BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

For more information about Gasifiers and Gasification, please see our web site: http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org

To join the discussion list and see the current archives, please use this page: http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org

March 1998 Gasification Archive

For more messages see our 1996-2004 Gasification Discussion List Archives.

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sun Mar 1 00:38:49 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re Soot in producer gas
Message-ID: <199803010437.RAA18502@powerlink.co.nz>

 

> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 16:48:43 -0500
> From: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re Soot in producer gas
>
> Dear Doug, Claus, Tom Koch et al:
>
> Doug implies (below) that soot originates from the reverse Boudouard
> reaction
>
> CO ==> CO2 + C
> This reaction is favored thermodynamically (over the reverse) below about
> 700C. Kinetically it is very slow, except on metal surfaces. In steel
> mills the carbon plates out as "kisch" (shit) carbon and is very
slippery.
> Below 500 C production is very slow.
>
> So, I am not sure that any of the soot found in producer gas comes from
> this reaction. As I said before, most soot originates from pyrolysis of
> hydrocarbons and other large molecules and is submicron.
>
>
snip
> VTY, TOM REED
> ~~~~
>
> Thank very much for the interesting information.
> Beeing one of the danes that have not undetstood the soot formation
> process fully, i would ask you if you could give me (us) a few titles
> of the litterature you are reffering to.
>

Soot - Correcting the Record.

Dear Tom R, et al

Sorry you find soot a distraction, as it is one of the most fascinating
phenomena associated with biomass gasification. Given a nudge in the right
direction, students of gasification should be encouraged to study that
which has escaped our attention and personal experience. There is plenty
of room for correcting that which is misunderstood, or incorrectly
presented, and this forum of international readers might participate more
freely if the fear of ridicule to their questions was less obvious.

The reverse Boudouard reaction as you quote, has not been my privilege to
study in charcoal gasifiers, where the absence of hydrocarbons prevents the
formation of true carbon blacks, the presence of which is a precursor to
soot flocculation. However the design of these simple gasifiers and their
reliability, suggests that reverse Boudouard reactions might only be
experienced with gas from raw biomass.

Whilst you may not have experienced soot flocculation when the gas is held
over 500 degrees C, I can assure you carbon forms fast enough to require
daily removal from piping. Char dust doesn't have the same behaviour, and
quenching the temperature proved to be the only answer to control the soot
formation.
Without a doubt, hydrocarbon forms carbon blacks, a generic term for (a
large number I am told) quite complex carbon particles. To dismiss them as
carbon soot limits the capability, and limited capability restricts the
inquiring mind to resolve problems. Producer gas particulate is a mind of
information as to the functioning of the process and even the effectiveness
of the design.

A useful paper to review written by John Abrahamson, Department of Chemical
Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Published
in Nature Vol.266 24 March 1977. "Saturated platelets are new intermediates
in hydrocarbon pyrolysis and carbon formation". It has a bibliography of
46 papers which should be a useful guide to everyone looking for
information.

Being described as "ever faithful Doug", Tom, confirms my feeling of being
like Rover, following the master's herd of bulls sniffing their droppings!

My contributions to this forum can easily be predicted, as I hate to see
questions unanswered especially so, when I know others can respond much
better than myself. Having posted questions that remain unanswered, I know
there are still big holes in my capability to understand explanations
masked by chemical equations that don't fit the physical phenomena.

The photographs of soot will be removed from Graeme's web site at the end
of the coming week. What other types of photographs are of interest to
this group?
Ever faithfully yours

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

 

 

 

From JOYCE at vra.sdmills.csr.com.au Sun Mar 1 02:15:59 1998
From: JOYCE at vra.sdmills.csr.com.au (Joyce, James)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Approximations ... and TAR
Message-ID: <199803010715.CAA10014@solstice.crest.org>

> ----------
> From: Thomas Reed[SMTP:REEDTB@compuserve.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 28 February 1998 7:48
> To: INTERNET:gasification@crest.org; STOVES; Walt, Rob
> Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Approximations ... and TAR
>
> Dear NET:
........... I sometimes wake at night and
> do a lot of useful approximate thinking about biomass (rather than
> worrying
> about when we'll run out of oil etc.) I have found the following
> approximations to be very useful ........
>
Thanks for those musings Thomas (they're up on my wall now for ready
reference). Now I know I'm not the only one lying awake at night doing
rough calculations in my head.

Since this is my first posting I might give a rundown on who I am. My
name is James Joyce (no relation to the Irish author). I am a Chemical
Engineer (graduated from Univ. of Queensland 1992); I currently work for
CSR Sugar Mills group in operations management. I am about to move to
the Sugar Research Institute in Mackay, Queensland, Australia and
undertake PhD studies in the area of Bagasse (cane fibre) gasification,
under Dr. Terry Dixon. The ultimate aim of this work is to move bagasse
gasification one step closer to an installation in one of CSR's eight
sugar mills, or one of the other 20 or so mills in Queensland. The
potential for co-generation of electricity from the existing and
potential Bagasse biomass resource is of the order of dozens to hundreds
of MW at each sugar mill (and the fuel is provided free of cartage,
although it is around 50% moisture and only readily available for 5
months a year).

At this stage it looks like I will focus on high pressure ( >4 bar)
entrained flow gasification. Not having honed down on a specific topic I
would like to ask the group a few questions :

1. Does high pressure entrained flow gasification sound suitable for the
direct gasification of 10-100 (wet) tonnes per hour of a 50% moisture
fuel composed of 0.2mm x1mm to 5mm x 100mm long fibres with an dry ash
content of around 4% (70% Silica, 20% Alkali Metals) ?

2. Does anyone have experience with feeding anything like the above fuel
at such large feed rates into vessels up to 7 bar ? (I am aware of New
Zealand's Convertech process)

3. If you were undertaking study in this area, what problems do you
think provide a key to the commercial feasibility of gasification ?
(soot and tar yields and their impact on gas use / cleanup seem to be
the hot topic of the moment)

>

 

From rosilene at fem.unicamp.br Mon Mar 2 07:56:58 1998
From: rosilene at fem.unicamp.br (Rosilene Aparecida Nascimento)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Jans Andries - Thanks about the TUDelft report
Message-ID: <34FAAE46.4B5C43BB@fem.unicamp.br>

Dear Jans Andries,

I've recieved the "Activities of the fuel conversion group 1997" that
you sent. I would like you to know how thankful I am for that.

Some results will be very important in my work, like the profile of
gases (N2O, NO, NO2, NH3, CO, CO2, SO2, H2S and COS) that your group had
obteined in "Co-gasification of
biomass and coal in a pressurised fluidised bed gasifier". Are there any
publication with them?

Greetings,

--
Rosilene Aparecida Nascimento
mailto:rosilene@fem.unicamp.br
Departamento de Energia / FEM / UNICAMP
CP 6122 13083-970 Campinas/SP/Brasil
Vox: +55 19 239-8435
Fax: +55 19 239-3722

 

 

From amyhsieh at ms1.seeder.net Mon Mar 2 10:36:35 1998
From: amyhsieh at ms1.seeder.net (Amy Hsieh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: info on fossil fuel subsidies
Message-ID: <34FAB9F8.46595023@ms1.seeder.net>

Dear subscribers to the bioenergy/gasification mailing list:

I am a high school senior currently debating the topic of renewable
energy. Does anyone know where I can find specific information on
fossil fuel subsidies? I need to know exactly why the government
subsidizes the fossil fuel industry, how much subsidies are given to
whom under what regulations and requirements...etc. Please send me any
relevant information or websites if you can. Thank you very much for
your help.

Sincerely,

Amy Hsieh

Taipei, Taiwan

 

 

From mlefcort at compuserve.com Mon Mar 2 18:20:21 1998
From: mlefcort at compuserve.com (Malcolm D. Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Approximations ... and TAR
Message-ID: <199803021825_MC2-353F-59F8@compuserve.com>

James Joyce,

Wouldn't it be simpler to burn the bagasse in a proper bagasse combustor,
feed the combustor's 2000F products of combustion into a waste heat boiler
and use the steam to drive a steam turbine? Sugar mills must need process
steam as well as power.

We supply a two-stage combustor - the Heuristic EnvirOcycler - (we gasify
the wood in a first stage of gentle updraft gasification and burn the
producer gas so formed in a second stage of vigorous cyclonic combustion)
which was developed to burn wet wood waste. We can go as high as 65%
moisture content on a wet basis. I am pretty sure we can burn your
bagasse. We guarantee that the particulate level coming out of our 2000F
stack won't exceed 120 mg/Nm3 when burning wood waste.

An alternative power produing approach is as follows. I'll be presenting a
paper on a 3 MW to 5 MW recuperated gas turbine fuelled by the products of
combustion of wood waste from our EnvirOcycler at ASME TURBO EXPO '98 in
Stockholm this coming June. I don't see any reason why a recuperated gas
turbine can't be fuelled by the products of combustion of bagasse. The
advantage of this approach is that only pure, clean air goes through the
turbine.

If burning bagasse isn't beneath you then I'd be pleased to give you a ball
park quote for a bagasse burner if you answer the following questions.

How many tonnes/h of bagasse do you want to dispose?

What is its ultimate and proximate analysis?

What is its bone dry density?

How much power do you want?

Malcolm Lefcort
Heuristic Engineering Inc
Vancouver, VC Canada

 

From enguyen at aei.ca Mon Mar 2 18:36:49 1998
From: enguyen at aei.ca (Eric Nguyen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Methanic fermentation and Biogas
Message-ID: <199803022342.SAA20655@gamma.aei.ca>

 

Hello!

My name is Eric Nguyen and I'm a student from Montreal, Canada. I'm
presently searching information on methanic fermentation and biogas. In
this session, I have some sort of Biotechnology class and we all have a
semester project. The subject I chose is to produce biogas (especially
methane, CH4) by using a process called methanic fermentation. For this
project, we have a theorical section and an experiment to show to the
class (it doesn't have to be too complicated).

As to today, I have a lot of information on the theorical section.
However, in the experiment, we don't have yet any clue how to do it. The
experiment done in class has to be 5 weeks or less so it shouldn't take
more than 5 weeks from today.

I had the idea of taking black soil rich in methnogen bacterias and mix
it with animal droppings and water to make our culture in which we have
to maintain in order to recuperate the biogas ejected because of
fermentation. The only problem lies in the fact that we don't know
exactly what are the PROPORTIONS and the QUANTITIES to use ofr a small
scale experiment.

 

Is it possible to send a protocol for making such an experiment.

Please, you're mu only hope!!

Thank you for your time!!! :)

Eric Nguyen
enguyen@aei.ca

 

From pbk2906 at bergsoe.dtu.dk Tue Mar 3 04:01:13 1998
From: pbk2906 at bergsoe.dtu.dk (Claus Hindsgaul Hansen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re Soot in producer gas
In-Reply-To: <199802260945.KAA15792@proxy.image.dk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980302201853.5638A-100000@venus.bergsoe.dtu.dk>

Dear Doug and Tom,

Thank you for your very interesting postings and pictures.
I am sorry about my absence, but I just relocated from Denmark to MTU in
Michigan.

Douglas Williams wrote:
> Dear Claus
> Re Soot in producer gas
> Once CO forms, if the gas is not quenched immediately to below 500 degrees
> C, the CO will revert to CO2 and soot flocculation will result. This is
> the fluffy spheres or clusters you see. There will also be Ca, Fe and K
> present, so you are not really looking at just soot.
True. It seems to be separate, though. At backscatter pictures from the
SEM, the inorganic atoms seems to stay in seperate particles
(generally salts of the above), randomly mixed with the soot-particles.
The contents of Ca, Cl, Fe, K and Zn IN the soot was undetectable.

> You mention 8% tar which sounds substantial. Can you transcribe that into
> mg/m3?
It will be 8% of 270mg/Nm3 - about 20-25mg/Nm3 can be extracted with
dichlormethane (Soluble Organic Fraction). Sampled and handled at
temperatures below 70C.

> Engines can handle particulates reasonably well, but tar is a no no if it
> condenses under the speed control butterfly of the inlet manifold. Even
> pyrolysis oil causes problems in the valve stems and guides, and you should
> always check to see if tar or oil is present after your tests.
> Theoretically you should only see water if it hasn't been separated.
The most obvious solution at the DTU-plant, seems to be filtration of the
cooled gas. This collects the soot as well as all of the tar (which is
conviniently condensed at the soot surfaces). Our 10um motorfilter seems
to do a perfect job here, which surpriced me, after finding the particles
to be so small.

> Sorry for the delay in this response as my spare time is more than full at
> the moment.
Feel free to compare your response time to mine right now. It will make
you look very quick! :)

Sincerly, the dane in The States
Claus Hindsgaul Hansen
claush@beer.com

 

 

From mkh at tke.dk Tue Mar 3 07:29:37 1998
From: mkh at tke.dk (Morten Kyhnau Hansen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of sludge
Message-ID: <199803031235.NAA26923@proxy.image.dk>

Dear everybody

We are currently investigating possibilities for gasification of
sewage sludge. Does anybody on this list know any places where
practical experiences have been made with gasification of sewage
sludge ? We are aware of the work done by Schelde group in Holland.
But otherwise any sources of information will be apreciated.

Thanks very much

Morten

************************************************
Morten Kyhnau Hansen (M.Sc)

Thomas Koch Energi AS
Stationsvej 4
Gadstrup
DK-4621
Denmark
************************************************
Phone: +45-46191554
Fax: +45-46191538
e-mail: mkh@tke.dk

 

From rrauch at fbch.tuwien.ac.at Tue Mar 3 09:09:56 1998
From: rrauch at fbch.tuwien.ac.at (Reinhard Rauch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of sludge
In-Reply-To: <199803031235.NAA26923@proxy.image.dk>
Message-ID: <34FC0EBE.393D312D@fbch.tuwien.ac.at>

Dear Morten Kyhnau Hansen

On the Institute of Chemical Engineering we are testing a 100kWth
gasifier (fluidized bed) with different fuels. In about two weeks the
results with sewage sludge are available. If you are inerested in the
results please look at our internet pages and contact me

best regards

Reinhard Rauch

Morten Kyhnau Hansen schrieb:

> Dear everybody
>
> We are currently investigating possibilities for gasification of
> sewage sludge. Does anybody on this list know any places where
> practical experiences have been made with gasification of sewage
> sludge ? We are aware of the work done by Schelde group in Holland.
> But otherwise any sources of information will be apreciated.
>
> Thanks very much
>
> Morten
>
> ************************************************
> Morten Kyhnau Hansen (M.Sc)
>
> Thomas Koch Energi AS
> Stationsvej 4
> Gadstrup
> DK-4621
> Denmark
> ************************************************
> Phone: +45-46191554
> Fax: +45-46191538
> e-mail: mkh@tke.dk

 

--
***********************************
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 faaij at princeton.edu Tue Mar 3 09:43:00 1998
From: faaij at princeton.edu (Andre Faaij)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of sludge
In-Reply-To: <199803031235.NAA26923@proxy.image.dk>
Message-ID: <34FBC2B5.2A99@princeton.edu>

Morten Kyhnau Hansen wrote:
>
> Dear everybody
>
> We are currently investigating possibilities for gasification of
> sewage sludge. Does anybody on this list know any places where
> practical experiences have been made with gasification of sewage
> sludge ? We are aware of the work done by Schelde group in Holland.
> But otherwise any sources of information will be apreciated.
>

Hello Morten,

In a JOULEII project we have taken a look at sludge for direct
atmospherice FB gasification for electricity generation. This was a
joint effort of TPS, ECN and Utrecht University. The mentioned
publication summarizes main results. TPS performed fuel reactivity
experiments of various biomass fuels (including sludge) and ECN has
considerable amount of data on sludge composition.

Faaij, A., R. van Ree, L. Waldheim, E. Olsson, A. Oudhuis, A. van Wijk,
C. Daey Ouwens, W. Turkenburg, Gasification of biomass wastes and
residues for electricity production. Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 12 No.
6, 1997.

Good luck!

Andre Faaij

P.S. for who was not informed yet: I am working in the US until halfway
July:

------------------------------------------------------
(Dr.) Andre Faaij
Center for Energy and Environmental Studies
Princeton University
Engineering Quad
Princeton, New Jersey 08544-5263
Tel: +1-609-258-5171
Fax: +1-609-258-3661
E-mail: Faaij@princeton.edu

(Visiting research fellow from Utrecht University,
Dept. of Science, Technology and Society, Netherlands)
------------------------------------------------------

 

From jnphatch at gis.net Tue Mar 3 10:16:35 1998
From: jnphatch at gis.net (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of sludge
In-Reply-To: <199803031235.NAA26923@proxy.image.dk>
Message-ID: <34FC1FF9.C9528821@gis.net>

Morten,

I believe Texaco ran some pilot plant (circa 5 ton/day) tests on sewage
sludge earlier this decade. There may be some publications in the US
Dept of Energy files since I believe they were co-sponsors of the
tests. Unfortunately I don't have a direct contact at Texaco I can give
you.

Shell also investigated the possibility of gasifying sewage sludge but
never went so far as to actually test it. I believe they did publish a
paper on their feasibility study. You may want to contact Piet
Zuideveld in Amsterdam at Piet.L.Zuideveld@opc.simis.com for more
information. Mr Zuideveld is in charge of all of Shell's gasification
activities.

Jeff Phillips
Managing Principal
Hatch Technology Group, Inc.
New Bedford, MA
jnphatch@gis.net

Morten Kyhnau Hansen wrote:

> Dear everybody
>
> We are currently investigating possibilities for gasification of
> sewage sludge. Does anybody on this list know any places where
> practical experiences have been made with gasification of sewage
> sludge ? We are aware of the work done by Schelde group in Holland.
> But otherwise any sources of information will be apreciated.
>
> Thanks very much
>
> Morten
>
> ************************************************
> Morten Kyhnau Hansen (M.Sc)
>
> Thomas Koch Energi AS
> Stationsvej 4
> Gadstrup
> DK-4621
> Denmark
> ************************************************
> Phone: +45-46191554
> Fax: +45-46191538
> e-mail: mkh@tke.dk

 

 

 

From pbk2906 at bergsoe.dtu.dk Tue Mar 3 14:17:27 1998
From: pbk2906 at bergsoe.dtu.dk (Claus Hindsgaul Hansen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re Soot in producer gas
In-Reply-To: <199803010437.RAA18502@powerlink.co.nz>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980303194730.15851D-100000@venus.bergsoe.dtu.dk>

On Sun, 1 Mar 1998, Graeme Williams wrote:

>
> > Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 16:48:43 -0500
> > From: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
> > Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re Soot in producer gas
> >
> > Dear Doug, Claus, Tom Koch et al:
> >
> > Doug implies (below) that soot originates from the reverse Boudouard
> > reaction
> >
> > CO ==> CO2 + C
> > This reaction is favored thermodynamically (over the reverse) below about
> > 700C. Kinetically it is very slow, except on metal surfaces. In steel
> > mills the carbon plates out as "kisch" (shit) carbon and is very
> slippery.
> > Below 500 C production is very slow.
This seems to be true only, if you look at the above brutto-reaction.

