compuserve.com>

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

This week I decided to upgrade to a 56 Baud modem - US Robotics, only $99
with rebate. I spent ALL WEEK trying to install, only to find it was
defective! Bought a new one, and now CS won't recognize my password.
GRRRRR! Hope to be back on line Monday. I'll probably find my mailbox too
full. If you have not had a response from me, please re-send.
~~~~
You asked:
Are all the projects outlined in Eugene Mallove magazine INFINITE ENERGY
a lot of hype including the PATTERSON FUEL CELL? This cell was shown on
the tv show Good MORNING AMERICA last fall.

Didn't see the show and have no specific info on Patterson Fuel Cell. If
you have a reference, I will look.

HOWEVER, there is a great deal of HYPE in the energy field, plus other
well intentioned Yankee inventors who don't believe in science, so CAVEAT
EMPTOR.

TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sat Jan 17 16:12:24 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Use of Producer Gas
Message-ID: <199801171616_MC2-2FAC-8C71@compuserve.com>

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

This week I decided to upgrade to a 56 Baud modem - US Robotics, only $99
with rebate. I spent ALL WEEK trying to install, only to find it was
defective! Bought a new one, and now CS won't recognize my password.
GRRRRR! Hope to be back on line Monday. I'll probably find my mailbox too
full. If you have not had a response from me, please re-send.
~~~~It would be nice if producer gas could
be mixed with natural gas for pipelining. However, the energy content of
PG is typically 5-6 MJ/m3 (150 Btu/scf) while pipeline gas is 30 MJ/m3
(1,000 Btu/scf). It is usually not economical to compress and pipeline PG.

Another nice idea gone to hell! Sorry, TOM
REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sat Jan 17 16:17:34 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen vs Air gasifiers
Message-ID: <199801171622_MC2-2FAC-8CCD@compuserve.com>

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

~~~~ ~~~~~
You asked about the difference between oxygen and air gasification.

As long as a fixed bed gasifier has an excess of fuel and a reservoir of
charcoal, it will operate on oxygen at no more than 50C above the
temperature on air at the grate, even though the tight local flaming
pyrolysis flamelets may have temperatures much higher.

For fixed bed gasifiers, since the oxygen first meets charcoal, the
temperature at the grate is potentially 3000 C. However, the Purox
gasifier injected the oxygen above the grate and it immediately reacted
with an H2O/CO2 rich gas that dragged the temperature much lower.

In a fluidized bed, if the oxygen first meets unpyrolyzed fuel, the
pyrolysis process will drag the potential flame temperature down as in (a).
However, the overall bed temperature is determined by the thermodynamics
and could be 800C at the "carbon saturation point". (Wish I had a
blackboard to diagram this - see our first SURVEY book.) So, depends on
details of feeding. I have never seen any
good measurements on this. Have you?

Regards, TOM REED

I hope this is useful comments.

From malcolm.scott at which.net Sun Jan 18 17:05:53 1998
From: malcolm.scott at which.net (malcolm.scott@which.net)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Use of Producer Gas C.H.P.Realities
In-Reply-To: <01BD226D.F60BF3C0@ac176.du.pipex.com>
Message-ID: <34C14748.7CF5649A@which.net>

Can you please clarify the phrase "cold water product".

Please forgive a simple question with regard to CHP. Is it more cost
and environmentally effective to gasify biomass for an engine driven
generator, or burn it for a steam driven generator?
Malcolm Scott

Jim Birse wrote:

> In some circumstances it may prove economic to convert the heat
> product in to a cold water product during warmer months for use in
> office/residential air conditioning systems. The experience of
> CitiGen in running natural gas CHP in the City of London is that their
> cold water product for air conditioning is their most saleable
> product.

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Jan 18 19:26:03 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE:Wood waste fired turbine/cogeneration unit
Message-ID: <199801181930_MC2-2FCC-F783@compuserve.com>

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

You have "hit the jackpot" here at CREST (Bioenergy, Gasification, Stoves)
for wood waste utilization. First step is look in the archives of CREST
(www.Crest.org).

Let me say that the long range target for efficient biomass energy
conversion is gasification to operate a gas turbine in series with a steam
turbine. Could give 45% efficiency someday. However, it requires
perfection of several technologies and would be very costly today.

Meanwhile gasification to clean producer gas to run GAS (converted diesel)
engines is practical today for 100 to 5000 kW (> 30% efficient). And even
easier is dirty producer gas to make steam (20% efficient). Utilization of
the waste heat from these processes would more than double their
efficiency.

Good hunting, TOM REED (moderator)

> To: bioenergy@crest.org
> Subject: RE:Wood waste fired turbine/cogeneration unit
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Sender: owner-bioenergy@crest.org
> Precedence: bulk
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> our plant produces wood waste in pulverised form in total volume about
> 8000 t/yr.
> We are looking for the most efficient utilization of our wood waste -
> combined production of heat and electric power in cogeneration unit
> seems to be very suitable for us.
> By our opinion, the best solution would be direct combustion of wood
> dust in combustion chamber of the turbine. Heat and electric energy from
> the turbine would be used in our technology directly.
>
> Do you have any information about the similar project in the world
> and/or can you recommend us manufactures of the above mentioned
> wood-fired turbines ?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
>
> Miroslav Behun,
> Technical Director
>
> -----------------------------------
> TERMOREG s.r.o.
> Hlinicka 1
> 83105 Bratislava
> SLOVAKIA
> tel : +421-7-5283139
> fax : +421-7-5283137
> e-mail : termoreg@netlab.sk
>
>
>
Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Jan 18 19:27:06 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Charcoal and too many Toms
Message-ID: <199801181930_MC2-2FCC-F780@compuserve.com>

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

Lest there be future confusion, let me explain the TOMs in the gasification
network and urge all of them to append their last names when writing. (I
though last letter from Arcate was to Tom Reed, but decided after puzzling
that it was to Tom Koch.

O Tom Reed, me, former SERI/NREL, now Dept. of Chemical Engineering at
Colorado school of Mines; now writing "Survey of Biomass Gasification" for
NREL, moderator (with Esteban Chornet) of this GASIFICATION group

O Tom Miles Jr., or just Tom Miles, of Tom Miles Engineering, Overlord
(with Majordomo) of BIOENERGY for CREST, a major expert in his business on
straw, wood, biomass feeding and biomass combustion, and a great guy. To
the great loss of the biomass world, Tom Miles Sr. Died last year, but his
wife Molly continues active in this field

O Tom Milne semi-retired at NREL, author of several books on biomass, a
world expert on mass spectrometry of biomass pyrolysis products, formerly
my boss at SERI and a great guy

O Tom Koch of Denmark, newest TOM on the network, an entrepeneur
gasification and straw expert, and a great guy

SO.............All Toms append last names from now on!

~~~~
CHARCOAL:

There is cooking charcoal, as in barbecues and third world countries, and
there is metalurgical and activated charcoal among dozens of other
categories and subcategories. If someone will come up with $25,000 to
support a student at CSM, I would love to straighten all this out.
Meanwhile.............

Cooking charcoal is made by heating to 400 C and contains 20% volatiles
which helps it to light. It is a luxury in developed countries and a
necessity for many developing countries and to save the forests and .....
It typically can contain 10-20% ash which helps it burn better. If you
are thinking of firing boilers with it, don't because the higher combustion
temperatures will cause slagging. Instead, think of ways of producing it
to help the 3 billion people in this old world who still can't cook a
decent meal. It is a continuing subject on the STOVE node of CREST, so
sign up and help if you can.

Yours Truly, Tom REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Jan 18 19:27:09 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: straw fired furnace
Message-ID: <199801181931_MC2-2FCC-F795@compuserve.com>

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

You asked:
Vidir Machine is a business located in Arborg about 100km north of Wpg.
They are using an outdoor coal fired furnace made by Cozeburn also in
Arborg, however, the furnace is not dependable and as a result Vidir has
approached us with a proposal to design a straw fired furnace to heat his
business. The plan is to give or sell the technology developed at Vidir
back to Cozeburn so that Cozeburn can commercialize it.

My problem is that I have an NREL report here indicating that straw fired
furnaces have severe corrosion problems that are not apparent during first
use. Tom Miles was one of the authors of the report and I think I have
talked to him about this in the past and he has not been a promoter of
straw furnaces because of this corrosion problem. In addition, it is my
opinion that if straw furnaces were a good idea we would by now see them
all across the prairies, however, that is not the case: why?

Any thoughts on this????? Pete DeGraff
~~~~
The answer to your straw burning question is simple. Straws contain 5-20%
ash. Some components are volatile at much lower temperatures than anyone
suspected, as shown by work of Tom Miles and others. Result, slag on the
boiler tubes.

In Denmark they burn a lot of straw and may have found ways around this for
straw combustion. However, they are working hard on pyrolysis of the
straw, burning only the volatiles. There are many things to do with the
remaining char-ash, but at least it won't slag the boiler pipes.

Wouldn't it be nice if all the char-ashes from all the straws in the world
could be used for 3rd world cooking and in developed coutries for
barbecuing?

Cheers, TOM REED

From MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com Sun Jan 18 21:14:18 1998
From: MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen vs Air gasifiers
Message-ID: <199801182117_MC2-2FCC-FDA4@compuserve.com>

Tom,

Continuing the discussion about air versus oxygen gasification, I know that
in coal gasification there is a term call "cold gas efficiency" (CGE) which
is defined as the flow of chemical energy in the "syngas" divided by the
flow of chemical energy in the coal being fed to the system. In other
words, CGE tells you how much of the coal's heating value ends up in the
gaseous fuel product.

Naturally the higher the CGE the better. Oxygen-blown coal gasifiers
typically have CGEs of about 80%. The other 20% of the coal's heating
value is (mostly) converted to thermal energy which can either be recovered
by raising steam while cooling the syngas or "thrown away" by quenching the
syngas with water.

Air-blown coal gasifiers have lower CGEs because some of the coal's energy
has to be used to heat the nitrogen in the air up to the exit temperature
of the gasifier. This also means that more money has to be spent on bigger
heat recovery systems or more of the coal's energy is "lost" via wet
quenching.

I assume the same applies to biomass gasifiers?

Because of the CGE advantage, all of the large coal IGCCs (Shell/Demkolec
in Holland, Texaco/TECO in Polk County, Florida, Destec/PSI in Terre Haute,
Indiana, and Prenflo/Endesa in Puertollano, Spain) are oxygen-blown. Of
course, all of these plants are 250 MWe or larger. For the smaller sizes
that are being discussed for biomass gasifiers it is probably not
economical to have an air separation plant supplying oxygen.

Jeff Phillips
Bridgewater, Mass.

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Mon Jan 19 17:01:43 1998
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (William B. Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen vs Air gasifiers
Message-ID: <199801192206.QAA06889@ns1.corpcomm.net>

To: Tom and Jeff
Re.: A cost-saving possibility for O2-blown gasifiers.
This sounds like something you might find of interest.

A typical cost estimate for an O2-blown gasification plant - coal or
biomass - includes some standard number for an Air-separation plant to
produce O2, which is typically based on the cost of high-purity O2
production for other markets. Most biomass gasification processes, unles
they're trying to make a syngas for methanation or for some other
conversion step, don't need high purity, and smaller amounts of N2 are
acceptable. So, a cheaper, less complete air separation plant can offer
most of the benifits of N2-reduction, if not complete elimination.
F'rinstence, if a gasifier uses a 50% O2/N2 mixture, it will achieve
about 75% of the benefit of using pore O2 in place of air, but at a
substantially reduced cost. This is because the capital and energy costs of
O2 production increase steeper than linearly with increasing purity of O2
required. Several years ago, I had a rather impressive report on this, and
got the impression that it was not as generally known as it sounds like it
ought to be. The concept is fairly obvious. Unfortunately, that went The
Way of All Paper a couple of file cleanings ago. And I don't remember who
it was by. An interesting study would be the cost of O2-blown gasification
as a function of O2 purity and scale, including the O2 enrichment plant --
which I'm sure has been done..
I hope this input may be of some use.
Bill
Hauserman

----------
> From: Jeff Phillips <MaryPhillips1@compuserve.com>
> To: INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen vs Air gasifiers
> Date: Sunday, January 18, 1998 8:16 PM
>
> Tom,
>
> Continuing the discussion about air versus oxygen gasification, I know
that
> in coal gasification there is a term call "cold gas efficiency" (CGE)
which
> is defined as the flow of chemical energy in the "syngas" divided by the
> flow of chemical energy in the coal being fed to the system. In other
> words, CGE tells you how much of the coal's heating value ends up in the
> gaseous fuel product.
>
> Naturally the higher the CGE the better. Oxygen-blown coal gasifiers
> typically have CGEs of about 80%. The other 20% of the coal's heating
> value is (mostly) converted to thermal energy which can either be
recovered
> by raising steam while cooling the syngas or "thrown away" by quenching
the
> syngas with water.
>
> Air-blown coal gasifiers have lower CGEs because some of the coal's
energy
> has to be used to heat the nitrogen in the air up to the exit temperature
> of the gasifier. This also means that more money has to be spent on
bigger
> heat recovery systems or more of the coal's energy is "lost" via wet
> quenching.
>
> I assume the same applies to biomass gasifiers?
>
> Because of the CGE advantage, all of the large coal IGCCs (Shell/Demkolec
> in Holland, Texaco/TECO in Polk County, Florida, Destec/PSI in Terre
Haute,
> Indiana, and Prenflo/Endesa in Puertollano, Spain) are oxygen-blown. Of
> course, all of these plants are 250 MWe or larger. For the smaller sizes
> that are being discussed for biomass gasifiers it is probably not
> economical to have an air separation plant supplying oxygen.
>
> Jeff Phillips
> Bridgewater, Mass.

From MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com Mon Jan 19 22:14:22 1998
From: MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen vs Air gasifiers
Message-ID: <199801192206_MC2-2FEA-3873@compuserve.com>

Bill,

I, too, recall a study on oxygen purity versus gasification plant cost. I
believe it was sponsored by EPRI and conducted by Air Products with input
from Krupp Koppers (suppliers of the Prenflo coal gasification process).
I seem to remember that the study concluded that the optimum purity was
between 80 and 95% (with the curve being very flat in that region). One of
the reasons for the optimum purity being relatively high is that higher
purity O2 means less volume of gas and therefore lower compression costs.
Prenflo and almost all the other major coal gasification systems run at 20
bar+ since they are producing gas for a combustion turbine which requires
fuel at high pressure. I would guess that the optimum purity would be
lower for an atmospheric pressure gasifier.

Jeff Phillips
Bridgewater, Mass.

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Jan 20 19:08:23 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen vs Air gasifiers
Message-ID: <199801201909_MC2-3012-D416@compuserve.com>

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

I agree the the CGE of oxygen gasifiers should be significatly higher than
for air blown. I looked in our "Air-Oxygen Stratified Downdraft Gasifier"
book at the data on Run 10, but there wasn't enough data to calculate CGE.
1300 lb/hr feed rate, but no indicatin of quantity of gas produced ( 290 -
350 Btu/scf).

Most (naive) people think that oxygen gasification is much more expensive
and difficult than air gasification. NOT! (At least in fixed beds.)

Any comments from the fluidized bed gallery?

Yours, TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Jan 21 08:38:29 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: forwarded message on co-firing wood and oil
Message-ID: <199801210843_MC2-3017-5AC0@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am forwarding a valid concern from Kirk Smith on the burning of used
motor oil. Among other questions it raises is "how used"? Another is
what the alternatives are.

Comments?
-------------Forwarded Message-----------------

From: "Kirk R. Smith", INTERNET:krksmith@uclink4.berkeley.edu
To: Thomas Reed, REEDTB

Date: 1/19/98 9:36 PM

RE: Re: forwarded message on co-firing wood and oil
Subject: Re: forwarded message on co-firing wood and oil

Tom, I worry a bit about this, since used motor oil can have various toxic
metals in it that can create nasty exposures when burned if not vented far
from people. Do you know anything about this problem? Best/K

At 07:31 PM 1/18/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
>Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Dear Mike Meyers;
>
>You asked:
>
>Hi!!
>I have a question for you. My son-inlaw is a farmer in Illlinois. He
>uses a home made wood stove to heat his workshop and would like to
>attach an oil burning feature to his existing wood stove.. He would be
>burning used motor oil from their tractors and machinery. Can you help
>with ideas or suggestions on how he might design such an attachment.
>
>Thank You
>Mike Myers
>mmyers@csj.net
>
>I suppose this is a widespread problem, and maybe we can gin up a
>widespread solution. Most homes (including my former one) in New England
>use an "oil gun" furnace. The parts are probably available under $200. It
>fires into a plenum furnace (made with insulation like riser sleeves) and
>then to the heat exchangers. I am sure that this could be attached in
>series or parallel to the wood stove to provide dual fuel capability. It
>might be necessary to cut the thick motor oil with some diesel (or heat it)
>so it would flow to the burner.
>
>Please try this out and report back.
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED
>
>
>

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Jan 21 08:39:07 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Too Long Files
Message-ID: <199801210843_MC2-3017-5AC3@compuserve.com>

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

More and more I have been delighted to be receiving long files with
documents and pictures. So much so, that I bought a 58 kB modem (life is
short - buy baud).

HOWEVER: A really long file (>1 Meg) takes 4-5 minutes to download and
keeps me from reading my other mail. I don't think we should send them to
the whole list.

I SUGGEST that as a matter of courtesy we warn the list when sending files
longer than 200 kB, and only send them to those that reply, requesting
them.

COMMENTS?

Frankly yours, TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Jan 21 08:56:59 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Degree of Oxygen
Message-ID: <199801210843_MC2-3017-5AC1@compuserve.com>

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

The comments on the optimum amount of oxygen in a gasifier have been very
interesting. I worked at Linde Oxygen, (now Praxair) in 1952-56 and worked
on the molecular sieves used eventually in separating N2 from air. I built
and ran a high pressure oxygen gasifier at SERI/NREL in the 1980s for
making methanol, so I am interested and knowledgable.

Before answering the question of what is optimum oxygen enrichment, it is
necessary to know the final use:

O For syn-fuel production (from CO, H2) >99% is required because the feed
is tyupically recycled through the catalyst several times and impurities
build up and slow the reaction down. Also there should be a minimum of CH4
and other hydrocarbons (at least for methane). That is why the RFP
resulting in the "bagasse to methanol" Hawaii project was flawed by having