Talking to people working with soot-formation in diesel-engines at DTU,
Denmark, I have learned, that the process of soot-formation is more
complex than the basic Boudouard-reaction;
A lot of intermediate reactions happens with the above reaction as the
overall result. They are currently moddeled using simulations, that
includes solving a long list of intermediate reactions and equilibra. This
procedure can be used together with empirical data to locally simulate the
soot formation and the influences of different, relevant parameters.
To forecast the soot-formation, you have to be aware of local effects
(temperatures, concentrations, reactive radicals). At present this
information relies on empirical data, and you can not make trustworthy
forecasts on the amount of soot generated without this information.
Currently researchers at Risoe, Denmark are doing
experiments, investigating the importance of locally present radicals for
the soot-formation.

Some of you might be able to correct details of the above, but this
overall impression was the reason why I so ignorantly said, that the
soot-formation process wasn't well understood. A more detailed statement
might be, that soot formation still can't be theoretically predicted
quantitatively.

> > So, I am not sure that any of the soot found in producer gas comes from
> > this reaction. As I said before, most soot originates from pyrolysis of
> > hydrocarbons and other large molecules and is submicron
Exactly this conclusion was the reason we did not expect soot at all in
the gas before my samples where taken. But soot definitly is present in
very high doses (well above 90% of the particulate weight) according to
my SEM-pictures.

Doug wrote:
> Whilst you may not have experienced soot flocculation when the gas is held
> over 500 degrees C, I can assure you carbon forms fast enough to require
> daily removal from piping. Char dust doesn't have the same behaviour, and
> quenching the temperature proved to be the only answer to control the soot
> formation.
...
> Doug Williams
> Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

Doug,
Thank you for your information on the qualitative soot formation. You also
seems to have done quite the same observations of soot-formation, before
me (referring to your SEM-pictures).

Now I have got quite a lot of information to chew. I'm not so sure, we can
ignore the soot subject, Tom. It might prove to be a health hazard from
the engine exhaust - or an advantage in collecting the condensing tar in
the gas.

Sincerly
Claus Hindsgaul Hansen
MTU, Houghton, Michigan
claush@beer.com

 

 

From antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br Tue Mar 3 20:11:08 1998
From: antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br (Antonio G. P. Hilst)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of sludge
In-Reply-To: <199803031235.NAA26923@proxy.image.dk>
Message-ID: <34FCB703.171B@merconet.com.br>

Jeff Phillips wrote:
>
> Morten,
>
> I believe Texaco ran some pilot plant (circa 5 ton/day) tests on sewage
> sludge earlier this decade. There may be some publications in the US
> Dept of Energy files since I believe they were co-sponsors of the
> tests. Unfortunately I don't have a direct contact at Texaco I can give
> you.
>
> Shell also investigated the possibility of gasifying sewage sludge but
> never went so far as to actually test it. I believe they did publish a
> paper on their feasibility study. You may want to contact Piet
> Zuideveld in Amsterdam at Piet.L.Zuideveld@opc.simis.com for more
> information. Mr Zuideveld is in charge of all of Shell's gasification
> activities.
>
> Jeff Phillips
> Managing Principal
> Hatch Technology Group, Inc.
> New Bedford, MA
> jnphatch@gis.net
>
> Morten Kyhnau Hansen wrote:
>
> > Dear everybody
> >
> > We are currently investigating possibilities for gasification of
> > sewage sludge. Does anybody on this list know any places where
> > practical experiences have been made with gasification of sewage
> > sludge ? We are aware of the work done by Schelde group in Holland.
> > But otherwise any sources of information will be apreciated.
> >
> > Thanks very much
> >
> > Morten
> >
> > ************************************************
> > Morten Kyhnau Hansen (M.Sc)
> >
> > Thomas Koch Energi AS
> > Stationsvej 4
> > Gadstrup
> > DK-4621
> > Denmark
> > ************************************************
> > Phone: +45-46191554
> > Fax: +45-46191538
> > e-mail: mkh@tke.dk
Jeff,
Taking advantage of your kwnoledge of sludge gasification: Is the sludge
dewatered prior to gasifiing? If so, how?
Antonio

 

 

From JOYCE at vra.sdmills.csr.com.au Wed Mar 4 00:36:25 1998
From: JOYCE at vra.sdmills.csr.com.au (Joyce, James)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of sludge
Message-ID: <199803040536.AAA25470@solstice.crest.org>

I read an article last year in Engineer's Australia on a patented
process that was going to commercial scale in Perth, Western Australia.
Sorry I can't remember any more details. Try a Web search on the subject
or perhaps an enquiry to IEAUST (the publishers of Engineer's Australia)
might help.

> ----------
> From: Morten Kyhnau Hansen[SMTP:mkh@tke.dk]
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 March 1998 23:34
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: gasification of sludge
>
> Dear everybody
>
> We are currently investigating possibilities for gasification of
> sewage sludge. Does anybody on this list know any places where
> practical experiences have been made with gasification of sewage
> sludge ? We are aware of the work done by Schelde group in Holland.
> But otherwise any sources of information will be apreciated.
>
>
> Thanks very much
>
> Morten
>
> ************************************************
> Morten Kyhnau Hansen (M.Sc)
>
> Thomas Koch Energi AS
> Stationsvej 4
> Gadstrup
> DK-4621
> Denmark
> ************************************************
> Phone: +45-46191554
> Fax: +45-46191538
> e-mail: mkh@tke.dk
>

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Wed Mar 4 02:32:11 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Bagasse
Message-ID: <199803040616.TAA18070@powerlink.co.nz>

> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 18:21:38 +1100
> From: "Joyce, James" <JOYCE@vra.sdmills.csr.com.au>
> Subject: RE: GAS-L: Biomass Approximations ... and TAR
> Since this is my first posting I might give a rundown on who I am. My
> name is James Joyce (no relation to the Irish author). I am a Chemical
> Engineer (graduated from Univ. of Queensland 1992); I currently work for
> CSR Sugar Mills group in operations management. I am about to move to
> the Sugar Research Institute in Mackay, Queensland, Australia and
> undertake PhD studies in the area of Bagasse (cane fibre) gasification,
> under Dr. Terry Dixon. The ultimate aim of this work is to move bagasse
> gasification one step closer to an installation in one of CSR's eight
> sugar mills, or one of the other 20 or so mills in Queensland. The
> potential for co-generation of electricity from the existing and
> potential Bagasse biomass resource is of the order of dozens to hundreds
> of MW at each sugar mill (and the fuel is provided free of cartage,
> although it is around 50% moisture and only readily available for 5
> months a year).
>
> At this stage it looks like I will focus on high pressure ( >4 bar)
> entrained flow gasification. Not having honed down on a specific topic I
> would like to ask the group a few questions :
>
> 1. Does high pressure entrained flow gasification sound suitable for the
> direct gasification of 10-100 (wet) tonnes per hour of a 50% moisture
> fuel composed of 0.2mm x1mm to 5mm x 100mm long fibres with an dry ash
> content of around 4% (70% Silica, 20% Alkali Metals) ?
>
> 2. Does anyone have experience with feeding anything like the above fuel
> at such large feed rates into vessels up to 7 bar ? (I am aware of New
> Zealand's Convertech process)
>
> 3. If you were undertaking study in this area, what problems do you
> think provide a key to the commercial feasibility of gasification ?
> (soot and tar yields and their impact on gas use / cleanup seem to be
> the hot topic of the moment)
>
Hi James

Welcome aboard the gasification train where forward progress is painfully
slow and nobody is interested, and rocket rides backwards that seems to
attract money!

Being in Australia in February gave me the opportunity to visit SRI in
Mackay and to see first hand the quality of the Bagasse, and the drying
system feeding the cycle combustor burner on the boiler at the Farleigh
Mill. For the benefit of other readers, SRI have developed very impressive
combustion technology for Bagasse and other granular fuel which is exported
to users in other countries.
To meet the specifications of the Farleigh Mill, Terry Dixon has thrown
down the gauntlet to feed 500 tonnes/hour, preferably into a single
gasifier. With the end use of the gas determined, your direction for
investigation narrows down considerably.

(a) Using scaled up existing gasifier technology and developing tar gas
clean-up systems

(b) Developing new high performance gasification with no tar clean-up,
using existing hot gas filtration.

Having seen the fuel, and examined a char sample, I personally feel
optimistic that option (b) is worth consideration. To that end I have
reactivated investigation by consultants into earlier R & D conducted by
Fluidyne.

For those readers who haven't seen Bagasse, Graeme has scanned in some
photos to his web site http://powerlink.co.nz/~graeme/photo.html replacing
those on soot. Just click onto
"frequently requested files" and hopefully you will get an appreciation for
smallness of particle and enormous volume.

If a quiet spot opens up in this forum, I think some of my environmental
observations after a span of four years in Australia is worth the effort to
relate. We all play a role in environmental vandalism and my contribution
to initiating deforestation in Central Queensland is there to see in all
its sun baked eroded polluted glory.

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

>

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Mar 4 09:42:18 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re Soot in producer gas
Message-ID: <199803040947_MC2-3575-3E3F@compuserve.com>

Dear Doug:

Why remove the photos of soot? Others will stumble across this thread and
want to look. Soot is beautiful.

If you make soot on purpose from methane it can be worth $1,000/ton for
printers ink etc. If you make it from acetylene, $2,000.

I once made a carbon tube furnace to reach 3,000 C using "thermatomic
carbon", ie soot.

So see if you can't market it.

TOM REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Mar 4 09:42:19 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification of biomass
Message-ID: <199803040947_MC2-3575-3E41@compuserve.com>

Dear James Joyce and all:

You asked:
1. Does high pressure entrained flow gasification sound suitable for the
direct gasification of 10-100 (wet) tonnes per hour of a 50% moisture
fuel composed of 0.2mm x1mm to 5mm x 100mm long fibres with an dry ash
content of around 4% (70% Silica, 20% Alkali Metals) ?

2. Does anyone have experience with feeding anything like the above fuel
at such large feed rates into vessels up to 7 bar ? (I am aware of New
Zealand's Convertech process)

3. If you were undertaking study in this area, what problems do you
think provide a key to the commercial feasibility of gasification ?
(soot and tar yields and their impact on gas use / cleanup seem to be
the hot topic of the moment)

I am not sure I envy you the gasification of bagasse. Nasty stuff! The
real expert in bagasse gasification is Tom Miles, moderator at CREST. He
has just returned from a 10 t/hr pilot plant in Hawaii (Biomass
Gasification Facility, run by Westinghouse) which has been tryng to gasify
bagasse for a few years (IGT Renugas process). The project is on hold.
Tom's particular expertise is feeding anything, including bagasse.

It is relatively easy to upgrade conventional sugar cane production to
include power generation by conveting the boilers to high pressure steam.
Mr. Dan Jantzen of Winrock International has done a few dozen of these
upgrades in India. (He is no longer at Winrock-Delhi@cgnet.com, but that
will probably reach him. Can't find his new address, even though he lives
a few miles from me.)

Good luck in your quest, TOM REED

 

From MilneT at tcplink.nrel.gov Wed Mar 4 13:26:11 1998
From: MilneT at tcplink.nrel.gov (Milne, Thomas)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re Soot in producer gas
Message-ID: <199803041826.NAA25499@solstice.crest.org>

Attached is a word perfect file (6.0) with some notes on soot.

Tom Milne, NREL.


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re Soot in producer gas
Author: Claus Hindsgaul Hansen [SMTP:pbk2906@bergsoe.dtu.dk] at SMTP
Date: 3/2/98 12:42 PM

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bin00038.bin
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 16979 bytes
Desc: "soot.wpd"
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19980304/184d1324/bin00038.bin
From JOYCE at vra.sdmills.csr.com.au Wed Mar 4 16:49:08 1998
From: JOYCE at vra.sdmills.csr.com.au (Joyce, James)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Bagasse
Message-ID: <199803042149.QAA07780@solstice.crest.org>

Thankyou all for your answers to my questions so far. I must say I am
impressed with the quality of input to this discussion list. It will
take a little while to respond, as a haven't yet extracted myself from
my production job yet.
> ----------
> From: Malcolm D. Lefcort[SMTP:mlefcort@compuserve.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 March 1998 9:24
> To: INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
> Subject: RE: GAS-L: Biomass Approximations ... and TAR
>
> James Joyce,
>
> Wouldn't it be simpler to burn the bagasse in a proper bagasse
> combustor,
> feed the combustor's 2000F products of combustion into a waste heat
> boiler
> and use the steam to drive a steam turbine? Sugar mills must need
> process
> steam as well as power.
>
Co-generation by conventional means, ie. steam generation
followed by both non-condensing turbines (which provide all the LP steam
required for the sugar process @ 1 bar) and condensing turbines using
the remaining excess HP steam (@ 14-60 Bar depending on the boiler
design), is growing in popularity in Australia.

It may be of interest to note that those sugar factories with
excess HP steam often just blow it out the roof ! Those unfortunate
mills without the boiler capacity to incinerate the excess fuel (using
boilers that are built to be very inefficient) just make mountains of
bagasse, in the order of tens of thousands tonnes, that sometimes self
ignite over time !

Our interest in gasification arises out of economic problems
associated with the use of condensing turbines for co-generation (these
are exacerbated by generally poor prices paid for the electricity
generated).

During the crushing season condensing turbines place additional
demands on our cooling systems, which then require capital upgrade.
During the off season (when we have no need for LP steam) the
conventional steam cycle requires us to run part or all of our cooling
system, which is inconvenient at the very least (especially when ambient
wet bulb temperatures often exceed 32 C (90F)). Comparatively speaking a
combined cycle gasification, gas turbine, heat recovery boiler,
condensing turbine system has a much smaller condensing load and much
greater electrical conversion efficiency and therefore holds potential
to be cheaper to operate and able to generate more electricity from the
same quantity of fuel.

> We supply a two-stage combustor - the Heuristic EnvirOcycler - (we
> gasify
> the wood in a first stage of gentle updraft gasification and burn the
> producer gas so formed in a second stage of vigorous cyclonic
> combustion)
> which was developed to burn wet wood waste. We can go as high as 65%
> moisture content on a wet basis. I am pretty sure we can burn your
> bagasse. We guarantee that the particulate level coming out of our
> 2000F
> stack won't exceed 120 mg/Nm3 when burning wood waste.
What feed rates have you operated this unit up to ? Is this unit
pressurised ? (My understanding is that tar production can be minimised
at high pressures).

> An alternative power produing approach is as follows. I'll be
> presenting a
> paper on a 3 MW to 5 MW recuperated gas turbine fuelled by the
> products of
> combustion of wood waste from our EnvirOcycler at ASME TURBO EXPO '98
> in
> Stockholm this coming June. I don't see any reason why a recuperated
> gas
> turbine can't be fuelled by the products of combustion of bagasse.
> The
> advantage of this approach is that only pure, clean air goes through
> the
> turbine.
Sounds interesting, I had thought about the same concept using steam as
the heat transfer medium .... but is it feasible to scale up the
recuperator to, say, 200-250 MWt ? What about fouling of the
recuperator ?

> If burning bagasse isn't beneath you then I'd be pleased to give you a
> ball
> park quote for a bagasse burner ........
>
It is certainly not beneath me to burn bagasse, but we are comfortable
with the technology we have access to now from the Sugar Research
Institute and to a lesser degree our usual boiler manufacturers; for
the reasons stated above we really want to follow-up on the gasification
route as the next generation in electrical power generation for sugar
mills.

 

From Eddie.lim at pp.nsw.gov.au Wed Mar 4 19:12:36 1998
From: Eddie.lim at pp.nsw.gov.au (Eddie Lim)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of sludge
In-Reply-To: <199803040536.AAA25470@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <34FDFCAC.86460F44@pp.nsw.gov.au>

Dear James,

Do you happen to refer to the Enersludge Process purchased by the Water
Board Corporation of Western Australia? If so, the contractor is the
ESI-Clough Joint Venture at their Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Western Australia. I do not have expertise in this area but I think it was
set up as a energy and resource recovery system where raw sewage sludge is
treated to yield the following by products:
1. dried sludge for agriculture or fuel use;
2. refined oil produced to generate electricity, for sale as a fuel or for
sale as a speciality such as Anti-Stripping agent used in asphalt cement ;
3. activated char
4. ash for use as a building product.

This facility is designed to control odours from the sludge and comply with
all environmental emission limits and provide for resource recovery with
about 50% of the sludge energy being available for sale or the
production/sales of other marketable products. The maximum design capacity
is 33 dry tonnes per day which is the estimated sewage produced in the
region serviced in 2040. I am sorry not being able to provide any cost
information.

If the oil if combusted in a diesel generator set will generate 1.1MW of
electricity.
One of the main driving forces behind the project is Trevor Bridle, director
of Environmental Solutions International Ltd whose email address is :
esi@q_net.net.au
fax number is +61 (08)9242 1822. I believe Trevor is able to provide more
accurate information.

The information I have provided is obtained from a paper delivered by Trevor
Bridle and Stefan Skryski-Mantele in a IEA Biomass Taskforce Symposium on 21
October 1997 in Canberra, Australia.