high hydrocarbon content in the "syn-gas" proposed.

O If the gas is to be used on site at 1 atmosphere, probably 21% O2 is just
fine.

O If the gas is to be compressed and sent through a pipeline, the costs are
so site and line specific that the optimum must be calculated for each
case.

O Gas turbines must run with a high degree of excess air - or nitrogen -
because the blades can't stand too high a temperature. Therefore they can
run without penalty on low energy producer gas.

Question: I have long been puzzled by the use of oxygen in the California
coal-oxygen plant near Barstow (name escapes me this early in morning).

Can anyone explain?

Truly, TOM REED

From eboehm at ecm.cz Wed Jan 21 09:57:08 1998
From: eboehm at ecm.cz (Erik Boehm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Request for information
Message-ID: <C1256593.00515CF9.00@nsmail.ecm.cz>

To whom it may concern,

I am looking for information on European market prices for brown coal and a
friend of mine in the boiler control business suggested that you might be
able to help.

I work for ECM, an investment group located in Prague in the Czech
Republic. I am analyzing a Czech brown-coal mining company and would like
to have an idea of what European market prices are for brown coal in order
to complete my analysis.

I would very much appreciate your assistance if you would happen to know
where I can find this information.

Sincerely,

Erik Boehm

From jmoersc at gwdg.de Wed Jan 21 10:07:03 1998
From: jmoersc at gwdg.de (Johannes Moerschner)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Too Long Files
In-Reply-To: <199801210843_MC2-3017-5AC3@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <34C619F6.FC5@gwdg.de>

Hey Tom and all,

you are perfectly right with your idea. My suggestion: It should be
allways possible to send such pictures or other extended files as
attachment only on request! For those who are able to do so also a
html-download or -file could be a solution! And always included: a short
description in the message of what is to expect downloading or
requesting a special document.

Johannes Moerschner

Thomas Reed wrote:

> Hey Guys and Gals:
>
> More and more I have been delighted to be receiving long files with
> documents and pictures. So much so, that I bought a 58 kB modem (life is
> short - buy baud).
>
> HOWEVER: A really long file (>1 Meg) takes 4-5 minutes to download and
> keeps me from reading my other mail. I don't think we should send them to
> the whole list.
>
> I SUGGEST that as a matter of courtesy we warn the list when sending files
> longer than 200 kB, and only send them to those that reply, requesting
> them.
>
> COMMENTS?
>
> Frankly yours, TOM REED

--
________________________________________________________
Dipl.-Ing.agr. Johannes Moerschner
Forschungs- und Studienzentrum Landwirtschaft und Umwelt
(Research Center Agriculture and the Environment)
UNIVERSITY OF GOETTINGEN, Germany
Am Vogelsang 6, D - 37075 Göttingen, Germany

e-mail: jmoersc.gwdg.de
Tel: +49-551-39 93 41 Fax: +49-551-39 22 95

More about my interests on internet:
Institute-homepage Agrartechnik: http://gwdu19.gwdg.de/~uaat/
Project description in German on: http://gwdu19.gwdg.de/~uaat/energ.htm
Project description in English on: "sorry, still under construction"
=========================================================

From MIHWP at TTACS.TTU.EDU Wed Jan 21 16:56:29 1998
From: MIHWP at TTACS.TTU.EDU (Harry W. Parker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Too Long Files
In-Reply-To: <199801210843_MC2-3017-5AC3@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <34C66FA0.6AE25291@ttacs.ttu.edu>

Hello all,

I agree on the long file problem, and wih the suggestion of posting long
files as HTML documents. I have posted some of my documents at various
URL's. I am now considering consolidating them into one site that would
also indicate my availability as an experienced engineering consultant
in many energy and environmental areas.

Harry

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Jan 22 18:20:55 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (L INVENT)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: No Subject - See Attachment
Message-ID: <4ec5ba1e.34c7d21a@aol.com>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bin00019.bin
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 19654 bytes
Desc: "thomas let and more"
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19980122/310ee556/bin00019.bin
From Maria.Barrio at tev.ntnu.no Fri Jan 23 03:22:10 1998
From: Maria.Barrio at tev.ntnu.no (Maria Barrio)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: See Attachment
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980123092451.0069c0a8@termus.termo.unit.no>

Dear all:

I would suggest to give some information about the content of the
attachment or, at least, the type of file that it is.

Unfortunately, my computer does not know what to do with the attachment I
got this morning!

Thanks,

Maria Barrio
The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Institute of Thermal Energy and Hydropower
Kolbjørn Hejes vei 1A,7034 Trondheim
NORWAY
Telephone:+47 73598390
Telefax:+47 73592700

From K.K.Prasad at phys.tue.nl Fri Jan 23 07:44:17 1998
From: K.K.Prasad at phys.tue.nl (K. K. Prasad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Too Long Files
Message-ID: <199801231249.NAA14743@silicon.tue.nl>

Tom Reed and others

I agree with Tom Reed's suggestion about long files.

I hope it'll be taken heed to by the prospective senders of Megabyte
files.

Prasad

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Jan 23 07:55:18 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: FW: forwarded message on co-firing wood and oil
Message-ID: <199801230758_MC2-3063-B439@compuserve.com>

Dear Skip Hayden and Kirk Smith:

Thanks for your warning comments on used oil co-firing for stoves. Sorry I
gave a lesser half baked (or half digested?) opinion.

Remember,though farmers are excellent mechanics and can usually get around
problems when they understand them. Maybe they change their tractor oil
every 3,000 miles in brand new tractors and have zero metallic particles.
Now they know the caveats.

Your message came through loud and clear and to make sure mine is corrected
I am posting this to STOVES and GASIFICATION. Keep lurking!

TOM REED

From heat-win at mcmail.com Fri Jan 23 09:15:46 1998
From: heat-win at mcmail.com (T J Stubbing)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: GAS-L; Charcoal and too many Toms
Message-ID: <34C8A8F3.45@mcmail.com>

Dear Gasification,

Here is yet another Tom. Sorry!

Having surfed your lengthy corespondence in search of information on
charcoal manufacture I am both fascinated and impressed.

I am the mad inventor of "airless drying" which is a patented energy
efficient industrial superheated steam drying process already being used
in the UK, the USA, Denmark, Mexico and Costa Rica to dry ceramics.

I have devised a concept whereby charcoal might be made in three lagged
chambers linked by valved ducts and having an adjoining, shared
indirect heater and condenser, each chamber having its own recirculation
fan.

To get the process started when all three chambers are loaded with moist
wood some oil or gas would be burnt into the indirect heater so as to
heat the first chamber in which air is recirculated to heat the wood.

Once both the atmosphere and the moist wood in that chamber have been
heated to above 100 degrees centigrade, the steam generated from some of
the wood's surface moisture at the rate of 27 cubic feet/lb of 1.67
cubic metres/kg replaces the chamber's initially contained air and
drying is completed in a recirculating amosphere of dry superheated
steam.

Meanwhile the around 250 to 300 degrees centigrade flue gases from the
first chamber's indirect heater are fed into the second chamber and
recirculated there to begin a conventional pre-drying process. As soon
as steam begins to be generated in the first chamber, this is fed into
the condenser and its energy used to heat ambient air to 95 degrees
before it is added to the flue gases recirculating in the second chamber
and accellerates that chamber's pre-drying stage.

Once the wood in the first chamber is dry the recirculating superheated
steam heats the dry wood to the around 245 degrees centigrade at which I
understand carbonisation begins.

When carbonisation in the first chamber begins the valves in the shared
ducting system are moved so that:

a) The gases produced in the first chamber replace the oil or gas being
burnt in the indirect heater,

b) The the seond chamber's atmosphere is recirculated over the indirect
heater enabling it to become superheated steam as described above
and that chamber's airless drying phase to begin, and

c) The third chamber's conventional pre-drying phase to begin.

Once carbonisation in the first chamber is complete, part or all of the
second chamber's superheated steam recirculation could be made to pass
through it, cooling the carbon without risk of it igniting and adding
its stored sensible energy to the second chamber's drying energy.

In any event the charcoal is then removed from the first chamber and
replaced with a fresh charge of moist wood.

The second chamber's wood then begins to carbonise and heat the airless
process beginning to take place in the third chamber the energy from
which begins to pre-dry the wood in the first chamber, and so on through
the operating sequence in a preferably 24 hours/day process.

With a UK forestry company interested and a willing system manfacturer
to hand, I am beginning the preparation of a schematic design and to
calculate the overall energy effect. There may even be a surplus of
carbonisation energy which could be used to dry other wood.

Your comments on this would be most welcome.

Unfortunately I have not yet purchased a scanner so cannot send you full
information on airless drying. Perhaps one of you has one, in which
case I would be pleased to fax or post it to him or her to be relayed to
you.

Regards,

Thomas J Stubbing

From heat-win at mcmail.com Sun Jan 25 12:50:57 1998
From: heat-win at mcmail.com (T J Stubbing)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Energy-Efficient Charcoal Production
Message-ID: <34CB7E27.276D@mcmail.com>

Dear Gasification,

The message I added to your correspondence on Friday was humourously
entitled "Charcoal and too many Toms".

In fact it introduces a new concept for the integrated drying of wood
and production of charcoal from it and I have already received a
generous response from Alex English in Canada offering to convert the
text and schematic outline, etc., which I have faxed to him to "small
file sized, black and white Gif for Email distribution".

This message is just to let you know what my first one was really about
and what is happening now.

Regards,

Thomas J Stubbing

From MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com Sun Jan 25 18:35:48 1998
From: MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Degree of Oxygen
Message-ID: <199801251840_MC2-309C-4F9D@compuserve.com>

Tom et al.,

The coal gasification plant near Barstow, California was named the "Cool
Water IGCC". It was a 110 MWe combined cycle located right next to the
Solar One power plant.

The Cool Water plant was based on Texaco's coal gasification process which
uses coal-water slurry in an entrained flow reactor. The residence times
in entrained flow reactors are typically less than 10 seconds, so good
mixing of the coal and the oxidiant are necessary to get decent conversion
rates. This good mixing is accomplished by blasting the oxygen into the
reactor at high velocity, which creates a high pressure drop through the
oxygen nozzle. Consequently, the oxygen has to be supplied at a much
higher pressure than the reactor pressure (which was somewhere around 25
bar I think).

The requirement for high pressure skews the economics towards high purity
oxygen rather than air. It costs less to make 99% oxygen and compress it
to 40 bar (or whatever the nozzle requirement is) than to compress air to
40 bar straight away.