Regards,
Eddie Lim

Joyce, James wrote:

> I read an article last year in Engineer's Australia on a patented
> process that was going to commercial scale in Perth, Western Australia.
> Sorry I can't remember any more details. Try a Web search on the subject
> or perhaps an enquiry to IEAUST (the publishers of Engineer's Australia)
> might help.
>
> > ----------
> > From: Morten Kyhnau Hansen[SMTP:mkh@tke.dk]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 3 March 1998 23:34
> > To: gasification@crest.org
> > Subject: GAS-L: gasification of sludge
> >
> > Dear everybody
> >
> > We are currently investigating possibilities for gasification of
> > sewage sludge. Does anybody on this list know any places where
> > practical experiences have been made with gasification of sewage
> > sludge ? We are aware of the work done by Schelde group in Holland.
> > But otherwise any sources of information will be apreciated.
> >
> >
> > Thanks very much
> >
> > Morten
> >
> > ************************************************
> > Morten Kyhnau Hansen (M.Sc)
> >
> > Thomas Koch Energi AS
> > Stationsvej 4
> > Gadstrup
> > DK-4621
> > Denmark
> > ************************************************
> > Phone: +45-46191554
> > Fax: +45-46191538
> > e-mail: mkh@tke.dk
> >

 

 

 

From eandy at compassnet.com Wed Mar 4 19:23:16 1998
From: eandy at compassnet.com (Andrew)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Used gas kiln
Message-ID: <34FE0D5D.A5DC7673@compassnet.com>

i am interest in a used front loading gas fired, natural draft kiln with
loading dimensions of approx. 4.5 x 4.5 x 5 ft. please inform if you
handle, cost and delivery. thanks.,

 

 

From mlefcort at compuserve.com Wed Mar 4 20:06:21 1998
From: mlefcort at compuserve.com (Malcolm D. Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Bagasse
Message-ID: <199803042010_MC2-358D-7CB5@compuserve.com>

James Joyce,

> It may be of interest to note that those sugar factories with
excess HP steam often just
blow it out the roof! Those unfortunate mills without the boiler
capacity to incinerate
the excess fuel (using boilers that are built to be very
inefficient) just make mountains
of bagasse, in the order of tens of thousands tonnes, that
sometimes self ignite over
time!

When using a boiler to dispose of bagasse every Btu released by the burning
bagasse must
be converted to steam. If there is no demand for the steam then you've got
problems.

When using a "clean burning" incinerator - such as an EnvirOcycler - to
dispose of bagasse
and, indepedent of the incineration operation, generate steam in a waste
heat boiler, you can
satisfy both your waste disposal and your energy recovery requirements.

> What feed rates have you operated this unit up to ? Is this unit
pressurised ? (My
understanding is that tar production can be minimised at high
pressures).

The EnvirOcycler operates at wood waste feed rates of up to about 15 wet
tonnes/h @ 50%
moisture content. The EnvirOcycler is not pressurized. When our first
stage producer gas is
burned in our second stage combustion is complete and tar production is
zilch. In fact, we
normally preheat the producer gas up to about 1500F before we burn it.

> Sounds interesting, I had thought about the same concept using
steam as the heat
transfer medium .... but is it feasible to scale up the
recuperator to, say, 200-250 MWt?
What about fouling of the recuperator ?

Using 135 psig steam at 1550F in a gas turbine sounds like trouble.

The recuperators are sized to transfer about 50 Million Btu/h to the gas
turbine's compressor
discharge air.

Fouling of the recuperator with the products of combustion of wood waste or
bagasse is a
function of how clean the 2000F products of combustion are when they enter
the shell side of
the recuperator. I see no reason why the 2000F products of combustion of
50% moisture
content bagasse leaving our EnvirOcycler will be any dirtier than the 120
mg/Nm3 (0.052
grains/dscf) products of combustion of 50% moisture content wood waste
leaving our two-
stage combustor.

> ....but we are comfortable with the technology we have access to
now from the Sugar
Research Institute and to a lesser degree our usual boiler
manufacturers; for the
reasons stated above we really want to follow-up on the
gasification route as the next
generation in electrical power generation for sugar mills.

Good luck. I mean that sincerely.

Malcolm Lefcort

 

From jnphatch at gis.net Wed Mar 4 21:34:01 1998
From: jnphatch at gis.net (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of sludge
In-Reply-To: <199803031235.NAA26923@proxy.image.dk>
Message-ID: <34FE0DAC.388985A0@gis.net>

Antonio,

Texaco's gasification process uses a water-based slurry to feed solids into
their gasifier, so they do not need to dewater the sludge before it is
gasified.

Shell's coal gasification process uses a heated inert gas (i.e., nitrogen with
some products of combustion) to dry the feed will it is being milled to a fine
powder. Some of the syngas that is produced by the gasifier is used to
generate the heated inert gas.

Either way you do it, feeding it wet or drying it first, you have to vaporize
the water in the sludge at some point, and that will cost you energy. In
Texaco's case they are essentially burning syngas within their gasifier to
vaporize the water. In Shell's case they are burning syngas outside of the
gasifier. Texaco's method requires less capital, but Shell's method produces
a syngas with less CO2 and H2O. I guess it ultimately depends on what you
want to do with the syngas once it has been produced.

Jeff Phillips
Managing Principal
Hatch Technology Group, Inc.
New Bedford, MA, USA
www.hatchtechnology.com

Antonio G. P. Hilst wrote:

> Jeff Phillips wrote:
> >
> > Morten,
> >
> > I believe Texaco ran some pilot plant (circa 5 ton/day) tests on sewage
> > sludge earlier this decade. There may be some publications in the US
> > Dept of Energy files since I believe they were co-sponsors of the
> > tests. Unfortunately I don't have a direct contact at Texaco I can give
> > you.
> >
> > Shell also investigated the possibility of gasifying sewage sludge but
> > never went so far as to actually test it. I believe they did publish a
> > paper on their feasibility study. You may want to contact Piet
> > Zuideveld in Amsterdam at Piet.L.Zuideveld@opc.simis.com for more
> > information. Mr Zuideveld is in charge of all of Shell's gasification
> > activities.
> >
> > Jeff Phillips
> > Managing Principal
> > Hatch Technology Group, Inc.
> > New Bedford, MA
> > jnphatch@gis.net
> >
> > Morten Kyhnau Hansen wrote:
> >
> > > Dear everybody
> > >
> > > We are currently investigating possibilities for gasification of
> > > sewage sludge. Does anybody on this list know any places where
> > > practical experiences have been made with gasification of sewage
> > > sludge ? We are aware of the work done by Schelde group in Holland.
> > > But otherwise any sources of information will be apreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks very much
> > >
> > > Morten
> > >
> > > ************************************************
> > > Morten Kyhnau Hansen (M.Sc)
> > >
> > > Thomas Koch Energi AS
> > > Stationsvej 4
> > > Gadstrup
> > > DK-4621
> > > Denmark
> > > ************************************************
> > > Phone: +45-46191554
> > > Fax: +45-46191538
> > > e-mail: mkh@tke.dk
> Jeff,
> Taking advantage of your kwnoledge of sludge gasification: Is the sludge
> dewatered prior to gasifiing? If so, how?
> Antonio

 

 

 

 

From JOYCE at vra.sdmills.csr.com.au Thu Mar 5 00:01:03 1998
From: JOYCE at vra.sdmills.csr.com.au (Joyce, James)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of sludge
Message-ID: <199803050500.AAA28559@solstice.crest.org>

 

> ----------
> From: Eddie Lim[SMTP:Eddie.lim@pp.nsw.gov.au]
> Sent: Thursday, 5 March 1998 11:15
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: gasification of sludge
>
> Dear James,
>
> Do you happen to refer to the Enersludge Process purchased by the
> Water
> Board Corporation of Western Australia? ..... snip
Yes, that was it. Not really gasification I suppose, but very
interesting none the less.

 

 

From arcate at email.msn.com Thu Mar 5 00:23:47 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Thanks to Ian Bywater, Convertech Group Limited
Message-ID: <000901bd47eb$4ddc1ec0$195cffd0@arcate>

Thanks to Ian Bywater, Convertech Group Limited for his listing on my
technology trading post at http://www.techtp.com/

Please also see my mini charcoal discussion group, no soot on this site.
This is not a not-for-profit site, even though it acts like one.

aloha

Jim Arcate
Transnational Technology

 

 

 

 

 

From Eddie.lim at pp.nsw.gov.au Thu Mar 5 00:57:16 1998
From: Eddie.lim at pp.nsw.gov.au (Eddie Lim)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of sludge
In-Reply-To: <199803050500.AAA28559@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <34FE4D75.3BE57715@pp.nsw.gov.au>

You are right It is basically not a gasification technology. However,
there is, in fact, from what I can understand of the patented process,
some intermediate gasification taking place. The thermo-chemical
process in the dual stage reactor system produces about 12% of gas, 34%
of oil, 43% char and the rest water. Aluminium silicates and heavy
metals, present in the sludge catalyses the vapour phase conversion
reactions. The raw gas and char are combusted in a fluid bed hot gas
generator to provide the heat energy for drying the raw sludge. I
believe a small amount of LPG is also used in the sludge drying
process. As I said, much better expert information is probably
available from Trevor Bridle.

Eddie

Joyce, James wrote:

> > ----------
> > From: Eddie Lim[SMTP:Eddie.lim@pp.nsw.gov.au]
> > Sent: Thursday, 5 March 1998 11:15
> > To: gasification@crest.org
> > Subject: Re: GAS-L: gasification of sludge
> >
> > Dear James,
> >
> > Do you happen to refer to the Enersludge Process purchased by the
> > Water
> > Board Corporation of Western Australia? ..... snip
> Yes, that was it. Not really gasification I suppose, but very
> interesting none the less.

 

 

 

From mkh at tke.dk Thu Mar 5 03:54:23 1998
From: mkh at tke.dk (Morten Kyhnau Hansen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of sludge
In-Reply-To: <34FE4D75.3BE57715@pp.nsw.gov.au>
Message-ID: <199803050900.KAA27868@proxy000.image.dk>

Thanks everybody for an overwelming response. It seems to me in the
case of the Australian plant and in genera, that pyrolysis has been
more looked into than actual gasification. Furthermore it seems that
sludge gasification is seen as a means of disposing of waste and has
mostly been approached by people from the waste- and waste water
treatment side. This opposed to seeing sludge as a source of energy,
and therefore emphasizing the energy conversion aspect, which I
suppose will be the approach of the gasification community, and
certainly will be of my company.
************************************************
Morten Kyhnau Hansen (M.Sc)

Thomas Koch Energi AS
Stationsvej 4
Gadstrup
DK-4621
Denmark
************************************************
Phone: +45-46191554
Fax: +45-46191538
e-mail: mkh@tke.dk

 

From MilneT at tcplink.nrel.gov Thu Mar 5 13:24:25 1998
From: MilneT at tcplink.nrel.gov (Milne, Thomas)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re Soot in producer gas
Message-ID: <199803051824.NAA28388@solstice.crest.org>


In connection with the review on "tar" that Nicolas Abatzoglou,
Bob
Evans and I are completing for the IEA Gasification Activity, here
are
some references that comment on soot from gasification. I would
expect that most of what you are seeing derives from thermal
reactions
of tertiary tars. What were the severity conditions in the
gasifier
from which you sampled the soot? By the way a very recent article
gives information on modeling soot formation and oxidation: I.A.
Kennedy (1997). Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., vol. 23, pp 95-132.
The
references are:


66. Blackadder, W.H.; Lundberg, H.; Rensfelt, E.;
Waldheim, L. 1994. "Heat and Power Production via Gasification in

the Range 5-50 MWe," Adv. Thermochem. Biomass Convers.,
Bridgwater,
A.V., ed, Blackie Academic & Professional, Vol. 1, pp. 449-475.

Review of gasifiers for power in the 5-50 MWe range.
"Tars
form in large amounts, 1-10% by weight, from biomass. These are
not a
problem if they do not polymerize or condense. Fouling in the heat

recovery train or permeability loss in the high temperature filter
are
reported in the literature." "Thermal cracking at high
temperatures
in the gasifier generates soot . . ." (pressurized gasifier).


210. Jess, Angreas. 1996 "Mechanisms and Kinetics
of
Thermal Reactions of Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Pyrolysis of Solid
Fuels," Great Britain: Elsevier. Fuel, Vol. 75, No. 12, pp.
1441-1448.

Results for the kinetics of thermal conversion
of
naphthalene, toluene and benzene in the presence of hydrogen and
steam
are given. Order of reactivity is: toluene > naphthalene >
benzene.
Besides gaseous organic products such as methane and ethene,
condensed
products and soot are formed, principally from naphthalene. Steam
has
only a small influence on the conversion of the aromatics. For
toluene, naphthalene and benzene, at 0.5s residence time, 80%
conversion occurs at about 960, 1200 and 1270° respectively.


212. Jönsson, O. 1985. "Thermal Cracking of Tars
and
Hydrocarbons by Addition of Steam and Oxygen in the Cracking Zone,"

Fundamentals of Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, Eds., R.
Overend,
T. Milne, and L. Mudge, London and New York: Elsevier Applied
Science
Publishers, pp. 733-746.

Catalysts: None. Steam/thermal cracking with
and
without addition of O2 to the cracking reactor. Tar in: Pyrolysis

vapors at 750°C. Tar out: Tar condenser runs at 120°C to separate

water. How measured: Condensibles by weighing the tar condenser
before
and after. Gases by GC. Conditions studied: Cracking
temperatures
varied from 950-1250°C. Added steam and O2 in some cases. At 4
seconds
reactor residence time, tar + soot decreased from 0.07 kg/kg fed
with
steam only, to about 0.025 kg/kg with 0.1 kg O2/kg feed. Effect on
H2
and CO was not reported. The "tar" produced under these conditions
was
mainly soot.

295. Nieminen, M. 1995. "Removal of Particulates
and
Alkali Metals in Gasification," Espoo, Finland: Seminar on Power
Production from Biomass II, VTT. March.

Biomass produces much more tar than coal. Has
advantages and disadvantages. For filtration, light tars
behave
like gas. Heavier tars are problematical. Heavy tars can cause
filter blocking by soot formation, adsorption or condensation on
filter matrix or dust cake. Fed light tars as synthetic tar
solution.
Also real biomass tar (up to coronene). No references to work of
the
VTT gasification group.


346. Rensfelt, E.; Ekström C. 1988. "Fuel Gas from
Municipal Waste in an Integrated Circulating Fluid-Bed
Gasification/Gas-Cleaning Process." In Energy from Biomass and
Wastes
XII. Edited by D.L. Klass. Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago,
Illinois.

Review of past work at Studsvik on gasification
and
catalytic tar cracking at pilot and bench scale, using dolomite.
Dolomite is used as an active bed material and also in secondary
reactor. Quotes following tolerances for gas distribution or
engines:

<500 mg/Nm3 and <50 mg/Nm3 for self priming- and

turbo-charged engines respectively. Thermal tar cracking to
acceptable levels requires >1100°C and also produces soot. At
800°C
with dolomite: "only lower quantities (100 400 mg/Nm3) of stable
compounds like phenanthrene, biphenyl, and naphthalene are
present."
At 900°C the only remaining heavy hydrocarbons are minor quantities
of
naphthalene."

From literature, quotes following ranges of
"tar":

Updraft fixed bed 10,000 100,000
mg/Nm3
Downdraft fixed bed 80 150 mg/Nm3
Circulating fluid bed 7000 10,000 mg/Nm3
Studsvik with dolomite 20 150 mg/Nm3

347. Rensfelt, E. 1985. "Practical Achievements in
Biomass Gasification," Bioenergy 84, Volume 1, p. 174, Bioenergy
State
of the Art. London: Elsevier Applied Science, edited by H. Egnéus
and
A. Ellegård, University of Göteborg, Sweden.

Lists following applications for clean gaseous
fuel
from biomass; engines, ovens, lime kilns, brick kilns,
metallurgical
furnaces, dryers, fuel cells, town gas (local distribution),
synthetic
natural gas, synthesis of methanol, gasoline, ammonia, hydrogen,
ethylene. Cited problems in sampling and definition of tar
(organics)
in lack of reliable and comparative tests with "tar." Quotes
Kjellstrom that engines need "tar content" less than 500 mg/Nm3.
Normal tar level of a downdraft gasifier, running well, is 300-1000

mg/Nm3. Thermal cracking (of tar) might yield non-wettable and
extremely fine soot, which could thus cause problems in condensate
handling.


366. Simell, P.; Kurkela, E.; Stählberg, P.; Hepola,
J.
1995. "Development of Catalytic Gas Cleaning in Biomass
Gasification," Espoo, Finland: Seminar on Power Production from
Biomass II, 6 pp.

Catalysts: Ceramic monoliths of Ni/Al2O3 having

square channels. Details are proprietary. SiC and alpha alumina
were
used as reference. Tar in: "Tar from the updraft gasifier was
thermally quite unstable, unlike the tar from the fluid-bed
gasifier,
and thus decomposed easily, even with the inert reference material
SiC.
Tar out: for gasifier with Ni/Al2O3 at 900°C and 0.2-0.3 seconds,
1
bar:



Updraft Inlet
Outlet
Fluidbed Inlet Fluidbed Outlet
LHC wt % 0.4 0 0.5 0
NH3 (ppmv) 1,700 <50 4,100 12
Tar ppmv (wood) 9,800 <10 1,500 <10
Tar ppmv (bark) 1,000 <10


"Tars are harmful because they can easily block
up
the particulate filters or other downsteram units like engine
suction
inlets by condensing or by polymerizing to soot-like deposits."
Catalytic unit should be at about that of the gasifier, 900°C for
fluid
beds. Biomass-derived gasification gas contains 100 ppm H2S, a
known
poison for Ni catalysts. Compensate for this deactivation by going
to
900-950°C.


378. Stassen, H.E. 1995. "UNDP/WB Small-Scale
Biomass
Gasifiers for Heat and Power, A Global Review," Energy Sector
Management Assistance Programme, WBTP 296- Washington, D.C.

Notes: Typical Gas Compositions:
Tar LHV
Updraft
Downdraft
Downdraft-Chemical 2-10 g/Nm3
0.1-3
< 0.3 5.3-6 Mj/Nm3
4.5-5.5
4.0-5.2


For spark engines, must filter soot, ash, and
tar.
(Inlet manifolds-4 valve stem.) (Diesel must have both diesel
fuel
and producer gas). Dust and tar measured at 6 sites. Dust varied
from <5 to 300 mg/Nm3. Acceptable dust <50; <5 preferable mg/Nm3.

Acceptable tar <100; <50 preferable mg/Nm3. Rice Husk gasifier had

10-40 times the allowable tar.


382. Studsvik, 1992. "Task VII. Biomass Conversion.

Activity 4: Thermal Gasification Research Needs for Thermal
Gasification of Biomass," Studsvik AB Thermal Processes Nykôping,
Sweden, Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, IL, 6 pp.
Contains: "R&D recommendations for the various
subdivisions of the overall biomass gasification system,
collectively
identified by experts in the field who sit as participants in the
IEA
biomass gasification project." Some tar and cleaning
recommendations
include: Research on soot formation from tar and soot reactions
leading to soot destruction. Effect of gasifier additives,
including
catalysts, for minimizing tar production. Ash-melting behavior for

agricultural feedstocks. Gasification or reforming of condensable
hydrocarbon (secondary processing of raw gas). Gas cleaning and
tar
removal for IC engine applications. High pressure sampling systems

for tars and other gaseous impurities. Fuel gas specifications for
IC
engines and gas turbines.