The reason the oxygen purity was 99% rather than the 80-95% that I
mentioned in my earlier as being the "optimum" is that there was a ready
market for Argon in the area, and if you "squeeze" argon out of the air,
you automatically get high purity oxygen too.

By the way, the Cool Water coal gasification system has been purchased by
Farmland and is being moved to Kansas where it will be used to make
ammonia-based fertilizer. The combined cycle power plant is staying behind
in Barstow.

Jeff Phillips
Bridgewater, Mass.

From rrauch at fbch.tuwien.ac.at Mon Jan 26 04:49:47 1998
From: rrauch at fbch.tuwien.ac.at (Reinhard Rauch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Use of Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <01BD0ADA.7F388240@ao069.du.pipex.com>
Message-ID: <34CC5C74.929583@fbch.tuwien.ac.at>

Dear All.

Here in Vienna we are now starting to look at the possibility to produce SNG from our producer gas. Our aim is to produce SNG, and to add it to the allready existing pipelines for natural gas. In Austria there are limits for the CO content in gases going through the pipelines. Therefore we have to produce a gas which passes these limitations. In the future it will most probably be a good marked for gasifiers, which can not only produce electricity, but
also SNG. As we in Austria are bound to reduce our CO2 emmissions by the Kyoto agreement, we believe that producing SNG from biomass is a good alternative to achieve these reductions.

We are looking for other processes where they produce SNG from producer gas, but the only one we have found so far, is at the Great Plains Synfuels Plant in North Dakota, where they produce SNG from coal gasification. Here they gasify the coal, then let the gas through a shift reaction to get the right ratio between Hydrogen and CO (3:1). Then they remove CO2 with rectisol before they produce SNG. We believe that this also is possible with our producer
gas. More information about Great Plain can be found on the adress: www.basinelectric.com/dgc/dgchome.htm.

If some of you know about another commercial-scale process where they use the producer gas in something else than burning it in a turbine/motor, we would be thankful.

As the hydrogenation of carbon monoxide is highly exothermic, we are now looking for a catalyst suitable for a fluidized bed. The nickel catalyst we use today, is not suitable, as it will abrade (turn into fine powder) and thus leave the bed. So if anyone of you know about any suitable catalyst, we would be more than greatful.

Best regards

Reinhard

--
***********************************
Reinhard Rauch
Institute for Chemical Engineering,
Fuel and Environmental Technology
University of Technology Vienna
Getreidemarkt 9
1060 Vienna/AUSTRIA

http://edv1.vt.tuwien.ac.at/AG_HOFBA/Vergaser/e_vergas.htm

Phone: (++43-1) 58801-4710
Fax: (++43-1) 5876394
Email:rrauch@fbch.tuwien.ac.at
***********************************

From tk at tke.dk Mon Jan 26 07:47:08 1998
From: tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Use of Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <34CC5C74.929583@fbch.tuwien.ac.at>
Message-ID: <199801261252.NAA18975@proxy.image.dk>

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:50:44 +0100
From: Reinhard Rauch <rrauch@fbch.tuwien.ac.at>
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Use of Producer Gas
Reply-to: gasification@crest.org

Dear Reinhard Rauch

I am very interested to get some information about your FICFB
process.
Is it externally heated?
What type of biomass do you have i mind?
What is SNG?

Regards

Thomas Koch

Dear All.

Here in Vienna we are now starting to look at the possibility to produce SNG from our producer gas. Our aim is to produce SNG, and to add it to the allready existing pipelines for natural gas. In Ausalso SNG. As we in Austria are bound to reduce our CO2 e
mmissions by the Kyoto agreement, we believe that producing SNG from biomass is a good alternative to achieve these reductions.

We are gasifying biomass in a Fast Internally Circulating Fluidized Bed (FICFB-reactor) using steam as gasifying agent. This gives us a gas with high calorifc value (about 13 MJ/Nm³ dry gas). This ga
We are looking for other processes where they produce SNG from producer gas, but the only one we have found so far, is at the Great Plains Synfuels Plant in North Dakota, where they produce SNG from gas. More information about Great Plain can be found on
the adress: www.basinelectric.com/dgc/dgchome.htm.

If some of you know about another commercial-scale process where they use the producer gas in something else than burning it in a turbine/motor, we would be thankful.

Reinhard

--
***********************************
Reinhard Rauch
Institute for Chemical Engineering,
Fuel and Environmental Technology
University of Technology Vienna
Getreidemarkt 9
1060 Vienna/AUSTRIA

http://edv1.vt.tuwien.ac.at/AG_HOFBA/Vergaser/e_vergas.htm

Phone: (++43-1) 58801-4710
Fax: (++43-1) 5876394
Email:rrauch@fbch.tuwien.ac.at
***********************************

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Jan 26 09:22:42 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: bioenergy-digest V1 #922
Message-ID: <199801260927_MC2-30A8-13DA@compuserve.com>

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

When I first looked into biomass for renewable energy, I would have agreed
with AN that only a few % of our US needs could be answered by biomass in a
renewable fashion and then we might start the biggest non-renewable logging
operation in the history of Mankind.

As I looked further I realized

a) There is a tremendous waste of wood during normal (renewable) forestry

b) Thinning forests (and using the thinnings for energy greatly increases
the value of the remaining large trees when their turn for cutting for
lumber comes

c) We currently burn about 500 M tons of coal a year. We have about 500 M
acres of commercial forest land. Well managed forest land produces 1-3
tons of biomass/acre, so our wood supply could easily equal our coal supply
with lots left over. (On the other hand a true energy crisis could result
in massive land and forest destruction, so BIOMASS ENERGY is a two edged
sword)

d) There are another 500 million acres of private forest ownership,
producing very little useful wood. With proper incentives they would
produce both lumber and energy

e) There are equal quantities of ag residues that are surplus in the U.S.
if we learn how to gasify/burn them properly

f) Several responsible estimates predict biomass can supply 20-25% of
current U.S. energy consumption ON A SUSTAINABLE BASIS

g) No one thinks we need to replace all our current wastful energy needs
with biomass

So I hope this makes you feel better ... It does me anyhow.

Yours, TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Jan 26 09:29:35 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Release of biomass energy during carbonisation
Message-ID: <199801260927_MC2-30A8-13D5@compuserve.com>

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

ENERGY YIELD OF CHARCOAL MANUFACTURE

The heat of combustion of most wood is 20 kJ/g, 20 MJ/kg. The heat of
combustion of charcoals ranges from 23 to 30 kJ/g, depending on temperature
to which it is heated! "Cooking charcoal" (ie heated to <450C and still
containing about 20% volatiles) is 23 kJ/g. To calculate the energy in the
charcoal multiply the yield (20-30%) by the energy content (23 kJ/g). The
rest of the energy is in the gas and volatiles released.

Yours truly, TOM REED

(Where are you? What do you do? Just finished answering your first
"invention" note - separate from this.)

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Jan 26 09:32:29 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: GAS-L; Charcoal and too many Toms
Message-ID: <199801260927_MC2-30A8-13D2@compuserve.com>

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

Welcome to the clever Toms. Sounds like you have an EXCELLENT scheme.
Most people don't recognize the POWER of condensing steam to deliver heat -
hundreds of times faster than hot air or gases, or even mixed steam and
gas. Also it seems impossible to most people that water vapor (steam) can
actually remove (dry) water from anything. Mental barriers are harder to
overcome than physical ones.

Do you have patents on your other drying processes? You say they are in
use, but you call yourself a "mad inventor". I hope it is the madness of
this world you are mad at, not the people.

In conventional charcoal making a fire near the bottom of the pile sends
hot gases up through the heap and for a while only steam is emitted from
the exit. Not much pollution. Then the pyrolysis begins before the drying
is complete and a mixture of TERRIBLE steam and acrid chemicals emerges
because parts of the pile are drying while other parts are pyrolysing and
this gas is non combustible. Finally a pyrolysis gas is emitted and this
can be burned off. Your process promises to give clean separation between
the two steps. (It is analogous to the cow's seven stomachs which
separates composting into seven separate chemical/biological stages, each
much more efficient than the mix in a a compost heap.

The principles you describe should work well for charcoal making and I
would encourage you to try them out (small scale, then large) to help
yourself and the poor people in developing countries. Keep it as simple as
possible commensurate with accomplishing the aim of FIRST drying, SECOND
pyrolysing and THIRD recycling the energy from the drying step into the
succeeding chambers. Could these chambers be connected in circular fashion
so each assumes the role of the previous when each is finished with its own
role? Much more time and energy may be needed in the drying chamber than
the pyrolysing.

What are your next steps?

Great to hear from you, keep me posted, TOM
REED

From jeff.bossong at pi-en.com Mon Jan 26 18:10:25 1998
From: jeff.bossong at pi-en.com (Jeff Bossong)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Better Steam Control
Message-ID: <199801262310.SAA25157@solstice.crest.org>

The enclosed homepage, www.ko-en.com, contains information on an aboslute
humidity analyzer which can control steam to gas ratios up to 430 C
(Standard system) .We have actually exceeded these temperatures in the
past.

The system also work well in very corrosive, dirty environments.

If interested, I can be reached at jeff.bossong@pi-en.com

Jeff Bossong

From antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br Mon Jan 26 19:10:09 1998
From: antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br (Antonio G. P. Hilst)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Degree of Oxygen
In-Reply-To: <199801251840_MC2-309C-4F9D@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <34CD1836.160D@merconet.com.br>

Jeff Phillips wrote:
>
> Tom et al.,
>
> The coal gasification plant near Barstow, California was named the "Cool
> Water IGCC". It was a 110 MWe combined cycle located right next to the
> Solar One power plant.
>
> The Cool Water plant was based on Texaco's coal gasification process which
> uses coal-water slurry in an entrained flow reactor. The residence times
> in entrained flow reactors are typically less than 10 seconds, so good
> mixing of the coal and the oxidiant are necessary to get decent conversion
> rates. This good mixing is accomplished by blasting the oxygen into the
> reactor at high velocity, which creates a high pressure drop through the
> oxygen nozzle. Consequently, the oxygen has to be supplied at a much
> higher pressure than the reactor pressure (which was somewhere around 25
> bar I think).
>
> The requirement for high pressure skews the economics towards high purity
> oxygen rather than air. It costs less to make 99% oxygen and compress it
> to 40 bar (or whatever the nozzle requirement is) than to compress air to
> 40 bar straight away.
>
> The reason the oxygen purity was 99% rather than the 80-95% that I
> mentioned in my earlier as being the "optimum" is that there was a ready
> market for Argon in the area, and if you "squeeze" argon out of the air,
> you automatically get high purity oxygen too.
>