393. Tesner, P.A.; Shurupov, S.V. 1997. "Soot
Formatioin During Pyrolysis of Naphthalene, Anthracene and Pyrene,"

Combust. Sci. and Tech., Vol. 126, pp. 139-151.

Soot formation during isothermal pyrolysis of
naphthalene,, anthracene and pyrene was investigated. The particle

number density of soot aerosol formed was demonstrated to depend
linearly on hydrocarbon concentration. The equations to calculate
the
particle number density and the soot surface area were obtained.
Particle number densities of the soot formed during pyrolysis of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were demonstrated to be an order
of
magnitude higher and the apparent activation energy of soot aerosol

formation is two times less than the parameters obtained during
pyrolysis of benzene or acetylene. Sooting tendency of the
hydrocarbons investigated as relative to methane can be arranged at

1623 K as follows: methane; ethylene; acetylene; diacetylene;
benzene; toluene; p-xylene; naphthalene; anthracene; pyrene; 1; 4;
7.6; 50; 7.4; 5.5; 4; 112; 91; 74.



______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________ Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re Soot in
producer gas
Author: Claus Hindsgaul Hansen [SMTP:pbk2906@bergsoe.dtu.dk] at
SMTP
Date: 3/2/98 12:42 PM

 

From readmexxx at AOL.COM Thu Mar 5 15:39:39 1998
From: readmexxx at AOL.COM (jic)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Readme
Message-ID: <199803051638.QAA03062@mailroot.com>

<HTML><PRE><A HREF="http://www.wh0re.net/">
Click here!!</A></PRE></HTML>

 

 

From antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br Thu Mar 5 18:30:29 1998
From: antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br (Antonio G. P. Hilst)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of sludge
In-Reply-To: <199803031235.NAA26923@proxy.image.dk>
Message-ID: <34FF4037.63CD@merconet.com.br>

Jeff Phillips wrote:
>
> Antonio,
>
> Texaco's gasification process uses a water-based slurry to feed solids into
> their gasifier, so they do not need to dewater the sludge before it is
> gasified.
>
> Shell's coal gasification process uses a heated inert gas (i.e., nitrogen with
> some products of combustion) to dry the feed will it is being milled to a fine
> powder. Some of the syngas that is produced by the gasifier is used to
> generate the heated inert gas.
>
> Either way you do it, feeding it wet or drying it first, you have to vaporize
> the water in the sludge at some point, and that will cost you energy. In
> Texaco's case they are essentially burning syngas within their gasifier to
> vaporize the water. In Shell's case they are burning syngas outside of the
> gasifier. Texaco's method requires less capital, but Shell's method produces
> a syngas with less CO2 and H2O. I guess it ultimately depends on what you
> want to do with the syngas once it has been produced.
>
> Jeff Phillips
> Managing Principal
> Hatch Technology Group, Inc.
> New Bedford, MA, USA
> www.hatchtechnology.com
>
> Antonio G. P. Hilst wrote:
>
> > Jeff Phillips wrote:
> > >
> > > Morten,
> > >
> > > I believe Texaco ran some pilot plant (circa 5 ton/day) tests on sewage
> > > sludge earlier this decade. There may be some publications in the US
> > > Dept of Energy files since I believe they were co-sponsors of the
> > > tests. Unfortunately I don't have a direct contact at Texaco I can give
> > > you.
> > >
> > > Shell also investigated the possibility of gasifying sewage sludge but
> > > never went so far as to actually test it. I believe they did publish a
> > > paper on their feasibility study. You may want to contact Piet
> > > Zuideveld in Amsterdam at Piet.L.Zuideveld@opc.simis.com for more
> > > information. Mr Zuideveld is in charge of all of Shell's gasification
> > > activities.
> > >
> > > Jeff Phillips
> > > Managing Principal
> > > Hatch Technology Group, Inc.
> > > New Bedford, MA
> > > jnphatch@gis.net
> > >
> > > Morten Kyhnau Hansen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear everybody
> > > >
> > > > We are currently investigating possibilities for gasification of
> > > > sewage sludge. Does anybody on this list know any places where
> > > > practical experiences have been made with gasification of sewage
> > > > sludge ? We are aware of the work done by Schelde group in Holland.
> > > > But otherwise any sources of information will be apreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much
> > > >
> > > > Morten
> > > >
> > > > ************************************************
> > > > Morten Kyhnau Hansen (M.Sc)
> > > >
> > > > Thomas Koch Energi AS
> > > > Stationsvej 4
> > > > Gadstrup
> > > > DK-4621
> > > > Denmark
> > > > ************************************************
> > > > Phone: +45-46191554
> > > > Fax: +45-46191538
> > > > e-mail: mkh@tke.dk
> > Jeff,
> > Taking advantage of your kwnoledge of sludge gasification: Is the sludge
> > dewatered prior to gasifiing? If so, how?
> > Antonio
Jeff,
Thanks for the explanation. By coincidence I'm acquainted with the
Texaco gasifier for I operated one here in Brazil for 4 years. It was
fed with Bunker C oil, in a mist with superheated steam, and 98% oxygen.
As you say the sludge umidity content decreases thermal efficiency. I
was expecting some sort of mechanical dewatering apparatus.
Antonio

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Mar 8 16:18:33 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re Bagasse, Tar, Environment, Shute, ...
Message-ID: <199803081624_MC2-35FF-E10D@compuserve.com>

Dear Doug Williams et al:

I too am working on a low tar gasifier that will only require particulate
removal and not much of that. ..... Your last letter was a grabbag of
subjects, so this is a grabbag of threads.
~~~~
It is very satisfying to have an E-mail filing cabinet that with folders
for all my interests: soot; bagasse; tar; environment..... What do I do
with a letter containing all the above?
(Wing it!) ~~~~

Since you have gotten off the gasification subject with our environmental
sins, I'll stay off for a minute with a great book I'm reading.

Nevil Shute, (On the Beach, Town Like Alice, and 20 other great books)
emigrated to Australia about 1950 and wrote a number of books about
Australia. I am currently reading "Beyond the Black Stump". It is a
wonderful novel about the U.S. and then the outback in Australia (sheep
ranching and oil drilling).

Books still contain a lot of reality you won't find on the Internet. Even
occasionally producing a moist eye.

His books are hard to find, but well worth it. Are they available in
Australia? Do you ever use the expression "Beyong the Black Stump"?

Your mostly business chum, TOM REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Mar 8 16:19:07 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re Soot in producer gas
Message-ID: <199803081624_MC2-35FF-E11C@compuserve.com>

Dear Tom:

What a great list of both tar and soot references. You are hereby
nominated as our tar and soot expert.

Here is an anecdotal soot story: I remember about 1981, Ben Russel
(President of ECON) visited us at SERI/NREL and was fascinated by the
Swedish gasifiers. He visited the Swedish Agricultural Research center
(Mr. Johannson?) and got plans to make a gasifier for a car.

He built it that Summer and it worked fine - but there was a LOT of soot in
the gas after it passed through ALL of his cleaning train. He tried this
and that and nothing worked. Finally, he said to hell with soot and put
the gasifier in his car. Never had any trouble with soot.

The picture caption in the book "Producer Gas: Another Fuel for Motor
Transport" (NAS, BEF PRESS) says:

"This wood-burning 1978 CHevrolet Malibu station wagon (from which the fuel
tank has been removed) drove 4320 km (2700 mi) from Jacksonville, FL to Los
Angeles, CA, fueled entirely by scrap wood. The generator holdes enough
wood for about 160 km (100 miles) of travel. On the open highway the
vehicle easily cruised at 91 kph (55) and reached a top speed of 108 kph
(65). Fuel economy averaged about 3.5 km per kg wood (1 mile/lb), a
considerable savings in fuel cost over gasoline."

It's nice to know (a) you can run modern cars on wood if you get mad at
fossil fuels and (b) the soot is not as much of a problem as you would
think because it is so fine it passes into the engine and is burned.

Hub Stassen emphasizes that you should keep producer gas well above the dew
point to avoid tar and soot problems. (Water scrubbing invites problems.)

Your coworker, TOM REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Mar 8 16:19:28 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: dimethyl ether
Message-ID: <199803081625_MC2-35FF-E125@compuserve.com>

Dear Harry:

I think methanol is the most appropriate liquid fuel when oil is gone (make
from methane, wood or coal), but I think that DME (same sources) is even
more ideal. It has very similar properties to propane, easily stored with
modest pressure, self delivering, easy mixing, clean burning.

I operated a 1 ton/day high pressure oxygen biomass gasifier at NREL from
1980-1985. Then Mike Graboski made a 25 ton/day unit which operated
1985-88. I write up all this in our book, "Fundamentals of Oxygen ...." .
I have a gallon of methanol made from our synthesis gas - the only
methanol in the world with "modern" carbon in it.

So when the economics are ready, we are ready.

Your pal, TOM REED

 

From MIHWP at TTACS.TTU.EDU Sun Mar 8 17:37:10 1998
From: MIHWP at TTACS.TTU.EDU (Harry W. Parker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: dimethyl ether
In-Reply-To: <199803081625_MC2-35FF-E125@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <35031E44.BD3EE5EB@ttacs.ttu.edu>

Hello Tom and all,

Its good to have your vote for DME when either regulations or economics
catch up.

Information regarding precommercial wood gasifiers is helpful too.

My analysis/recommendation is to use biomass to displace coal as a fuel
for boilers and for electricity generation in smaller locations. Now
use the displaced coal for gasification and DME and other chemicals at a
few very large facilities. The result is less fossil energy consumed.
Little new technology is needed.

Displacement options such as the above are difficult to "sell" since
they cross business and political "fence lines".

--

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

Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.

Professor of Chemical Engineering Consulting Chemical Engineer
Texas Tech University 8606 Vicksburg Avenue
Lubbock, TX 79409-3121 Lubbock, TX 79424
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

 

 

From pbk2906 at bergsoe.dtu.dk Sun Mar 8 18:12:30 1998
From: pbk2906 at bergsoe.dtu.dk (Claus Hindsgaul Hansen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re Soot in producer gas
In-Reply-To: <199803081624_MC2-35FF-E11C@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980308225818.2124B-100000@venus.bergsoe.dtu.dk>

On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Thomas Reed wrote:

> Dear Tom:
>
> What a great list of both tar and soot references. You are hereby
> nominated as our tar and soot expert.
Very fine list indeed - and highly informative abstracts, you have done.
I haven't had access to reading it before now, but I'm swallowing it like
cream!.

> Here is an anecdotal soot story: I remember about 1981, Ben Russel
> ...
Very encouraging story. It seems like dry(!) soot truly isn't a problem to
engine-operation - neither theoretically nor in practice.
Tar-coated soot still may need serious attention, though.

If we look past the engine, have anybody looked at the resulting amounts of
soot AFTER the engine. How will the engine treat the input soot? Will the soot
be combusted, or have an impact on the soot output from the actual engine?
It might be early to consider this effect, but it seems, that emmisions of
submicron particles attracts an increasing interest for its health effects on
mammals (including ourselves!).

If this also is no problem, we might just ignore the soot formation as totally
harmless.

Claus Hindsgaul Hansen
1902D Woodmar Dr., Houghton, MI 49931
claus@beer.com or claush@bergsoe.dtu.dk
http://www.student.dtu.dk/~c918280

 

 

From campa at hrl.com.au Mon Mar 9 00:45:59 1998
From: campa at hrl.com.au (Campisi, Tony)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re Bagasse, Tar, Environment, Shute, ...
Message-ID: <F93B6CC905B0D111A7E800A0C955FAD433D4@mail_mulgrave>

The "Black Stump" is the point representing the limit of known
civilisation. Beyond the black stump is somewhere in the distance,
beyond where civilisation reaches. Expressions such as "the best
(thing) this side of the black stump" are still in occasional use,
particularly with the older generation.

In Australia, large sheep and cattle farms are stations not ranches.
I'm not sure about New Zealand.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Reed [SMTP:REEDTB@compuserve.com]
> Sent: Monday, 9 March 1998 7:23
> To: INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Re Bagasse, Tar, Environment, Shute, ...
>
> Since you have gotten off the gasification subject with our
> environmental
> sins, I'll stay off for a minute with a great book I'm reading.
>
> Nevil Shute, (On the Beach, Town Like Alice, and 20 other great books)
> emigrated to Australia about 1950 and wrote a number of books about
> Australia. I am currently reading "Beyond the Black Stump". It is a
> wonderful novel about the U.S. and then the outback in Australia
> (sheep
> ranching and oil drilling).
>
> Books still contain a lot of reality you won't find on the Internet.
> Even
> occasionally producing a moist eye.
>
> His books are hard to find, but well worth it. Are they available in
> Australia? Do you ever use the expression "Beyong the Black Stump"?
>
> Your mostly business chum, TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Mar 9 19:23:19 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re Soot in producer gas
Message-ID: <199803091929_MC2-3623-5AF3@compuserve.com>

Dear Claus, Tom Milne et al:

Yes, maybe we can ignore the soot as harmless. Last Friday we had a
fascinating talk by Prof. Jack Howard of MIT on soot particles. The EPA is
now focussing its microscoope on sub-micron particles and may make major
regulations on soot. So, even if we choose to ignore them, maybe we won't
be allowed to.

If we get rid of carcinogens will we live forever?

Just wondering..... TOM REED

 

From denys.f at oag.nl Tue Mar 10 11:16:01 1998
From: denys.f at oag.nl (Frank Denys)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
In-Reply-To: <199802142019.MAA11230@s.transport.com>
Message-ID: <OG752690D@oag.nl>

Dear members,

I have got three small questions. I would be very happy if you could
spare some time and answer them.

1 What is the regular size for a gas engine and what is the biggest
gas engine operating today?

2 What is the temperature of the exhaust gas?

3 Can such an engine be operated using producer gas and a light oil?

Thanks,
Frank

 

From jhays at caverns.com Tue Mar 10 11:32:31 1998
From: jhays at caverns.com (Jon Hays)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re Soot in producer gas
In-Reply-To: <199803091929_MC2-3623-5AF3@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <199803101642.QAA15916@caverns.com>

Box that soot and sell the Bucky balls. John

At 07:28 PM 3/9/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Claus, Tom Milne et al:
>
>Yes, maybe we can ignore the soot as harmless. Last Friday we had a
>fascinating talk by Prof. Jack Howard of MIT on soot particles. The EPA is
>now focussing its microscoope on sub-micron particles and may make major
>regulations on soot. So, even if we choose to ignore them, maybe we won't
>be allowed to.
>
>If we get rid of carcinogens will we live forever?
>
>Just wondering..... TOM REED
>

 

 

From taykenne at iastate.edu Tue Mar 10 13:16:08 1998
From: taykenne at iastate.edu (taykenne@iastate.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re Soot in producer gas
In-Reply-To: <199803091929_MC2-3623-5AF3@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <199803101822.MAA11767@isua2.iastate.edu>

> Dear Claus, Tom Milne et al:
>
> Yes, maybe we can ignore the soot as harmless. Last Friday we had a
> fascinating talk by Prof. Jack Howard of MIT on soot particles. The EPA is
> now focussing its microscoope on sub-micron particles and may make major
> regulations on soot. So, even if we choose to ignore them, maybe we won't
> be allowed to.
>
> If we get rid of carcinogens will we live forever?

prolly not...

> Just wondering..... TOM REED

 

 

From JOYCE at vra.sdmills.csr.com.au Wed Mar 11 01:24:00 1998
From: JOYCE at vra.sdmills.csr.com.au (Joyce, James)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification of biomass
Message-ID: <199803110623.BAA28177@solstice.crest.org>

> ----------
> From: Thomas Reed[SMTP:REEDTB@compuserve.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 5 March 1998 0:46
> To: INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Gasification of biomass
>
> Dear James Joyce and all:
>
> I am not sure I envy you the gasification of bagasse. Nasty stuff!
> The
> real expert in bagasse gasification is Tom Miles, moderator at CREST.
> He
> has just returned from a 10 t/hr pilot plant in Hawaii (Biomass
> Gasification Facility, run by Westinghouse) which has been tryng to
> gasify
> bagasse for a few years (IGT Renugas process). The project is on
> hold.
> Tom's particular expertise is feeding anything, including bagasse.
I read a book recently ( The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge) that
explained how the first truly commercial passenger airplane, the DC-3
combined at least 5 key innovations (variable pitch prop, retractable
landing gear, monocoque body, radial air-cooled engine and wing flaps),
all of which had been tried in various combinations on other aircraft,
none of which were able to be commercially successful until all 5
developed far enough and then used together.

What is the point of all this ? I think the same thing probably applies
to Bagasse gasification. If only we can combine all the right
technologies then we will have a successful system.

To take the analogue further perhaps the scenario for bagasse looks like
this :

> radial air-cooled engine a gasifier unit with minimal tar
> and soot production and minimal auxiliary equipment,
including a workable
means of feeding the fuel into the unit.
> wing flaps efficient and effective gas cleanup
> variable pitch prop a reliable gas turbine
> installation suited precisely to the gasifier output
> monocque body materials and methods of construction
> that can handle the gas conditions of a commercial
scale gasifier at a
reasonable cost and life span.
> retractable landing gear practical startup and shutdown
> provisions (including auxiliary fuels etc.)
>
Given the wide diversity of gasification methods that have been
researched and the many hundreds of permutations and possibilities, it
is no wonder that it should take a while to get it right (at least the
aircraft manufacturers had a relatively simple fuel to work with !).

> It is relatively easy to upgrade conventional sugar cane production to
> include power generation by conveting the boilers to high pressure
> steam.
> Mr. Dan Jantzen of Winrock International has done a few dozen of these
> upgrades in India.
That is precisely what is happening at a growing number of mills. Given
the relatively poor price for electricity we can attract (because we
can't store enough fuel to generate for more than 6 months a year and
because of the effects on price of the subsidised capital for coal fired
power stations under our existing government arrangements), the
economics of a conventional steam cycle at the outputs installed (10-30
MW so far) are pretty shaky.
>
>
>
>

 

From sbhagade at bom2.vsnl.net.in Wed Mar 11 12:01:39 1998
From: sbhagade at bom2.vsnl.net.in (Mr. Sudheer S. Bhagade (Nagpur))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.980311223652.11673A-100000@bom2.vsnl.net.in>

The Admn.,
Please forward mail to informat@bom4.vsnl.net.in as the old address is
no longer valid. Thanks!

S.S. Bhagade

 

 

From marketing at pennyweb.com Wed Mar 11 20:09:28 1998
From: marketing at pennyweb.com (marketing)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: SPONSORING YOUR SITE
Message-ID: <19980312012100875.AAA74@1243876>

 

We'd like to sponsor your site.

We'd like to pay you from 2 to 9 cents
for each click on our banner.

We represent over 100 advertisers.

Advertiser are classified:
- BUSINESS
- COMPUTER
- TRAVEL
- SPORT
- MEDICAL
- ENTERTAINMENT
- TELECOMMUNICATION
- ADULT

YOU ARE GUARANTEED PAYMENT BY PENNYWEB :
OUR ADVERTISING BUDGET IS NOW OVER 2 MILLION DOLLARS.

If you are interested, please visit this URL:

http://www.pennyweb.com

<a hre="http://www.pennyweb.com">CLICK HERE</a>

Thanks

Regards,
Pennyweb

-------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS MESSAGE WAS SEND TO YOU THRU A DIRECT CONNECTION TO YOUR SITE.
YOU ARE NOT PART OF A MAILLING LIST
THIS IS NOT A SPAM E-MAIL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS MESSAGE WAS SEND TO YOU THRU A DIRECT CONNECTION TO YOUR SITE.
YOU ARE NOT PART OF A MAILLING LIST
THIS IS NOT A SPAM E-MAIL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From marketing at pennyweb.com Wed Mar 11 20:11:58 1998
From: marketing at pennyweb.com (marketing)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: SPONSORING YOUR SITE
Message-ID: <19980312012246609.AAA261@1243876>

 

We'd like to sponsor your site.

We'd like to pay you from 2 to 9 cents
for each click on our banner.

We represent over 100 advertisers.

Advertiser are classified:
- BUSINESS
- COMPUTER
- TRAVEL
- SPORT
- MEDICAL
- ENTERTAINMENT
- TELECOMMUNICATION
- ADULT

YOU ARE GUARANTEED PAYMENT BY PENNYWEB :
OUR ADVERTISING BUDGET IS NOW OVER 2 MILLION DOLLARS.

If you are interested, please visit this URL:

http://www.pennyweb.com

<a hre="http://www.pennyweb.com">CLICK HERE</a>

Thanks

Regards,
Pennyweb

-------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS MESSAGE WAS SEND TO YOU THRU A DIRECT CONNECTION TO YOUR SITE.
YOU ARE NOT PART OF A MAILLING LIST
THIS IS NOT A SPAM E-MAIL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS MESSAGE WAS SEND TO YOU THRU A DIRECT CONNECTION TO YOUR SITE.
YOU ARE NOT PART OF A MAILLING LIST
THIS IS NOT A SPAM E-MAIL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Mar 12 02:43:47 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
Message-ID: <199803120653.TAA11338@powerlink.co.nz>

 

> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:34:52 +0000
> From: "Frank Denys" <denys.f@oag.nl>
> Subject: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
>
> Dear members,
>
> I have got three small questions. I would be very happy if you could
> spare some time and answer them.
>
> 1 What is the regular size for a gas engine and what is the biggest
> gas engine operating today?
>
> 2 What is the temperature of the exhaust gas?
>
> 3 Can such an engine be operated using producer gas and a light oil?
>
> Thanks,
> Frank
>
Dear Frank,

Answers to your questions.

1. Gas engines are available in a variety of sizes and regular size depends
in where you fit into the scale of application. In gasification, the
engine size must match the gasifier output and we manifold smaller
gasifiers to suit larger engines. Our standard engine is 6L cylinder
capacity.

2. Exhaust temperatures of our workshop engine 6 feet from the manifold is
300°C. The cylinder fame temperature is about 1,000°C.

3. Haven't tried to dual fuel spark ignition engines, but we do specialise
in dual fuel diesel engines for power generation where the engine has to
follow variable load. Base load application is easier technically.

Hope this answers your questions.

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification

 

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Mar 12 02:43:52 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re Soot in producer gas
Message-ID: <199803120653.TAA11331@powerlink.co.nz>

 

----------
> From: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
> To: Graeme Williams <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>; GASIFICATION
<gasification@crest.org>
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re Soot in producer gas
> Date: Thursday, March 05, 1998 3:46 AM
>
> Dear Doug:
>
> Why remove the photos of soot? Others will stumble across this thread
and
> want to look. Soot is beautiful.
>
> If you make soot on purpose from methane it can be worth $1,000/ton for
> printers ink etc. If you make it from acetylene, $2,000.
>
> I once made a carbon tube furnace to reach 3,000 C using "thermatomic
> carbon", ie soot.
>
> So see if you can't market it.
>
> TOM REED
Dear Tom, Claus et al . . .

Sorry I cannot leave the soot photographs long term on Graeme's website
(because of space reasons) for those who surf the internet, I consider
information exchange to be personal, and relevant to discussion of
individuals needs. Rather than reply to individuals by private E-mail,
regular members of this list can at least share albeit briefly, that which
I can offer from Fluidyne's gasification experience. As custodian of the
information contributed by so many over the years which forms the basis of
Fluidyne's technology, I do have a responsibility to make comment from a
practical perspective which hopefully provides a balance to all the
studies.

The greatest fear I have about information exchange is its collection by
some who then use it to beat the head of the contributor!

Soot then is beautiful to look at, deadly to injest, particulaly tar coated
(as in cigarettes) but whatever its chemical structure - has no function in
a gas line except to create problems. If you want to believe you can put
hot tar coated soot into an engine as some suggest, check to see what the
engine manufacturer has to say about it first. It will save your client a
pile of money from loss of warranty.

Regards

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification

 

 

From tk at tke.dk Thu Mar 12 04:41:58 1998
From: tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
In-Reply-To: <199803120653.TAA11338@powerlink.co.nz>
Message-ID: <199803120948.KAA01074@proxy100.image.dk>

From: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Subject: Re: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 20:29:35 +1300
Reply-to: gasification@crest.org

> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:34:52 +0000
> From: "Frank Denys" <denys.f@oag.nl>
> Subject: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
>
We operate a 1.8 lter VW engine om Natural gas and a 1.1 liter Ford
engine on Nat gas and Producergas.

Efficiency on nat Gas is
VW 35,8 % mechnacal
Ford 32 % mechanical

Efficiency on producergas
Ford approx 29 % mech.

Exhaust gas temp.

VW 740 degree C
Ford 710 degree C

Sincerely

Thomas Koch

> Dear members,
>
> I have got three small questions. I would be very happy if you could
> spare some time and answer them.
>
> 1 What is the regular size for a gas engine and what is the biggest
> gas engine operating today?
>
> 2 What is the temperature of the exhaust gas?
>
> 3 Can such an engine be operated using producer gas and a light oil?
>
> Thanks,
> Frank
>
Dear Frank,

Answers to your questions.

1. Gas engines are available in a variety of sizes and regular size depends
in where you fit into the scale of application. In gasification, the
engine size must match the gasifier output and we manifold smaller
gasifiers to suit larger engines. Our standard engine is 6L cylinder
capacity.

2. Exhaust temperatures of our workshop engine 6 feet from the manifold is
300°C. The cylinder fame temperature is about 1,000°C.

3. Haven't tried to dual fuel spark ignition engines, but we do specialise
in dual fuel diesel engines for power generation where the engine has to
follow variable load. Base load application is easier technically.

Hope this answers your questions.

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification

 

 

From sbhagade at bom2.vsnl.net.in Thu Mar 12 11:45:11 1998
From: sbhagade at bom2.vsnl.net.in (Mr. Sudheer S. Bhagade (Nagpur))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: change of add
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.980312222042.1058C-100000@bom2.vsnl.net.in>

My address is changed to informat@bom4.vsnl.net.in with immediate effect.
Please send mail there. Thanks!

S.S. Bhagade

 

 

From macm at cert.UCR.EDU Thu Mar 12 19:10:06 1998
From: macm at cert.UCR.EDU (Mac McClanahan)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
In-Reply-To: <199803120948.KAA01074@proxy100.image.dk>
Message-ID: <35087939.93AAD97B@helium.ucr.edu>

Do you have any engines running on hydrogen?

Mac McClanahan

--
----------------------------------------------
Mac McClanahan
CE-CERT
University of California, Riverside
909 781-5746
909 781-5790 fax
mailto://macm@helium.ucr.edu
----------------------------------------------

 

 

From JOYCE at vra.sdmills.csr.com.au Thu Mar 12 22:52:11 1998
From: JOYCE at vra.sdmills.csr.com.au (Joyce, James)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
Message-ID: <199803130352.WAA02382@solstice.crest.org>

I have a quick question about running small (1-4 hp) spark engines on
producer gas, if anyone can help. I imagine there are few books around
that could tell me, or a even a few old timers who remember them from
the second world war.

Can you simply connect the outlet of a small gasifier to the engine air
cleaner inlet (so it passes through the carburettor). Any air required
for the engine would then also be drawn through the gasifier. Or is a
little more sophistication required ?

I am interested in this topic because I would like to convert a Briggs
and Stratton (motor mower type) four stroke engine to run a 24 volt,
500-1000W as a supplementary or top up generator for a predominantly
solar and wind powered home power system, using dried lawn clippings,
shredded newspaper and other garden clippings as a fuel.

> ----------
> From: Thomas Koch[SMTP:tk@tke.dk]
> Sent: Thursday, 12 March 1998 21:47
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
>
> From: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>
> To: <gasification@crest.org>
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 20:29:35 +1300
> Reply-to: gasification@crest.org
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:34:52 +0000
> > From: "Frank Denys" <denys.f@oag.nl>
> > Subject: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
> >
> We operate a 1.8 lter VW engine om Natural gas and a 1.1 liter Ford
> engine on Nat gas and Producergas.
>
> Efficiency on nat Gas is
> VW 35,8 % mechnacal
> Ford 32 % mechanical
>
> Efficiency on producergas
> Ford approx 29 % mech.
>
> Exhaust gas temp.
>
> VW 740 degree C
> Ford 710 degree C
>
> Sincerely
>
> Thomas Koch
>
> > Dear members,
> >
> > I have got three small questions. I would be very happy if you
> could
> > spare some time and answer them.
> >
> > 1 What is the regular size for a gas engine and what is the
> biggest
> > gas engine operating today?
> >
> > 2 What is the temperature of the exhaust gas?
> >
> > 3 Can such an engine be operated using producer gas and a light
> oil?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Frank
> >
> Dear Frank,
>
> Answers to your questions.
>
> 1. Gas engines are available in a variety of sizes and regular size
> depends
> in where you fit into the scale of application. In gasification, the
> engine size must match the gasifier output and we manifold smaller
> gasifiers to suit larger engines. Our standard engine is 6L cylinder
> capacity.
>
> 2. Exhaust temperatures of our workshop engine 6 feet from the
> manifold is
> 300°C. The cylinder fame temperature is about 1,000°C.
>
> 3. Haven't tried to dual fuel spark ignition engines, but we do
> specialise
> in dual fuel diesel engines for power generation where the engine has
> to
> follow variable load. Base load application is easier technically.
>
> Hope this answers your questions.
>
>
> Doug Williams
> Fluidyne Gasification
>

 

From tk at tke.dk Fri Mar 13 03:43:30 1998
From: tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
In-Reply-To: <199803130352.WAA02382@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <199803130847.JAA31952@proxy100.image.dk>

From: "Joyce, James" <JOYCE@vra.sdmills.csr.com.au>
To: "'gasification@crest.org'" <gasification@crest.org>
Subject: RE: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:58:14 +1100
Reply-to: gasification@crest.org

Make a t-piece out of 1/2" pipe with 2 valves connect the air to one
valve and the gasifier to the other. It is very simpel.
That gives you the posibility of adjusting the pressure so you can
suck in the gas.
It can be difficult to find the right stoichoimetri to get the gas to
ignite. Spin the engine with a asyncron generator and play around
with the valves.

Good luck

I have a quick question about running small (1-4 hp) spark engines on
producer gas, if anyone can help. I imagine there are few books around
that could tell me, or a even a few old timers who remember them from
the second world war.

Can you simply connect the outlet of a small gasifier to the engine air
cleaner inlet (so it passes through the carburettor). Any air required
for the engine would then also be drawn through the gasifier. Or is a
little more sophistication required ?

I am interested in this topic because I would like to convert a Briggs
and Stratton (motor mower type) four stroke engine to run a 24 volt,
500-1000W as a supplementary or top up generator for a predominantly
solar and wind powered home power system, using dried lawn clippings,
shredded newspaper and other garden clippings as a fuel.

> ----------
> From: Thomas Koch[SMTP:tk@tke.dk]
> Sent: Thursday, 12 March 1998 21:47
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
>
> From: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>
> To: <gasification@crest.org>
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 20:29:35 +1300
> Reply-to: gasification@crest.org
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:34:52 +0000
> > From: "Frank Denys" <denys.f@oag.nl>
> > Subject: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
> >
> We operate a 1.8 lter VW engine om Natural gas and a 1.1 liter Ford
> engine on Nat gas and Producergas.
>
> Efficiency on nat Gas is
> VW 35,8 % mechnacal
> Ford 32 % mechanical
>
> Efficiency on producergas
> Ford approx 29 % mech.
>
> Exhaust gas temp.
>
> VW 740 degree C
> Ford 710 degree C
>
> Sincerely
>
> Thomas Koch
>
> > Dear members,
> >
> > I have got three small questions. I would be very happy if you
> could
> > spare some time and answer them.
> >
> > 1 What is the regular size for a gas engine and what is the
> biggest
> > gas engine operating today?
> >
> > 2 What is the temperature of the exhaust gas?
> >
> > 3 Can such an engine be operated using producer gas and a light
> oil?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Frank
> >
> Dear Frank,
>
> Answers to your questions.
>
> 1. Gas engines are available in a variety of sizes and regular size
> depends
> in where you fit into the scale of application. In gasification, the
> engine size must match the gasifier output and we manifold smaller
> gasifiers to suit larger engines. Our standard engine is 6L cylinder
> capacity.
>
> 2. Exhaust temperatures of our workshop engine 6 feet from the
> manifold is
> 300°C. The cylinder fame temperature is about 1,000°C.
>
> 3. Haven't tried to dual fuel spark ignition engines, but we do
> specialise
> in dual fuel diesel engines for power generation where the engine has
> to
> follow variable load. Base load application is easier technically.
>
> Hope this answers your questions.
>
>
> Doug Williams
> Fluidyne Gasification
>

 

From JOYCE at vra.sdmills.csr.com.au Fri Mar 13 17:25:03 1998
From: JOYCE at vra.sdmills.csr.com.au (Joyce, James)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: cooler the better
Message-ID: <199803132224.RAA13972@solstice.crest.org>

Thanks for the advice Dale and Thomas. It sounds like it is going to be
a bit harder than I thought. For starters the ambient temperature where
I live is 84 F ... which makes cooling a gas to 65 F difficult !

Sounds rather like separate gas production, cooling and storage is the
way to go. I suppose that way I could compress the gas (using a solar
powered compressor of course) and provide it to the engine under
pressure. Has anyone else done this ? I was thinking of compressing to
35 psi (after cooling) and then leaving to cool to ambient temperature
again. The process of expansion as the gas was metered into the engine
would provide further cooling of the gas. What do you think ?

I had originally intended to run the engine of methane from a digestor,
but I had thought that gasifier would make more gas, be less messy (and
less smelly). Perhaps I could combine the two to give me the quantity
and quality of gas it sounds like I would need. What's a bit more
complexity when your having fun !

> ----------
> From: costich[SMTP:costich@pacifier.com]
> Sent: Friday, 13 March 1998 23:47
> To: Joyce, James
> Subject: cooler the better
>
> Hello: The gas must be cooled to 60-65 F from 1200-1400 F from out of
> the gasifier just seconds before! The colder the denser the more
> calorific-I fought this when I was starting and had no one to tell me.
> Lately I've been building Stirling engines they are wood fired and
> when
> coupled to a permanent magnet motor create enough energy to run one of
> my Goldstar lights (http://members.tripod.com/~costich). I change
> nothing with the motors-just feed 1.1-1 producer gas thru a duo of
> butterfly valves so you can change the blend ratio to get the highest
> engine rpm. Beleive me you'll be ripping your hair out trying to keep
> the pyrolysis to hot and the useful gas to cold!
>

 

From logwood at zeus.odyssey.net Sat Mar 14 11:58:59 1998
From: logwood at zeus.odyssey.net (Tom)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:tire char
In-Reply-To: <199801260927_MC2-30A8-13DA@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <350AB897.25170528@odyssey.net>

In the mid 80's
my father did extensive work on gasification and eventually built a continuously
fed  rotary kiln gasifier. In this we ran such products as msw, sawdust,
wood chips, ground rubber ,sewage sludge and oat hulls. The process worked
, with a few problems with the feed system, and i have been told the heat
value of the gas was fairly high. Later on we worked on tire gasification
and designed a continuous feed system for the gasification of whole tires
and medical waste and was able to obtain a patent on that system.
I have been subscribed to this discussion
group for only a few months but it looks like the same factors are present
now that were there then, being lack of interest and not having a much
of a market for the by products of tire gasification, short of using it
as a fuel.
Recently i was approached by someone
who says that quality of the char is such that they could convert the tire
char into activated carbon.
Could someone tell me if this is a
common thing (converting the tire char into activated carbon ) and if so
who is doing it or is this a figment of someone's imagination.
Any input will be appreciated.
Tom Parker

From tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net Sat Mar 14 12:13:44 1998
From: tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net (tvoivozd)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:tire char
In-Reply-To: <199801260927_MC2-30A8-13DA@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <350ABC2D.47E61C09@roanoke.infi.net>

 

Tom wrote:

>
>
>> In the mid 80's my father did extensive work on gasification and
>> eventually built a continuously fed rotary kiln gasifier. In this
>> we ran such products as msw, sawdust, wood chips, ground rubber
>> ,sewage sludge and oat hulls. The process worked , with a few
>> problems with the feed system, and i have been told the heat value
>> of the gas was fairly high. Later on we worked on tire gasification
>> and designed a continuous feed system for the gasification of whole
>> tires and medical waste and was able to obtain a patent on that
>> system.
>
> I have been subscribed to this discussion group for only a few
> months but it looks like the same factors are present now that were
> there then, being lack of interest and not having a much of a market
> for the by products of tire gasification, short of using it as a fuel.
>
> Recently i was approached by someone who says that quality of the
> char is such that they could convert the tire char into activated
> carbon.
> Could someone tell me if this is a common thing (converting the
> tire char into activated carbon ) and if so who is doing it or is this
> a figment of someone's imagination.
> Any input will be appreciated.
> Tom Parker

tvoivozhd>>>If the tire char does not contain any residual contaminants
that can survive 450 to 500 degrees centigrade when the base carbon
(charcoal, coal, pecan hull charcoal etc.) is treated with superheated
steam or carbon dioxide, it should work. Don't know if free tires (or
up to $2.00 subsidy for hauling them away from tire dealers) are as
cheap as coal. Current wholesale price for activated charcoal is about
$2.00 a pound. Better check on those contaminants, though.

 

 

From tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net Sat Mar 14 12:16:21 1998
From: tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net (tvoivozd)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:tire char (price correction)
In-Reply-To: <199801260927_MC2-30A8-13DA@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <350ABCC9.D55D5805@roanoke.infi.net>

 

Tom wrote:

>
>
>> In the mid 80's my father did extensive work on gasification and
>> eventually built a continuously fed rotary kiln gasifier. In this
>> we ran such products as msw, sawdust, wood chips, ground rubber
>> ,sewage sludge and oat hulls. The process worked , with a few
>> problems with the feed system, and i have been told the heat value
>> of the gas was fairly high. Later on we worked on tire gasification
>> and designed a continuous feed system for the gasification of whole
>> tires and medical waste and was able to obtain a patent on that
>> system.
>
> I have been subscribed to this discussion group for only a few
> months but it looks like the same factors are present now that were
> there then, being lack of interest and not having a much of a market
> for the by products of tire gasification, short of using it as a fuel.
>
> Recently i was approached by someone who says that quality of the
> char is such that they could convert the tire char into activated
> carbon.
> Could someone tell me if this is a common thing (converting the
> tire char into activated carbon ) and if so who is doing it or is this
> a figment of someone's imagination.
> Any input will be appreciated.
> Tom Parker

tvoivozhd>>>too much off the top of the head---last time I checked
wholesale price of activated charcoal was $2.00 a kilo, not pound.

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Mar 15 10:20:37 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dual fuel engines
Message-ID: <199803151026_MC2-36C7-5E4@compuserve.com>

Dear James et al:

You asked...

>Can you simply connect the outlet of a small gasifier to the engine air
cleaner inlet (so it passes through the carburettor). Any air required
for the engine would then also be drawn through the gasifier. Or is a
little more sophistication required ?

I am interested in this topic because I would like to convert a Briggs
and Stratton (motor mower type) four stroke engine to run a 24 volt,
500-1000W as a supplementary or top up generator for a predominantly
solar and wind powered home power system, using dried lawn clippings,
shredded newspaper and other garden clippings as a fuel.

<
I hesitate to answer because we have greater experts here (Koch,
Williams,...). No, you need to have a parallel source of secondary air to
burn the producer gas added at a T junction before the air cleaner. The
producer gas should not contain any oxygen. You also need to about a 1:1
ratio of gas to air (which causes about a 40% derating of max engine
power).

I presume that one can leave the gasoline supply hooked up to the engine
and use any fraction gasoline/gas you want, making a very convenient dual
fuel engine. Start it on gasoline, get it warm, and slowly switch to PG.
~~~~
I hope you get better advice than this. There is a lot in our books that I
will read when I need it, probably none on very small engines. However,
they are very tolerant. Please report back on your successes and failures
and we'll get more help as needed.

Yours truly, TOM REED

 

From Decks at pressroom.com Mon Mar 16 00:14:52 1998
From: Decks at pressroom.com (Chadd Michael)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: mpm technologies
Message-ID: <350CB46A.F21504A9@pressroom.com>

I would appreciate it greatly if you could provide any information
concerning the "skygas process". MPM technologies in Spokane Wash. has
developed the "skygas process"which is supposed to be the most cutting
edge. do you have any info?

 

 

From phoenix at transport.com Mon Mar 16 00:46:46 1998
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: mpm technologies
Message-ID: <199803160553.VAA05211@brutus.transport.com>

Chadd,

>MPM technologies in Spokane Wash. has
> developed the "skygas process"which is supposed to be the most cutting
> edge. do you have any info

What is the SKYGAS process anyway? What industry is it associated with?

Art Krenzel

 

 

 

From 33sqj7 at mci.com Tue Mar 17 06:01:12 1998
From: 33sqj7 at mci.com (33sq7j)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <19943672.886214@relay.comanche.denmark.eu>

Authenticated sender is <33sqj7@mci.com>
Subject: Tuesday
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

EMAIL MARKETING WORKS!!

Bull's Eye Gold is the PREMIER email address collection tool.
This program allows you to develop TARGETED lists of email
addresses. Doctors, florists, MLM, biz opp,...you can collect
anything...you are only limited by your imagination! You can
even collect email addresses for specific states, cities, and
even countries! All you need is your web browser and this program.
Our software utilizes the latest in search technology called
"spidering". By simply feeding the spider program a starting
website it will collect for hours. The spider will go from website
to targeted website providing you with thousands upon thousands of
fresh TARGETED email addresses. When you are done collecting, the
spider removes duplicates and saves the email list in a ready to
send format. No longer is it necessary to send millions of ads to
get a handful of responses...SEND LESS...EARN MORE!!!

A terrific aspect of the Bull's Eye software is that there is
no difficult set up involved and no special technical mumbo-jumbo
to learn. All you need to know is how to search for your targeted
market in one of the many search engines and let the spider do the
rest! Not familiar with the search engines? No problem, we provide
you with a list of all the top search engines. Just surf to the
location of a search engine on your browser then search for the
market you wish to reach...it's that easy!

For instance if you were looking for email addresses of Doctors
in New York all you would do is:

1) Do a search using your favorite search engine by typing in
the words doctor(s) and New York
2) Copy the URL (one or more)...that's the stuff after the
http://... for instance it might look like
http://www.yahoo.com/?doctor(s)/?New+York
3) Press the START button

THAT's IT!!! The Bull's Eye spider will go to all the websites
that are linked, automatically extracting the email addresses
you want.

The spider is passive too! That means you can let it run all
day or all night while you are working on important things or
just having fun on your computer. There is no need to keep a
constant watch on it, just feed it your target market and give
it praise when it delivers thousands of email addresses at
the end of the day!

Features of the Bull's Eye Software:

* Does TARGETED searches of websites collecting the email
addresses you want!
* Collects Email addresses by City, State, even specific
Countries
* Runs Automatically...simply enter the Starting information,
press The Start Button, and it does the rest
* Filters out duplicates
* Keeps track of URLs already visited
* Can run 24 hours per day, 7 days per week
* Fast and Easy List Management
* Also has built in filtering options...you can put in words
that it "Must" have while searching,...you can even put in
criteria that it "Must NOT Have"...giving you added flexibility
* Also imports email addresses from any kind of files (text
files, binary files, database files)
* List editor handles Multiple files to work on many lists
simultaneously
* Has a Black-Book feature... avoid sending emails to people
who do not want to receive it
* Built-in Mail program...send email directly on the internet
with just a click of your mouse
* Personalized Emails...if the email address has the user's
name when it is collected,..you can send Personalized emails!!!
* Sort by Location, Server, User Name, Contact Name
* Advanced Operations:
· Email address lists export in many different formats
(HTML, Comma delimited, text file)
· Advanced editing...Transfer, Copy, Addition, Delete, Crop,
Move to Top/Bottom
· Operations between lists...Union, Subtraction, Comparison
* Program is Passive,...meaning you can run other programs at
the same time

CALL FOR MORE INFORMATION 213-980-7850
CALL FOR MORE INFORMATION 213-980-7850

ORDERING INFORMATION

Customer Name
Company Name
Address
City
State Zip
Phone Fax
Email Address

______ BULL'S EYE SOFTWARE $259.00
Includes Software, Instructions, Technical Support

______ Shipping & Handling (2-3 Day Fedex) $10.00
(Fedex Overnite) $20.00

______ TOTAL
(CA Residents add applicable sales tax)

*All orders are for Win 95 and Win NT

*****CREDIT CARDS ACCEPTED*****
MASTERCARD VISA AMEX

PLEASE CALL 213-980-7850 to process your order
9am-5pm Pacific Time
Checks or Money Orders send to:
WorldTouch Network Inc.
5670 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2170 Los Angeles, CA 90036
Please note: Allow 5 business days for all checks to
clear before order is shipped.

 

 

From pbk2906 at bergsoe.dtu.dk Tue Mar 17 18:12:16 1998
From: pbk2906 at bergsoe.dtu.dk (Claus Hindsgaul Hansen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Soot flocculation
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980317234406.29058A-100000@venus.bergsoe.dtu.dk>

Dear Dough,

Rereading one of your older postings (feb 26), I came across an
explanation on the soot flocculation, I can not comprehent:

"Once CO forms, if the gas is not quenched immediately to below 500
degrees C, the CO will revert to CO2 and soot flocculation will result.
This is the fluffy spheres or clusters, you see."

I cannot make the connection between the oxidation and flocculation. From
the literature, the closest statement, I have found, is that the
flocculation of soot reduces the surface area, and thereby slows down
oxidation of the soot.
The flocculation was explained as particle collisions after some tarry
substances had condensed on the soot surface (in my diesel-engine
literature)

How do you explain the flocculation as the result of the oxidation, and is
it based on theoretical work and/or emphirical observations?

PS: I wasn't quick enough (say "quite slow"), to save a digital copy of
your sooth-pictures, when they where available. I want to cite them in my
thesis, and possibly reproduce one of them here, if you give your
permission. Have you got any basic information on the actual gasifier
(type, fuel, gasifying agent used, temperatures), where the samples where
taken? How should I cite them properly (are they published somewhere?).

Claus Hindsgaul Hansen
1902D Woodmar Dr., Houghton, MI 49931
claus@beer.com or claush@bergsoe.dtu.dk
http://www.student.dtu.dk/~c918280

 

 

From fkuzel at cglg.org Wed Mar 18 12:09:03 1998
From: fkuzel at cglg.org (Fred Kuzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Great Lakes RFP
Message-ID: <01BD525F.88246820@ts004d23.chi-il.concentric.net>

NOTICE:

The Great Lakes Regional Biomass Energy Program has issued a Request for Proposals to fund projects in the following three areas:

- Projects to Increase the Production or Use of Liquid Biofuels
- Projects to Increase the Production or Use of Biomass Derived Gas and Solid Fuels
- Projects that Encourage Transfer of Biomass Energy Technology

The maximum available for a single project is $50,000 which must be matched on at least a one to one basis.

Proposals must be submitted by March 27, 1998, and projects must be of a twelve month or less duration.

For a copy of the Request for Proposals is available on the web at www.cglg.org/projects/biomass/rfp_1998.html

Please contact me with questions at 312-407-0177 of fkuzel@cglg.org

-Fred Kuzel

 

 

From cometrd at global.co.za Wed Mar 18 15:19:03 1998
From: cometrd at global.co.za (QUICKWITTED)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: active charcoal
Message-ID: <199803182024.WAA14257@mail.global.co.za>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bin00039.bin
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1397 bytes
Desc: "Active Charcoal (Internet E-Mail Message)"
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19980318/068a2efb/bin00039.bin
From gsnedecor at dow.com Wed Mar 18 15:59:37 1998
From: gsnedecor at dow.com (Snedecor Jr, Gayle (TG))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: References for PAH formation in gasification?
Message-ID: <c=WW%a=ATTMAIL%p=DOW%l=TXNTE04-980318210600Z-162959@mante02.nam.dow.com>

I'm looking for references for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon formation
(PAH) in gasification of wastes. In particular, classification,
kinetics, mechanisms, unit ratios, minimization, VLE (to determine where
they go downstream) etc.

Thanks!

Gayle Snedecor

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Mar 19 00:37:56 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Soot images are available again.
Message-ID: <199803190446.QAA18375@powerlink.co.nz>

I have restored the soot / carbon images onto the web site at Doug's
request.

Follow the link from the url below:

http://powerlink.co.nz/~graeme/fluid.html

Regrads,

Graeme Williams

 

From danday at scientific-ag.com Thu Mar 19 13:41:29 1998
From: danday at scientific-ag.com (danday)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small Electricity Generator
Message-ID: <35117579.9DDC76B@scientific-ag.com>

David wrote:

>Dear Carol,

>ETA is involved in Renewables Energies and Desalination/Water Projects.

>We're now wotking to a JOULE III project named DESERESCUE: it is a
>feasibility study which aims to rescue arid coastal areas in
>Mediterranean Countries (and abroad) by means of a bio-energy scheme.
>In other words, the energy necessary to desalinate sea water is
provided
>by a small scale bio-energy system. The biomass tyep, considering
>local climate condition, has to be some kind of energy crops.
>The partners to this Project are:
>ITER (Canarie, Spain): Manuel Cendagorta, Marcos Oramas
>CENET (Munich, Germany): H.P.Grimm
>IFP (Braunschweig, Germany): N.El Bassam
>Therefore, we're very interested in these small scale systems. If you,
>or someone you know, could provide some real example of these units
>we'll be glad to contact him.
>The generator should provide approx. 100 kW or, alternatively, power in

>the range 400-600 kW.

>Thanks.

>all the best for the New Year,

Your message caught my eye. We have a pilot facility almost completed
which will produce 150-250kw as well as a large amount of activated
carbon. It would be interesting to see how a combination
generator/desalination/activated carbon/clean drinking water project
could be implemented.

Danny Day
www.scientific-ag.com

 

 

 

From danday at scientific-ag.com Thu Mar 19 15:12:10 1998
From: danday at scientific-ag.com (danday)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L:Re:tire char (activated carbon)
Message-ID: <35118ABE.F3DCFBC5@scientific-ag.com>

Tom Parker said:

<<In the mid 80's my father did extensive work on gasification and
eventually built a continuously fed rotary kiln gasifier. In this we
ran
such products as msw, sawdust, wood chips, ground rubber ,sewage
sludge and oat hulls. The process worked , with a few
problems with the feed system, and i have been told the heat value of
the gas was fairly high. Later on we worked on tire gasification
and designed a continuous feed system for the gasification of whole
tires and medical waste and was able to obtain a patent on that
system.

I have been subscribed to this discussion group for only a few
months but it looks like the same factors are present now that were
there then, being lack of interest and not having a much of a market for
the by products of tire gasification, short of using it as a fuel.
Recently i was approached by someone who says that quality of the
char is such that they could convert the tire char into activated
carbon.
Could someone tell me if this is a common thing (converting the tire
char into activated carbon ) and if so who is doing it or is this a
figment of someone's imagination.
Any input will be appreciated.
Tom Parker >>

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

Tom:

As I understand it, there is a plant in Japan that is producing
activated carbon from tires. A US SBIR grant was recently completed (as
reported at the '97 Carbon Conference) which covered the subject. I
spoke with one of the researchers who indicated they have requested
follow up funding for a demonstration project (or was it that he wanted
follow up funding?). I thought I had remember reading about a
demonstration project back a few years ago but it could have been the
SBIR announcement.

I believe that there could be many uses for activated carbon from
tires. Sure, it may have contaminants that will preclude its use in
some areas but there are some applications where the contaminants would
not be a problem.

Based on our market research, there is a growing demand for an
inexpensive activated carbon for uses that current pricing makes
uneconomical. A tire based activated carbon just might be the answer.
Our firm is in the process of completing its first plant for the
manufacture of activated carbon from agricultural waste. While our
product grades are generally better than "low cost" carbons, we still
think that alternative raw materials will find a place in the future.

We feel that research into the many uses of activated carbon will yield
valuable markets in the years to come. A part of those markets will be
for "lower" grades or contaminated carbons.

Danny Day
http://www.scientific-ag.com

 

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Mar 19 15:44:40 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Soot and PAH
Message-ID: <199803191939.HAA24570@powerlink.co.nz>

Dear Claus and Gayle

As a request for PAH information was posted after my reply to Claus was
compiled, I have posted into the process where PAH would seem to fit. The
context of the answer is specifically related to the phenomena present in
high performance down-draught gasification, and may only in certain
circumstances exist in other gasification processes. Yealds have not been
established, but this will be possible when we collect it in considerable
quantities during the operation of the Mega Class gasifier project in
Germany.

1. "Flocculation refers to the fluffy cloud-like appearance we see visually
in soot from high performance wood gasification. The same type of soot
formation is less obvious when the same gasifier is used with charcoal
only.
Conclusion: Hydrocarbons from distillation phase of biomass has some
influence on flocculation.

2. Fluffy flocculation is an increase of surface area, therefore increases
the rate of oxidation.
Impacted or collision particles do not flocculate and are visibly smooth.
It is unlikely if not impossible for tar to condense in the areas affected
by flocculation, i.e. over 500 degrees C. General Motors clearly
identified acetylene as the culprit in the formation of soot in diesel
engines.

3. My own study of soot formation began in 1985 and continues to the
present, and because the technical support of laboratories is expensive,
rely on empirical observations.
Flocculation is only seen in a range of temperature in my experience from
850-500 degrees C. In Fluidyne gasifiers, the hearth temperature at the
throat is between 12-1500 degrees C, all our probes melted at 1200 degrees
C!

Distillation gases are subjected to high temperature reduction as they
cross the boundary layer between the carbonising and oxidising zones
forming carbon blacks with a graphite lattice structure. I am not quite
sure if at this point PAH is formed, as further decomposition then takes
place in the high temperature l2-l500 degrees C reducing atmosphere through
the throat to form what I believe to be C60 or C70 Bucky Balls. I know
from their behaviour that they are a charged particle until below 500
degrees C, where even then their presence still has an influence on gas
behaviour. I believe flocculation can be directly attributed to the
presence of buckminster-fullerene carbons.

4. Graeme has installed the soot pictures again so if you need them please
make your own copies. Everyone can use them referring to: Personal
communication, Fluidyne Soot Tests May 1979, D.B.Williams.

NOTE: These early soot samples from the gasification of wood, show a high
ash content, and no flocculation although the particles are spherical. The
carbon content is mainly char particles. High performance gasification (as
we call it) was finally understood and incorporated into our hearth design
in 1981, and I prefer to think of it as a plasma gas. My work in this
field is not complete and commercially sensitive, so you have now as much
as I am prepared to give! (Hint for a well paid project).

Any of the information supplied to the Gasification List by myself may be
used as Personal Communication: D.B.Williams, Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.
This includes all contributions in the archives listed as Graeme Williams.

Regards
Doug Williams.

>Dear Dough,

>Rereading one of your older postings (feb 26), I came across an
>explanation on the soot flocculation, I can not comprehent:

>"Once CO forms, if the gas is not quenched immediately to below 500
>degrees C, the CO will revert to CO2 and soot flocculation will result.
>This is the fluffy spheres or clusters, you see."