> By the way, the Cool Water coal gasification system has been purchased by
> Farmland and is being moved to Kansas where it will be used to make
> ammonia-based fertilizer. The combined cycle power plant is staying behind
> in Barstow.
>
> Jeff Phillips
> Bridgewater, Mass.
As I worked with a Texaco gasifier I might mention the plant had a
liquid oxygen pump which takes very little power. Gasifier operated at
450 psig and carbon source was Bunker C fuel oil.
Antonio

From antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br Mon Jan 26 19:10:15 1998
From: antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br (Antonio G. P. Hilst)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: GAS-L; Charcoal and too many Toms
In-Reply-To: <199801260927_MC2-30A8-13D2@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <34CD2506.17FF@merconet.com.br>

Thomas Reed wrote:
>
> Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
> Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dear Thomas:
>
> Welcome to the clever Toms. Sounds like you have an EXCELLENT scheme.
> Most people don't recognize the POWER of condensing steam to deliver heat -
> hundreds of times faster than hot air or gases, or even mixed steam and
> gas. Also it seems impossible to most people that water vapor (steam) can
> actually remove (dry) water from anything. Mental barriers are harder to
> overcome than physical ones.
>
> Do you have patents on your other drying processes? You say they are in
> use, but you call yourself a "mad inventor". I hope it is the madness of
> this world you are mad at, not the people.
>
> In conventional charcoal making a fire near the bottom of the pile sends
> hot gases up through the heap and for a while only steam is emitted from
> the exit. Not much pollution. Then the pyrolysis begins before the drying
> is complete and a mixture of TERRIBLE steam and acrid chemicals emerges
> because parts of the pile are drying while other parts are pyrolysing and
> this gas is non combustible. Finally a pyrolysis gas is emitted and this
> can be burned off. Your process promises to give clean separation between
> the two steps. (It is analogous to the cow's seven stomachs which
> separates composting into seven separate chemical/biological stages, each
> much more efficient than the mix in a a compost heap.
>
> The principles you describe should work well for charcoal making and I
> would encourage you to try them out (small scale, then large) to help
> yourself and the poor people in developing countries. Keep it as simple as
> possible commensurate with accomplishing the aim of FIRST drying, SECOND
> pyrolysing and THIRD recycling the energy from the drying step into the
> succeeding chambers. Could these chambers be connected in circular fashion
> so each assumes the role of the previous when each is finished with its own
> role? Much more time and energy may be needed in the drying chamber than
> the pyrolysing.
>
> What are your next steps?
>
> Great to hear from you, keep me posted, TOM
> REED
Tom,
Just recalling; this isn't the operating scheme of the old Hoffman brick
furnace?
Antonio

From phoenix at transport.com Mon Jan 26 23:10:21 1998
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: GAS-L; Charcoal and too many Toms
Message-ID: <199801270418.UAA08619@s.transport.com>

> Finally a pyrolysis gas is emitted and this
>can be burned off. Your process promises to give clean separation between
>the two steps. (It is analogous to the cow's seven stomachs which
>separates composting into seven separate chemical/biological stages, each
>much more efficient than the mix in a a compost heap.

Dear Tom Reed,

With all due respect and homage, your statement about
a cow having seven stomachs almost suffers from a
near doubling effect from some bad gas from somewhere.
To those of us involved in the Ag residue game, our cows
have four stomachs. :)

Art Krenzel

----------
> From: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
> To: INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: GAS-L; Charcoal and too many Toms
> Date: Monday, January 26, 1998 6:26 AM
>
> Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
> Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dear Thomas:
>
> Welcome to the clever Toms. Sounds like you have an EXCELLENT scheme.
> Most people don't recognize the POWER of condensing steam to deliver heat
-
> hundreds of times faster than hot air or gases, or even mixed steam and
> gas. Also it seems impossible to most people that water vapor (steam)
can
> actually remove (dry) water from anything. Mental barriers are harder to
> overcome than physical ones.
>
> Do you have patents on your other drying processes? You say they are in
> use, but you call yourself a "mad inventor". I hope it is the madness of
> this world you are mad at, not the people.
>
> In conventional charcoal making a fire near the bottom of the pile sends
> hot gases up through the heap and for a while only steam is emitted from
> the exit. Not much pollution. Then the pyrolysis begins before the
drying
> is complete and a mixture of TERRIBLE steam and acrid chemicals emerges
> because parts of the pile are drying while other parts are pyrolysing and
> this gas is non combustible. Finally a pyrolysis gas is emitted and
this
> can be burned off. Your process promises to give clean separation
between
> the two steps. (It is analogous to the cow's seven stomachs which
> separates composting into seven separate chemical/biological stages, each
> much more efficient than the mix in a a compost heap.
>
> The principles you describe should work well for charcoal making and I
> would encourage you to try them out (small scale, then large) to help
> yourself and the poor people in developing countries. Keep it as simple
as
> possible commensurate with accomplishing the aim of FIRST drying, SECOND
> pyrolysing and THIRD recycling the energy from the drying step into the
> succeeding chambers. Could these chambers be connected in circular
fashion
> so each assumes the role of the previous when each is finished with its
own
> role? Much more time and energy may be needed in the drying chamber than
> the pyrolysing.
>
> What are your next steps?
>
> Great to hear from you, keep me posted,
TOM
> REED

From heat-win at mcmail.com Tue Jan 27 09:45:21 1998
From: heat-win at mcmail.com (T J Stubbing)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Information on Airless Drying and Energy Efficient Charcoal Production
Message-ID: <34CDF600.4F20@mcmail.com>

Dear Gasification,

Alex English of "english@adan..kingston.net" has managed to reproduce
some information which may interest you from a set of papers I faxed to
him.

This can now be accessed at:

http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Airless.htm

Regards,

Thomas J Stubbing

From mbeychok at deltanet.com Tue Jan 27 19:05:37 1998
From: mbeychok at deltanet.com (Milton R. Beychok)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Air Pollution Dispersion Modeling
Message-ID: <34CE780B.FB9CE995@deltanet.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: 714-833-8871
E-mail (1): mbeychok@air-dispersion.com
E-mail (2): mbeychok@deltanet.com

From Dubayn at aol.com Tue Jan 27 19:44:10 1998
From: Dubayn at aol.com (Dubayn)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: please help
Message-ID: <96974810.34ce8099@aol.com>

I need info on fussion of 235 quick! I am doing a report and I can't find any
info on it. I also need info on Deuterium fusing to produce helium and how
heat is produced from it. Please help if you can, you might just give a young
adult a chance at looking toward the future. Thanks.

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Jan 28 10:03:06 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: GAS-L; Charcoal and too many Toms
Message-ID: <199801281007_MC2-30F8-551D@compuserve.com>

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

Glad to have the correct number of cow stomachs as four. However, the
principle is the same for technical problems: DIVIDE AND CONQUER.

If mother nature believes four thermostatically controlled chambers are
necessary for efficient digestion of grass, I seriously believe that those
interested in BIOGAS should follow her lead.

And garbage? How many stomachs does a goat have?????

Just Thinking, TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Jan 28 10:03:39 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: No charcoal node - for now
Message-ID: <199801281008_MC2-30F8-5518@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A month or so ago I suggested that maybe we needed a CHARCOAL node at
CREST. I talked to Tom Miles yesterday and Crest is concerned about
opening too many nodes, some of which could fade in a few months.

I keep most of my received notes in my electronic filing cabinet where I
have an amazing number of biomass categories. So, I have been filing all
communications dealing with charcoal, whether from STOVES, GASIFICATION or
wherever, there. If anyone needs serious info that passed through CREST
recently I can find it there. I just checked there and there are 105 items
over the last two years.

So, for now, CHARCOAL is a file item for me and CREST...

Onward, TOM REED (list
administator)

From ivirtaya at ksc.th.com Wed Jan 28 21:11:16 1998
From: ivirtaya at ksc.th.com (Virote Boonamnuayvitaya)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Is Lignite suitable for IGCC?
Message-ID: <199801290215.JAA20779@solar.ksc.th.com>

Dear all,

I am conducting a feasibily study on using Thai Lignite as fuel for IGCC.
Please tell me the technical problems and also the economic
advanges/disadvanges over other processes.
The ultimate anlysis of the Thai lignite are as follows:

C H N S O Ash(wt%)
57.18 5.65 2.18 3.5 31.49 20

I appreciate your kind help.

Virote B Vitaya
Dept of Chem Eng
KMITT, Bangkok, Thailand

From campa at hrl.com.au Thu Jan 29 02:34:46 1998
From: campa at hrl.com.au (Campisi, Tony)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Is Lignite suitable for IGCC?
Message-ID: <7EDF6D9F428ED111A7DC00A0C955FAD47248@mail_mulgrave>

Dear Virote,

First some background regarding my organisation, HRL, ...

HRL is an Australian-based research organisation and technology
provider with extensive experience in the utilisation of lignites in a
range of process technologies. HRL is developing an air-blown coal
gasification process for handling low rank and high moisture content
fuels which is called IDGCC (Integrated Drying Gasification and Combined
Cycle). This process has a novel fuel drying system which uses the hot
gas from the gasifier for direct drying. This arrangement results in
significant cost savings compared to other gasification schemes for
lignites. HRL operates a pilot-scale 300 kg/hr gasifier (10 bar
pressure) with hot gas clean up system and gas turbine simulator and
also a 10 MW (10 tonne/hr) scale IDGCC plant (25 bar pressure) with 5 MW
gas turbine. These facilities are backed by comprehensive
laboratory-scale test and modelling facilities. Details of the IDGCC
process including economic evaluations can be found on HRL's web site
http://www.hrl.com.au. The site also includes some IGCC work HRL has
done on sub-bituminous coals.

Some of the issues which need to be considered for your coal
include:

moisture content - drying coal for use in IGCC is costly. IDGCC
overcomes these problems.

sulphur content - high levels of sulphur in the coal can lead to
formation of H2S in the gasifier. Combustion of the fuel gas can result
in high SOx emissions unless precautions are taken. There may potential
for capture of the sulphur as sulphides by reaction with calcium present
in the coal or by the addition of additives (dolomite, limestone).
There are several schemes which can also be used for treating the gas
before combustion.

coal reactivity - lignites generally have high reactivity due to
the presence of inorganic species which can catalyse the gasification
reactions.

ash composition - the ash composition determines the melting
characteristics of the ash. Low melting-point ashes may cause slagging
problems (unless you are building a slagging gasifier). HRL's
gasification technology is an air-blown fluidised-bed system with dry
ash removal. There are several ways of dealing with ash formation
problems if this is an issue.

ash yield - consideration will need to be given to the safe
disposal of the high volumes of ash that will be generated, particularly
if the ash is high in sulphides. Depending on the ash characteristics,
there may be some economic value in the ash.

nitrogen content - high levels of nitrogen in the coal can lead
to the formation of species such as NH3 and HCN in the gasifier.
Combustion of the fuel gas can result in high NOx emissions unless
precautions are taken. There are several schemes which can be used for
treating the gas before combustion.

regards

Tony

(there are no attachments to this message, please ignore any
comments to the contrary)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Anthony Campisi
Senior Research Scientist
HRL Technology Pty Ltd
677 Springvale Road, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia 3170
Tel: +61 3 9565 9760 Fax: +61 3 9565 9777 e-mail:
campa@hrl.com.au

--------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail me: mailto:campa@hrl.com.au
Home page: http://www.hrl.com.au

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Virote Boonamnuayvitaya [SMTP:ivirtaya@ksc.th.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 29 January 1998 13:16
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Is Lignite suitable for IGCC?
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am conducting a feasibily study on using Thai Lignite as fuel for
> IGCC.
> Please tell me the technical problems and also the economic
> advanges/disadvanges over other processes.
> The ultimate anlysis of the Thai lignite are as follows:
>
> C H N S O Ash(wt%)
> 57.18 5.65 2.18 3.5 31.49 20
>
>
> I appreciate your kind help.
>
> Virote B Vitaya
> Dept of Chem Eng
> KMITT, Bangkok, Thailand

From phoenix at transport.com Thu Jan 29 11:56:52 1998
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Goat Stomachs
Message-ID: <199801291702.JAA00794@brutus.transport.com>

To Tom Reed - to continue with the humor of the moment - the goats we raise
here in the Pacific Northwest (USA) have four stomachs. I have a reference
URL for your bookmark if I might be so bold -
http://lenoir.ces.state.nc.us/staff/jnix/Ag/goat.html

Thank you for the smiles!

Art Krenzel

From gldthrp at nznet.gen.nz Thu Jan 29 13:22:42 1998
From: gldthrp at nznet.gen.nz (The Goldthorpe Family)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Is Lignite suitable for IGCC?
Message-ID: <199801291839.HAA19113@nznet.gen.nz>

Dear Virote

The key issue with the gasification of lignite is it's moisture content.

I have done technical and economic feasibility studies of lignite
gasification in IGCC schemes. A key factor on which choice of technology
depends is moisture content and its effect on the net calorific value of the
as-received fuel.

Please let us know.

Regards

Steve Goldthorpe
At 09:15 AM 1/29/98 +0700, you wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>I am conducting a feasibily study on using Thai Lignite as fuel for IGCC.
>Please tell me the technical problems and also the economic
>advanges/disadvanges over other processes.
>The ultimate anlysis of the Thai lignite are as follows:
>
> C H N S O Ash(wt%)
> 57.18 5.65 2.18 3.5 31.49 20
>
>I appreciate your kind help.
>
>Virote B Vitaya
>Dept of Chem Eng
>KMITT, Bangkok, Thailand
>
>

From Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz Thu Jan 29 19:05:47 1998
From: Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz (Anne and Dean Corson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Goat Stomachs
In-Reply-To: <199801291702.JAA00794@brutus.transport.com>
Message-ID: <34D0D1AB.469E@xtra.co.nz>

To Tom Read - Goats here in NZ also have four stomachs and after
Christmas I could have sworn I had two!

Deano

Art Krenzel wrote:
>
> To Tom Reed - to continue with the humor of the moment - the goats we raise
> here in the Pacific Northwest (USA) have four stomachs. I have a reference
> URL for your bookmark if I might be so bold -
> http://lenoir.ces.state.nc.us/staff/jnix/Ag/goat.html
>
> Thank you for the smiles!
>
> Art Krenzel

From MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com Thu Jan 29 19:35:57 1998
From: MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Is Lignite suitable for IGCC?
Message-ID: <199801291932_MC2-312B-81F2@compuserve.com>

Virote,

Having run experiments with lignite at Shell's gasification demonstration
plant in Texas in 1989-90, I can second Steve Goldthrope's message that
moisture content is the key variable in terms of economics. It takes
energy to "gasify" water, so the less there is in the lignite, the better
your overall lignite-to-power conversion efficiency will be. At a certain
moisture level you will see that it is more economical to use coal from
some other source no matter how cheap the lignite is.

We were able to produce a very clean syngas with calorific value of about
300 btu/scf. The syngas was cleaned with conventional gas treating
technologies which oil companies perfected many years ago and work
extremely reliably.

Two German companies, Krupp-Uhde with their Prenflo process and Rheinbraun
with their HTW process also have had success with gasifying lignite. I'm
sure there are many others.

Some lignites also have extremely high ash contents which can overwhelm
some gasifiers, but the level you quoted, 20%, should not pose any big
problems.

Jeff Phillips
Bridgewater, Mass.

From campa at hrl.com.au Thu Jan 29 20:20:39 1998
From: campa at hrl.com.au (Campisi, Tony)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Is Lignite suitable for IGCC?
Message-ID: <7EDF6D9F428ED111A7DC00A0C955FAD4724F@mail_mulgrave>

> Steve,
>
> Although I understand you have already done a detailed
> evaluation of HRL's IDGCC process, I have added the following to my
> earlier posting which may be of interest to the gasification group.
>
> In Victoria (Australia), the brown coal fired power stations
> burn coal with over 60% moisture content. In doing so, a large
> proportion of the energy of the fuel is used to evaporate the
> moisture. Therefore, the overall efficiency of the brown coal fired
> power plant is low (and CO2 emissions high). Capital costs are also
> high as the brown coal fired boiler needs to enclose a much larger
> gas volume due to the high moisture content. These factors are offset
> by the (relatively) low cost of brown coal in Victoria.
>
> My organisation, HRL, is a privatised entity which includes the
> former Herman Research Laboratory which provided the technical support
> to the power industry in Victoria. We have looked at a number of ways
> of dealing with high-moisture content coals (and related materials).
> ie Hydrothermal drying - a non-evaporative means of removing moisture
> from high-moisture content materials, steam drying, solar drying,
> etc., etc. For a process to move beyond laboratory or conceptual
> phases it needs to be economic (and require funding!) .
>
> For gasification, HRL's IDGCC process overcomes the energy and
> economic penalties of drying very moist coals. This is done simply by
> using the hot gas leaving the gasifier to dry the raw coal. In doing
> so, the gas is cooled with the coal moisture entering the gas phase.
> The gas portion is cleaned and burnt in a gas turbine for power
> generation. The dried coal is feed to the gasifier.
>
> This arrangement has several significant cost advantages against
> other IGCC schemes for low rank coals:
>
> * no separate dryer is required for drying the coal (a very high
> plant cost)
> * no high temperature heat exchangers are required for gas
> cooling (another very high plant cost)
> * combustion of the moist low energy gas in a gas turbine allows
> more power to be generated than its ISO MW rating, improving the
> return on a fixed cost item.
>
> Our pilot-scale/process/cost studies suggest a 30% improvement
> in efficiency (power output and CO2 emissions) and much lower cost
> against conventional brown coal fired power plant and that IDGCC also
> will be competitive against other coal technologies.
>
> Tony
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr Anthony Campisi
> Senior Research Scientist
> HRL Technology Pty Ltd
> 677 Springvale Road, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia 3170
> Tel: +61 3 9565 9760 Fax: +61 3 9565 9777 e-mail: campa@hrl.com.au
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> e-mail me: mailto:campa@hrl.com.au
> Home page: http://www.hrl.com.au
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Dear Virote
>
> The key issue with the gasification of lignite is it's moisture
> content.
>
> I have done technical and economic feasibility studies of lignite
> gasification in IGCC schemes. A key factor on which choice of
> technology
> depends is moisture content and its effect on the net calorific value
> of the
> as-received fuel.
>
> Please let us know.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Steve Goldthorpe
> At 09:15 AM 1/29/98 +0700, you wrote:
> >Dear all,
> >
> >I am conducting a feasibily study on using Thai Lignite as fuel for
> IGCC.
> >Please tell me the technical problems and also the economic
> >advanges/disadvanges over other processes.
> >The ultimate anlysis of the Thai lignite are as follows:
> >
> > C H N S O Ash(wt%)
> > 57.18 5.65 2.18 3.5 31.49 20
>
> >
> >I appreciate your kind help.
> >
> >Virote B Vitaya
> >Dept of Chem Eng
> >KMITT, Bangkok, Thailand
> >
> >

From Arthur_Wellinger at pctip.ch Fri Jan 30 07:51:49 1998
From: Arthur_Wellinger at pctip.ch (Arthur Wellinger)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:30 2004
Subject: DIG-L: Re: GAS-L: GAS-L; Charcoal and too many Toms
Message-ID: <499773438.39695365@pctip.ch>

Dear Tom

If it would be as simple as that biogas had made its worldwide break through
for a long time. Unfortunately glas does not pass through minor quantities of
air nor do digesters have anaerobic fungi, nor are in biogas production the
VFA's the terminal end product (the methane being an accident!) and so on...

Kind regards Art Wellinger

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sat Jan 31 11:52:36 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Is Lignite suitable for IGCC?
Message-ID: <199801311157_MC2-3163-C8C2@compuserve.com>

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

This is the BIOMASS GASIFICATION network at CREST. What's all this info
on lignite? Actually, I'm glad to see it because there are many problems
common to coal, lignite, peat and biomass gasification, and moisture
content is one of the biggest. But some of those don't fit "renewable
energy". Maybe someday you will need your own network.

The energy cost of removing moisture is small, but the nuisance and cost of
an additional drying step is large. See recent postings on airless drying
by Thomas Stubbing, heat-win@mcmail.Com.

Cheers TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sat Jan 31 11:52:41 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: GASIFICATION DATABASE: LAST CHECK
Message-ID: <199801311157_MC2-3163-C8C7@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V;278 0560 F; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
The Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear 'Everyone involved with gasification, particularly those who are or
think they should be included in our new "Survey of Biomass Gasification"
book':

[This message failed to transmit yesterday - maybe due to 51 recipients on
the list plus the "gasification" group at CREST, another big bunch (150?).
I will break it down into several pieces and try again. Apologies if you
get more than one copy. E-mail is great if you don't get irratated
easily.]
~~~~~~~
As many of you know, I am writing a SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION for the
National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) and the Biomass Energy Foundation
(BEF). Volume I will contain a database of all the gasification activities
in the world that I have been able to locate. I hope to deliver the final
draft to NREL this month.