>I cannot make the connection between the oxidation and flocculation. From
>the literature, the closest statement, I have found, is that the
>flocculation of soot reduces the surface area, and thereby slows down
>oxidation of the soot.
>The flocculation was explained as particle collisions after some tarry
>substances had condensed on the soot surface (in my diesel-engine
>literature)

>How do you explain the flocculation as the result of the oxidation, and is
>it based on theoretical work and/or emphirical observations?

>PS: I wasn't quick enough (say "quite slow"), to save a digital copy of
>your sooth-pictures, when they where available. I want to cite them in my
>thesis, and possibly reproduce one of them here, if you give your
>permission. Have you got any basic information on the actual gasifier
>(type, fuel, gasifying agent used, temperatures), where the samples where
>taken? How should I cite them properly (are they published somewhere?).

>Claus Hindsgaul Hansen
>1902D Woodmar Dr., Houghton, MI 49931
>claus@beer.com or claush@bergsoe.dtu.dk
>http://www.student.dtu.dk/~c918280

>Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:06:00 -0500
>From: "Snedecor Jr, Gayle (TG)" <gsnedecor@dow.com>
>Subject: GAS-L: References for PAH formation in gasification?

>I'm looking for references for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon formation
>(PAH) in gasification of wastes. In particular, classification,
>kinetics, mechanisms, unit ratios, minimization, VLE (to determine where
>they go downstream) etc.

>Thanks!

>Gayle Snedecor

 

 

From danday at scientific-ag.com Thu Mar 19 16:26:38 1998
From: danday at scientific-ag.com (danday)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L:tire char (activated carbon)
Message-ID: <35119C34.39B649F6@scientific-ag.com>

Just checked my notes. The paper was "Tire-Derived Activated Carbons
for use in Gas Seperation, Storage and Cleanup" by Lehmann, Christopher
M. B. (clehmann@uiuc.edu)

Danny Day
www.scientific-ag.com

 

 

From pbk2906 at bergsoe.dtu.dk Thu Mar 19 18:57:56 1998
From: pbk2906 at bergsoe.dtu.dk (Claus Hindsgaul Hansen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Soot and PAH
In-Reply-To: <199803191939.HAA24570@powerlink.co.nz>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980320001332.24492D-100000@venus.bergsoe.dtu.dk>

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Graeme Williams wrote:

> 2. Fluffy flocculation is an increase of surface area, therefore increases
> the rate of oxidation.
What is the basis, you compare the surface area to?
I would expect the flocculations to the result of some process merging
previously independent soot particles, since the size of the flocculated
spheres are so similar to that of the individual soot-particles. Though I
would compare the surface area of the flocculation to that of sum of the
individual particles. This leads to my conclusion, that the surface area
is DECREASED by flocculation. Furthermore, much of the surface will be
hidden inside the resulting macroparticle - less accessible to the ambient
oxygen.
So why do you say, flocculation decreases the surface area?

> NOTE: These early soot samples from the gasification of wood, show a high
> ash content, and no flocculation although the particles are spherical. The
> carbon content is mainly char particles.
So I am correct in assuming, that:
Your pictures where taken from an early Flyidyne-developed gasifier. The
fuel was wood chips. It was a down-draught gasifier.
Was it - in general - comparable to the Pacific Class Wood Gasifier, on
which you have published very detailed data on your web-site?

> Any of the information supplied to the Gasification List by myself may be
> used as Personal Communication: D.B.Williams, Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.
> This includes all contributions in the archives listed as Graeme Williams.
Thank you.

Claus Hindsgaul

PS: How is the market for gasifiers at the moment in downtown Auckland? :)

 

 

From arcate at email.msn.com Mon Mar 23 00:46:57 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
Message-ID: <000101bd561f$4f0451e0$6b5cffd0@arcate>

To the Gasification Group:

Disposal of Construction & Demolition (C&D) wood waste that has been treated
to protect the wood from termites and fungal decay, is a disposal problem in
many locations. I understand the most common type of wood preservative used
today is chromated-copper-arsenate (CCA).

Can treated wood be used as a feedstock for "gasification" ?
Are there any toxic compounds in the gasifier off-gas?
Is the ash classified as a hazardous waste?

Thank you,

Jim Arcate

 

 

 

From rrauch at fbch.tuwien.ac.at Mon Mar 23 07:23:23 1998
From: rrauch at fbch.tuwien.ac.at (Reinhard Rauch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:
In-Reply-To: <19943672.886214@relay.comanche.denmark.eu>
Message-ID: <351655A8.A1BBD581@fbch.tuwien.ac.at>

Please don`t write me any email in future!!

33sq7j schrieb:

> Authenticated sender is <33sqj7@mci.com>
> Subject: Tuesday
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> EMAIL MARKETING WORKS!!
>
> Bull's Eye Gold is the PREMIER email address collection tool.
> This program allows you to develop TARGETED lists of email
> addresses. Doctors, florists, MLM, biz opp,...you can collect
> anything...you are only limited by your imagination! You can
> even collect email addresses for specific states, cities, and
> even countries! All you need is your web browser and this program.
> Our software utilizes the latest in search technology called
> "spidering". By simply feeding the spider program a starting
> website it will collect for hours. The spider will go from website
> to targeted website providing you with thousands upon thousands of
> fresh TARGETED email addresses. When you are done collecting, the
> spider removes duplicates and saves the email list in a ready to
> send format. No longer is it necessary to send millions of ads to
> get a handful of responses...SEND LESS...EARN MORE!!!
>
> A terrific aspect of the Bull's Eye software is that there is
> no difficult set up involved and no special technical mumbo-jumbo
> to learn. All you need to know is how to search for your targeted
> market in one of the many search engines and let the spider do the
> rest! Not familiar with the search engines? No problem, we provide
> you with a list of all the top search engines. Just surf to the
> location of a search engine on your browser then search for the
> market you wish to reach...it's that easy!
>
> For instance if you were looking for email addresses of Doctors
> in New York all you would do is:
>
> 1) Do a search using your favorite search engine by typing in
> the words doctor(s) and New York
> 2) Copy the URL (one or more)...that's the stuff after the
> http://... for instance it might look like
> http://www.yahoo.com/?doctor(s)/?New+York
> 3) Press the START button
>
> THAT's IT!!! The Bull's Eye spider will go to all the websites
> that are linked, automatically extracting the email addresses
> you want.
>
> The spider is passive too! That means you can let it run all
> day or all night while you are working on important things or
> just having fun on your computer. There is no need to keep a
> constant watch on it, just feed it your target market and give
> it praise when it delivers thousands of email addresses at
> the end of the day!
>
> Features of the Bull's Eye Software:
>
> * Does TARGETED searches of websites collecting the email
> addresses you want!
> * Collects Email addresses by City, State, even specific
> Countries
> * Runs Automatically...simply enter the Starting information,
> press The Start Button, and it does the rest
> * Filters out duplicates
> * Keeps track of URLs already visited
> * Can run 24 hours per day, 7 days per week
> * Fast and Easy List Management
> * Also has built in filtering options...you can put in words
> that it "Must" have while searching,...you can even put in
> criteria that it "Must NOT Have"...giving you added flexibility
> * Also imports email addresses from any kind of files (text
> files, binary files, database files)
> * List editor handles Multiple files to work on many lists
> simultaneously
> * Has a Black-Book feature... avoid sending emails to people
> who do not want to receive it
> * Built-in Mail program...send email directly on the internet
> with just a click of your mouse
> * Personalized Emails...if the email address has the user's
> name when it is collected,..you can send Personalized emails!!!
> * Sort by Location, Server, User Name, Contact Name
> * Advanced Operations:
> · Email address lists export in many different formats
> (HTML, Comma delimited, text file)
> · Advanced editing...Transfer, Copy, Addition, Delete, Crop,
> Move to Top/Bottom
> · Operations between lists...Union, Subtraction, Comparison
> * Program is Passive,...meaning you can run other programs at
> the same time
>
> CALL FOR MORE INFORMATION 213-980-7850
> CALL FOR MORE INFORMATION 213-980-7850
>
> ORDERING INFORMATION
>
> Customer Name
> Company Name
> Address
> City
> State Zip
> Phone Fax
> Email Address
>
> ______ BULL'S EYE SOFTWARE $259.00
> Includes Software, Instructions, Technical Support
>
> ______ Shipping & Handling (2-3 Day Fedex) $10.00
> (Fedex Overnite) $20.00
>
> ______ TOTAL
> (CA Residents add applicable sales tax)
>
> *All orders are for Win 95 and Win NT
>
> *****CREDIT CARDS ACCEPTED*****
> MASTERCARD VISA AMEX
>
> PLEASE CALL 213-980-7850 to process your order
> 9am-5pm Pacific Time
> Checks or Money Orders send to:
> WorldTouch Network Inc.
> 5670 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2170 Los Angeles, CA 90036
> Please note: Allow 5 business days for all checks to
> clear before order is shipped.

 

--
***********************************
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 tmiles at teleport.com Mon Mar 23 11:13:15 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
In-Reply-To: <000101bd561f$4f0451e0$6b5cffd0@arcate>
Message-ID: <199803231619.IAA27982@radius1.teleport.com>

Jim,

Carstens Pederson in Denmark was doing work on gasification of CCA treated wood starting about 1994. I visitied his pilot facility in 1994 but I have not followed his progress since.

Regards,

Tom

At 07:47 PM 3/22/98 -1000, you wrote:
>To the Gasification Group:
>
>Disposal of Construction & Demolition (C&D) wood waste that has been treated
>to protect the wood from termites and fungal decay, is a disposal problem in
>many locations. I understand the most common type of wood preservative used
>today is chromated-copper-arsenate (CCA).
>
>Can treated wood be used as a feedstock for "gasification" ?
>Are there any toxic compounds in the gasifier off-gas?
>Is the ash classified as a hazardous waste?
>
>Thank you,
>
>Jim Arcate
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
Technical Consultants, Inc. Tel (503) 292-0107/646-1198
1470 SW Woodward Way Fax (503) 605-0208
Portland, Oregon, USA 97225

 

From matahari at geni.nusa.or.id Mon Mar 23 11:15:49 1998
From: matahari at geni.nusa.or.id (Dept. Energi & Link.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: [ET-ANN] ICIBS'98 Programme Announcement / April-June 1998
In-Reply-To: <c3eTme2w165w@geni.nusa.or.id>
Message-ID: <28eTme3w165w@geni.nusa.or.id>

Hullo,

For those who have not recieved the below announcement, probably you
would be interested to join. Sorry for cross posting.

Djoni Ferdiwijaya

-----------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:16:06 +0100
Reply-To: Jacky Foo <foo@swipnet.se>
Sender: Ecotechnology Announcements <ET-ANN@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>
From: Jacky Foo <foo@swipnet.se>
Subject: [ET-ANN] ICIBS'98 Programme Announcement / April-June 1998
To: ET-ANN@SEGATE.SUNET.SE

The Ecotechnology Network is collaborating with the organizers of the ICIBS
(Internet Conference on Integrated Bio-Systems) by providing the electronic
platform for the discussion of papers presented at this conference.
(http://home2.swipnet.se/~w-25860/icibs/prog.htm)

If you wish to join any of these paper discussions, please email
listserv@segate.sunet.se and write the message:
SUB listname yourfirstname yourlastname, org
e.g. SUB ET-ATLAS Jacky Foo, MIRCEN

The "listname" for each paper in the tentative ICIBS programme is provided
below with information on the date of the discussion, author(s) name and
title of paper.

I look forward to your participation in the paper discussions

regards
Jacky Foo
ICIBS Secretariat
++++++

6 April -30 April. Horst W.Doelle (Australia) Socio-economic microbial
process strategies for a sustainable development using environmentally
clean technologies. Renewable Resource: Sagopalm (listname: ET-ATLAS)

13 April - 8 May. Rusong Wang, et al (P.R.China) The Practice of Integrated
Bio-Systems in China (listname: ET-FREJ)

20 April - 15 May. Bjorn Guterstam & Lasse Forsberg (Sweden) Demonstrating
Ecological Engineering for Wastewater Treatment in a Nordic Climate using
Aquaculture Principles in a Greenhouse Mesocosm (listname: ET-ODEN)

27 April - 22 May. Nduka Okafor (Nigeria) An Integrated Bio-system for the
Disposal of Cassava Wastes ((listname: not available yet)

4 May - 29 May. Ralf Otterpohl & Martin Oldenburg* (Germany)
Differentiating Management Resource of Water and Waste in Urban Areas
(listname: not available yet)

4 May - 29 May. S. Piccinini, C. Fabbri, and F.Verzellesi (Italy)
Integrated bio-systems for biogas recovery from pig slurry: two examples of
simplified plants in Italy (listname: ET-VENUS)

11 May - 05 June. John Todd and Beth Josephson (USA) The design of living
technologies for waste treatment (listname: ET-TOR)

18 May - 12 June. Hans Askov Jensen (Denmark) Poultry Concept in Utilizing
Local Produced By-Products (listname: not available yet)

18 May - 12 June. Jules N. Pretty Participatory Learning for Integrated
Farming (listname: ET-LOKE)

25 May - 19 June. Luis F. Diaz, G.M. Savage & C.G. Golueke (USA)
Sustainable Community Systems: The role of integrated solid waste
management (listname: ET-ZEUS)

25 May or 01 June. Giuseppe Bonazzi & Sergio Piccinini (Italy) Manure
surplus processing at the farm level and in coordinated groups of farms
(listname: not available yet)

08 June - 30 June. Martin H Birley & K Lock (UK) Health and Peri-urban
Natural Resource Production (listname: ET-PARTI)

+++++++++cut++++++++

This message is distributed via the ECOTECHNOLOGY Network mailing list
ET-ANN. Please copy this message to other lists if appropriate

to signoff from ET-ANN, email listserv@segate.sunet.se and write the
message:
SIGNOFF ET-ANN

 

 

From CharlesFederle at webtv.net Mon Mar 23 12:24:47 1998
From: CharlesFederle at webtv.net (Charles S Federle)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
Message-ID: <199803231731.JAA02881@mailtod-141.iap.bryant.webtv.net>

Tom Chromium gets its name from the many different colors of its
many compounds. Tiny amounts of chromium picolinate are necessary for
good health. Chromiun oxide is one of few permanent green pigments Some
compounds of chromium are very posinous. Arsenic is always posinous, and
volitile compared to chromium. Gasification of wood treated with CCA is
a dangerous process. Charles

 

From jnphatch at gis.net Mon Mar 23 22:03:48 1998
From: jnphatch at gis.net (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
In-Reply-To: <199803231731.JAA02881@mailtod-141.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <351720E2.C8CD360B@gis.net>

Charles,

I have to disagree. Gasification of treated wood is no more dangerous than
the gasification of untreated wood. Both produce significant amounts of CO
which is of course a "dangerous" substance since it will kill you if you
breathe too much of it.

The point, of course, is that one doesn't intend to breathe the gaseous
products of wood gasification, instead they intend to burn the gas to
produce some other form of energy. As long as the gas is properly treated
before it is burned, the fact that treated wood or untreated wood is used as
the feed should not make any difference to the final quality of the gas.

As an example, coal has trace amounts of arsenic and chromium, but we never
detected those species in our cleaned product gas when I was gasifying coal
at Shell. Of course, we did find those species in the flyash and sludge
from the venturi scrubber. Shell's flyash always based the non-leaching
criteria, but I suspect the flyash from treated wood gasification would not
since the concentrations of chromium and arsenic could be higher.

Regards,

Jeff Phillips

Charles S Federle wrote:

> Tom Chromium gets its name from the many different colors of its
> many compounds. Tiny amounts of chromium picolinate are necessary for
> good health. Chromiun oxide is one of few permanent green pigments Some
> compounds of chromium are very posinous. Arsenic is always posinous, and
> volitile compared to chromium. Gasification of wood treated with CCA is
> a dangerous process. Charles

 

--
Jeffrey N. Phillips
Managing Principal
Hatch Technology Group, Inc.
88 Hatch Street
New Bedford, MA 02745
USA
1-508-994-8844 (phone)
1-508-994-9988 (fax)
www.hatchtechnology.com

 

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Mar 24 06:24:13 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: mpm technologies
Message-ID: <199803240630_MC2-37C8-5C30@compuserve.com>

Dear Unsigned:

You asked for info on Skygas. I don't want to send it to the whole list.
Why don't you sign your message?

T. Reed

 

From CharlesFederle at webtv.net Tue Mar 24 08:53:38 1998
From: CharlesFederle at webtv.net (Charles S Federle)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
Message-ID: <199803241400.GAA18769@mailtod-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net>

Jeff: If wood treated with CCA is gasified,
please explain where the chromium atoms are deposited. Would they be
found in the ashes? Would chromium atoms or chromium compounds be in
the gases that go up the chimney? Are compounds of arsenic deposited in
the chimney? Charles

 

From phoenix at transport.com Tue Mar 24 09:33:41 1998
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: mpm technologies
Message-ID: <199803241443.GAA25816@mail2.transport.com>

Tom,

I had asked for information relating to SKYGAS however I felt certain that
I "signed" my info request.

Looking forward to your reply.

Art Krenzel
phoenix@transport.com

 

 

From CharlesFederle at webtv.net Tue Mar 24 13:24:23 1998
From: CharlesFederle at webtv.net (Charles S Federle)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Great Lakes RFP
Message-ID: <199803241831.KAA20619@mailtod-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net>

Fred If I make a proposal, per your request, would that be making
my invention public? Charles S. Federle 1440 Cardington Road,
Kettering, Ohio 45409

 

From arcate at email.msn.com Tue Mar 24 14:40:49 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
Message-ID: <001401bd5752$c4a00c80$e55cffd0@arcate>

I found Mr. JAMES M. SAUR on the American Wood-Preservers' Association
(AWPA) web site http://www.awpa.com/index.html and I asked him (via Fax)
about using treated wood waste for gasification. He is Chairman General of
the Treatments Committee. Peter Gaskin copied on my Fax, is Chairman, S-3
Treated Wood Use, Handling and Disposal/Recycle Committee.

It looks like another challenging Transnational Research project.

Tom Miles can you please give me contact info for "Carstens Pederson in
Denmark" ?