There are now about 150 entries in the DB - and growing. The database will
enable all those in the field to find others working in the same area and
those outside the field to find organizations that may fill their needs.
It will be available in the book and also on the WWW.

I realize that it is not possible ever to locate ALL groups working in
this field. They come and go. However, I'll do my best to get as many as
possible. I am trying to eliminate as many mistakes as possible. Hence
this letter.
~~~~
This week I have put the "Database of Biomass Gasification" on my worldwide
web page for easy access to all interested in gasification. Please find it
at

WWW.WEBPAN.COM/BEF

Look in current projects. Check out yourself and friends.
~~~~
The database is divided for convenience into the four sections described
below . Currently you can search them with "CONTROL+ F (for find)" to find
any name, company, gasifier type... Eventually you can ask for a report on
a variety of subjects. If you MUST have a complete copy now, select each
table with your mouse, copy it (Cntrl+C), go into MS WORD (or equivalent),
change the page setup to LANDSCAPE (for wider page) and insert (Cntrl+V)
the table there. It appears exactly as shown on the web page and you can
rearrange column widths, font etc. You can also convert to a conventional
table (alt+table) and do the same. However, I recommend that you use the
www data for now and wait for the book another few months.

I am sending this letter only to those in GASIFICATION at CREST and to
those whose address appears in our database. I am doing this so that we
can correct and add new entries before advertising its availability to the
world at large.

a) Those already in the database can check my entries for possible
mistakes, recent changes or additions. I have enclosed our data form
below. Please fill in only those things you wish to change and delete the
other items. As soon as I get your response I will change the database and
republish it when all changes are made.

b) If you are not represented in the database and think you should be,
please fill in the whole form and I will consider entering. However, do
not submit a form if you are not currently actively engaged in any of the
following four categories:

LARGE GASIFIER SYSTEMS: (Greater than 5 MW, large scale gasification
projects)

SMALL GASIFIERS: (Manufacturers of small gasifiers)

RESEARCH & SUPPORT: Organizations doing research in gasification or
supporting others doing research)

EQUIPMENT AND CONSULTING: (Manufacturers of equipment for gasification
or consulting groups advising others on gasification projects)

(If you are currently thinking about getting into the field, but are not
yet active, don't worry and don't submit. There are a few hundred others
in that boat and we will regularly bring the Web datapage up to date to
accommodate you when you get going. Spring is the time for RFP submissions
and we are aware of a dozen groups submitting proposals for various phases
of gasification.)

CAVEAT: Biomass gasification is a fascinating field with a great future
that brings out the best and worst in people. Each group sees the need in
a different way and approaches it from a limited perspective, growing as
they go. There are many excellent systems in our database, but many with
limited testing. Here are a few "red flags" to watch out for in judging
systems: Systems that claim to be able to gasify ANY biomass; systems
that claim to have zero tar (but we are working on it). Caveat emptor.

Thank you for your help, TOM REED
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BIOMASS GASIFICATION INFORMATION FORM
(Please fill out and mail/Fax/E-mail to Tom Reed at the Biomass Energy
Foundation, 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401; 303 278 0560FX;
reedtb@compuserve.com

TYPE: (Large systems = >5MW; Small manufacturer; Research & Support; and
Equipment & Consulting)

ORGANIZATION: (Name of company/organization)

DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES: (Fluidized bed, fixed bed (updraft, downdraft,
...) , heat, power, synthetic fuels, R&D, design, support... )

CONTACT: (Name of person to contact)

COUNTRY:

PHONE/FAX: (including country code)

ADDRESS:

E-MAIL:

WWW PAGE:

FUELS TESTED: (Wood, Ag residues, MSW, ...)

STATUS: (Planning, building, operating, commercial..)

SIZES: (Indicate built or planned)

UNITS BUILT: (or under construction)

YEARS IN OPERATION:

PROBABLE COST: ($/kWh or typical)

COMMENTS: (Brag a little)

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

November 1998 Gasification Archive