Jim Arcate

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Saur, Jim <jims@mail.chemspec.com>
To: arcate@msn.com <arcate@msn.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 4:00 AM
Subject: Treated Wood Disposal

>In response to your inquiry of 3/23, the answers to the three questions
>posed in your letter will indicate that CCA treated wood is not suitable
>as an energy source at this time.
>
>Treated wood should not be used as a feedstock for a gasification
>process.
>
>There may be toxic compounds in the combustion off-gas.
>
>Ash from CCA treated wood would be categorized as a hazardous waste.
>
>Cc: Pete Gaskin (via fax)
>

 

 

 

 

From a_evald at vip.cybercity.dk Tue Mar 24 16:22:30 1998
From: a_evald at vip.cybercity.dk (Anders Evald)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
Message-ID: <01BD5774.2BFA78E0@msx-03-2-8.1033.cybercity.dk>

Jim Arcate asked:

<Tom Miles can you please give me contact info for "Carstens Pederson in Denmark" ?
<Jim Arcate

Karstens contact info:

Danish Technological Institute
Att.: Karsten Pedersen
Teknologiparken
DK-8000 Århus
Denmark
Phone +45 89 43 89 43
Fax + 45 89 43 85 43
e-mail karsten.pedersen@dti.dk

 

Greetings

Anders Evald
Centre of Biomass Technology
dk-TEKNIK
Denmark

From CraigK at tcplink.nrel.gov Tue Mar 24 17:10:17 1998
From: CraigK at tcplink.nrel.gov (Craig, Kevin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: DOE/EPRI Technology Characterization available on the Web!!!
Message-ID: <199803242210.RAA28762@solstice.crest.org>


Greetings all!

The DOE/EPRI Technology Characterizations which outline the
"best
guess" efficiency and cost projections for most renewable
electricity generating technologies through the year 2030 are
available on the internet.

The URL is...

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

Paper copies are available for $50 from:

EPRI Distribution Center
207 Coggins Dr.
P.O. Box 23205
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
(510) 934-4212

The report number is:

EPRI TR-109496 December 1997


Please forward this information to anyone you think might have

interest in or use for it.

Thanks,

Kevin

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Mar 25 09:18:35 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tuning combustion in a pellet burner; corn burning
Message-ID: <199803250924_MC2-37E4-9F10@compuserve.com>

Dear Anders:

You asked about optimizing the combustion in a pellet stove for CO or CO2.

Our hardware store sells a relatively inexpensive digital CO meter ($65)
that can detect a cigarette across the room. I believe the OPTIMUM
operation of your pellet burner could be the point at which CO becomes
minimal and trivial, but there is not TOO much excess air. Excess air
could also INCREASE CO if the fire area is chilled.

If you try this, I hope you will report back to the CREST groups
GASIFICATION and STOVES, as we would all be interested.

I have seen corn burning pellet stoves advertised. Corn is Mother Nature's
pelletized fuel! One's first reaction is that it is a crime against
starving humanity to burn corn in a stove. My second reaction is that corn
is such a widely spread commodity and so cheap (about $100/ton with corn a
$3/bu) that it could make sense in a lot of situations. At least, it is
better to burn the corn directly at 80% efficiency than to convert it to
ethanol with much lower efficiency. Have you tried corn?

We would like to appoint you our pellet stove research expert. Thanks for
your question.

Yours truly, TOM REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Mar 25 09:18:54 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
Message-ID: <199803250925_MC2-37E4-9F24@compuserve.com>

Dear Jeff, Charles et al:

You have had a very interesting exchange on treated wood which we should
take to heart and try to resolve here in GASIFICATION.

I love treated wood - in principle. What a shame to construct so many
things from wood that will rot. Is there any possibility that we could
find a wood treatment (creosote?) that would eliminate this problem
economically?

Charles says the minute amounts of Cr and As in coal don't appear in the
final combustion products (why?), but do appear in the ash. The ash still
passes the TCLP leach test. So, I suppose we need to ask what is a typical
Cr/As content of coal ash.

We also need to ask what the concentration of Cr/As are in the ash from
treated wood gasification, and whether anyone has found them in either the
gas combustion or char-ash from gasification.

One + and - factor in downdraft gasification is that you typically have
4-8% char-ash remaining unconverted. This contains essentially all the
minerals in the original char matrix plus the carbon for which there was
not enough energy for gasification (the gasification reactions being VERY
endothermic). Complete conversion of this carbon (as in updraft gasifiers)
could result in high Cr/As emissions - but it would depend strongly on
conversion temperature.

This is clearly a field where some good research is needed. Anyone at
NREL/Sandia interested?

Onward, TOM
REED

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Wed Mar 25 11:40:41 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tuning combustion in a pellet burner; corn burning
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199803251646010658@classic.msn.com>

hi, if i may interject...
the way us steam folks get around the co problem is two fold..
first, turbulating the fire so as to mix the flame with itself and co
second, and what is done by the 'big' guys, is to preheat the air
560 degrees guarantees no co as long as there is no flame contact.
coal burners not only do this, but because of it, you have the luxury of
egr. aromatics of hydrogen and carbon definitly will not oxidize 100%
if there is an atom or two floating around below 560 degrees.
using a catalyst (sand) can compact the process and is how coal is burned
today. (fluidized bed). question is-why isnt the fluidized bed used with
hogged fuels or biomass as you all call it? sure would solve a lot of probs.
and with this luxury of using egr., you can keep temps below 1800 degrees and
keep the metals in the ash and not bother the nitrogen.
by the way, i get all the postings but dont know how to post on this system
can someone help me.
thanx
skip goebel
sensible steam consultants
152 von goebels lane, branson, mo 65616 417-336-2869
(provider of steam engines and systems)

 

 

From woolsey at netins.net Wed Mar 25 11:47:02 1998
From: woolsey at netins.net (Ed Woolsey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tuning combustion in a pellet burner; corn burning
Message-ID: <003801bd580f$836db240$a9168ea7@woolsey.netins.net>

Mr. TOM REED:
The remark about ethanol ended my lurking. The renewable energy community
has too much respect for your opinions to let you get by so easily.

Better to burn corn that convert it to ethanol??? I suppose it depends on
if you want to "drive/fly" it or sleep beside it. The "value" of liquid
transportation fuels are higher than solid fuels.

Tom …here is a challenge, you get to the BioEnergy 98 Conference with a
gasifier fueled vehicle and I’ll go with an ethanol fueled vehicle. DEAL?
(We’ll discuss the bet later) Then if your still feeling froggy I’ll drink
a shot of ethanol if you’ll breath your biogas for one minute.

The "Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture" in Ames, Iowa, says that
corn can be grown sustainably. Hummm sustainable corn and corn processed
by a renewable fuel. It will happen!

One could say that gasifiers will increase the economics of wood to
electricity and speed the destruction of the rainforest….. or increase the
economics of sugarcane production, with all of the surrounding environmental
and social issues…..or talk about the residue left from the old coal
gasifiers (read Superfund site) …etc.

I don’t think there is any "free lunch" out here. All of our houses have
windows, if you quit throwing rocks at ethanols, maybe they won’t start
throwing rocks at yours. There is too much at stake in this country/world
with respect to sustainability issues for infighting in the renewable energy
community. If your piece of the pie is not big enough, then lets make the
pie bigger.
(see ya in Madison?) :)
Sincerely
Ed Woolsey

 

>(snip)
>$3/bu) that it could make sense in a lot of situations. At least, it is
>better to burn the corn directly at 80% efficiency than to convert it to
>ethanol with much lower efficiency. Have you tried corn?
>
>We would like to appoint you our pellet stove research expert. Thanks for
>your question.
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED
>

 

 

From mheat at mha-net.org Wed Mar 25 12:21:54 1998
From: mheat at mha-net.org (Norbert)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tuning combustion in a pellet burner; corn burning
In-Reply-To: <199803250924_MC2-37E4-9F10@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <199803251728.MAA26953@tor-smtp1.netcom.ca>

My recollection from a Scientific American article about 20 yrs ago is that the BTU content of corn grown with North American agricultural methods is 50% petroleum. It does seem rather silly to burn food.

At 09:24 AM 25/03/98 -0500, TOM REED wrote:

(snip) Corn is Mother Nature's
>pelletized fuel! One's first reaction is that it is a crime against
>starving humanity to burn corn in a stove. My second reaction is that corn
>is such a widely spread commodity and so cheap (about $100/ton with corn a
>$3/bu) that it could make sense in a lot of situations. At least, it is
>better to burn the corn directly at 80% efficiency than to convert it to
>ethanol with much lower efficiency.
-----------------------------------------
Norbert Senf--------------email:---mheat@mha-net.org
Masonry Stove Builders
RR 5, Shawville-----------http://mha-net.org/msb
Quebec J0X 2Y0------------fax:-----819.647.6082
--------------------------voice:---819.647.5092



 

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Wed Mar 25 15:20:09 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tuning combustion in a pellet burner; corn burning
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199803252026100975@classic.msn.com>

hi
will you post this for me? i haven't figured out how to do it yet myself. i
think this will cause the discussion to take a new tack.
thanx
skip goebel
sensible steam consultants
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The New Energy Manifesto or "An argument for the steam engine"

Everyone knows what a sucker punch is. Very few will get hit twice
though.
Funny thing is that modern society keeps looking in the direction of
taxes and such when we get hit over and over in our wallet and even our
personal health by the energy companies.
Specifically speaking, our dependence on "refined" energy has made us
as vulnerable as an aphid in a paraquat plant. It wasn't an overnight
addiction, rather more like the frog in a warming pan of water and now we have
reached the point where we spend most of our time earning enough money to
purchase energy and the items that consume it. In fact, we are so dependent,
that we will smart bomb any one who threatens to curb our energy supply.
Obviously, we have a serious problem but to find a solution, we must
observe and analyze the situation and objectively create an answer.
First, the USA stands way out in front as far as energy consumption
per capita goes so we deserve to be a study model. Going back in our history,
we find that the 1800's showed an unparalleled growth and prosperity never
equaled in world history. Setting politics aside, one of the foremost common
denominators of this time was the direct conversion of natural resources
(potential energy) to useful work (kinetic energy). Refined fuels were not
only very expensive, they simply were not necessary.
This was definitely a time when folks stood on their own two feet and
did not rely on governments or other countries to achieve prosperity. Although
much could be achieved by this primitive use of energy, enough labor was still
required in the harvesting of resources to command the respect of the user.
In essence, how much comfort and prosperity people achieved depended upon how
hard they were willing to work.
The standard argument against this type of energy harvest (duck!) is
that these methods were inefficient and polluting. At first glance, this
would seem so but let's introduce a long lost term here called "Net Energy".
In layman's terms, net energy is the amount of energy required to
accomplish a given task but only when weighed against a more important term
called "Gross Energy". As everyday users, we are familiar with net energy in
terms like 'miles per gallon' or 'kilowatt hours'. We usually equate these
amounts to chunks out of our paychecks.
Our planet looks at it quite differently. Gross energy is
something that cannot be ignored. The rest of the energy is used in the
refining or conversion process and is often defined as "material handling".
While we believe we are paying for net energy, someone, somewhere is profiting
while consuming the rest of that energy making a refined fuel.
Remember, a pound of fuel consumed is a pound of air pollution. While we
think that we use only what we put in our tank, we are actually insulated from
the refining process and those who suffer from the by-products of the energy
conversion process.
This is because we extract energy from our planet by the conversion,
not the direct consumption of potential energy sources. With that in mind,
let's take a closer look at gross energy consumption.
In 1900, our nation consumed between 2 and 3 quadrillion btu's/year*
in fossil fuels. Wood was still a substantial source of energy. More
importantly, we did not import coal or oil and refined fuels were not
necessary. The economy was strong, one income could maintain a home and we
had no need to wage war with our neighbors.
Unfortunately, the first refineries had just been built.
By 1950, our total fossil fuel consumption had reached 31.5
quadrillion btu's/year*. Burning wood had become a novelty, refined fuels
were a necessity, hundreds of millions of people had died in world wars, we
needed the nuclear bomb to stay on top, cancer was becoming a leading cause of
death, we were importing oil, and even though we had created the federal
reserve system, we were on the brink of a deficit.
In 1900, America consisted of 140 million people consuming 2 quadrillion
btu’s. By 1950, 200 million people consumed 31.5 quadrillion btu’s. These
figures represent fossil fuels only. If one does the math, 140 million
people(1900) divided by 2 quadrillion is 14,300,000 btu's/person. 200 million
people(1950) divided by 31.5 quadrillion btu's is 157,000,000/person. That is
an increase of a factor of almost 11!
Today, our fossil fuel consumption in America is 77 quadrillion
btu's.* With 250 million people in our country today, we are consuming
308,000,000 btu's/person a year. Note that this doesn't include hydroelectric
or nuclear or other sources of power. Two incomes per home are required, and
wood stoves are illegal in some states!
The cheapest and most common form of fossil fuel energy is coal. And, we all
buy a lot of it every day. When you turn on the lights or air conditioner,
you are not buying electricity. Instead, you are most likely buying coal in
the form of electricity. To compound the situation, you are only using a
fractional amount of actual energy for the given amount of coal you just
purchased.
This is because an enormous amount of energy was required to harvest
the coal, melt the metal to make the machines that harvest the coal and build
the machines that transport it, burn it, convert it to electricity, send that
electricity to your home and of course, make the appliance that turns it into
work or comfort.
In round numbers, it takes 500 kilowatts of electricity to melt one
ton of iron.** While that is a lot of energy, it is only part of the picture.
When you add up the total amount of energy it takes to melt the ore, melt the
iron again into a casting, machine it or shape it into a finished product,
make the machines that do this forming, and of course, transport the ore and
the finished product, the math works out to nearly 1500 kilowatts worth of
electrical energy to make the one ton's worth of metal product.
To picture this concept better in your mind, imagine a new nation or
continent with millions of people and one coal fired powerplant. No roads,
rails, mines or factories. This one powerplant will have to supply all the
energy required to build other powerplants and everything they will need to
exist. Plus, it will have to provide the power to build the roads, factories,
etc.
It would take all the energy this one powerplant could provide for a hundred
years just to build the new nation. Additional energy would be required to
manufacture the goods. Top that with the energy needed to use those goods.
Now that you have in mind the amount of gross energy required, let's
move on to something bigger. Oil. There is a lot of energy in oil, and it
works just fine in it's natural state just like coal. Problem is, in this
century we have become spoiled on the use of refined derivatives of oil.
When one considers the amount of energy required to drill for oil, pump
it, send it to a refinery, refine it, transport it to distributors, transport
it again to a station, build the delivery vehicles and the roads they travel
on or sail the seas, possibly build a military (heaven forbid) to steal or
protect it, and put it in a vehicle that required enormous amounts of energy
to build, one can see that worrying about miles per gallon is merely a
diversion.
Probably, the most refined of fuels, and also claimed to be the most
efficient are atomic.
True, you can go a long ways on a pound of plutonium. But, how much energy was
required to make that pound of plutonium? This author is not an atomic
expert, but ventures to say that from witnessing the refineries that make it
and the machines that convert it to useful work, this is the most gross energy
consumptive form of fuel on the planet today.
All this energy consumption in neat little packages equates to extreme
comfort. A comfort that is literally addicting. A long time ago, a few
individuals realized this could be brought to fruition and so made it happen.
In essence, they get the resources for free and charge us for the material
handling or conversions of theses fuels. They understand gross energy
concepts while the rest of us only understand the net energy concepts.
Sadly, these people are not our friends or neighbors but are
multinationals who are beyond the reach of any governing body, much less
ourselves. Look at the major stockholders of most of our mines, big
powerplants and refineries and you will be shocked to find they are not
American. ...And we keep worrying about taxes!
Now, if you consider this scenario to be a problem, there is a
solution. It must be enacted on an individual basis though.
Although large scale attempts can be easily derailed by the existing
establishments, small scale operations are not cost-effective to continuously
chase after and quash. This is where the future and solution lies.
First, one needs to understand the sources of potential energy, the
amount of material handling required in their use, and of course, the machine
that will convert the fuel to useful work. Then, one needs to connect the
resource to the end use product as closely as possible.
The most vivid example we have today of this is a sailboat. Next are
solar cells. A more common example is the woodstove. We can directly extract
the heat from wood and from a gross energy standpoint, do it far more
efficiently and far less polluting than using coal or oil produced
electricity.
{Us country folks still don't understand why Californians banned wood stoves!
They ought to find out who owns their energy companies.}
Probably, the most practical machine ever devised for the purpose of energy
conversion is the steam engine. That's right! The steam engine not only does
it have multi-fuel capabilities, but possesses the ability to convert
resources in an unrefined state (potential energy) into useable work (kinetic
energy). Also, the waste products are generally non-toxic. Compare that to a
gasoline engine that has to throw away it's used oil and spews tons of toxins
into the atmosphere per each engine. If one considers the viewpoint of gross
energy efficiency vs. net energy efficiency, the steam engine is far more
efficient and, in the long run, profitable.
Another benefit of steam engines is that generally speaking,
combustion processes are very controlled and because the fuel is not refined,
they are less polluting than engines that require refined fuels. Even though
you can see the smoke from the boiler, it consists mainly of heavy
particulates and low temperature oxides. Both of which break down quickly.
Steam engines, due to their high-torque nature, posses the ability to
be directly coupled to their work. Usually, no gears required. This adds to
their reliability factor and reduced manufacturing requirements. Long lasting
and silent, steam engines induce a sort of 'piece of mind' that their internal
combustion cousins cannot provide.
Most importantly, steam allows the user to get more than one use from
a resource. With a large amount of controllable, useable heat, the user not
only gets mechanical energy but the exhaust can be utilized for things like:
food processing, chemical conversions, refining (!), heating, kilns, oil
extraction and a thousand other uses. That is why all the 'Big'guys use it.
Now, in determining if steam is right for you, set aside your ideas
about efficiency and think about practicality. That word "material handling"
sneaks in there again and on an individual basis means 'labor'. Practically
speaking, instead of asking "how much energy do I need", ask yourself "how
much wood do I want to cut?" Other sources of energy may be less labor
intensive and therefore more profitable. Those choices will have a lot of
luck involved.
So, why did steam fade away, and does it have a future?
Actually, steam is with us in a big way today. However, because of
the effort required to handle raw resources, it is relegated to large power
applications. As our society moved to refined fuels, we opted out the labor
required for small applications such as the automobile. At the same time, the
folks who wished to enslave us to their refined fuels went to great lengths to
produce cheap and inefficient machines that required these fuels.
Unfortunately, while great technological advances were made in steam
engines, the boilers that produce the steam got less R&D. An exception to
this was the auto field. Great advances were make in steam autos 90 years ago
that are equal with today's standards.
Where is the steam car now? The steam auto died out for the fact that
it was marketed for its power and efficiency while the gasoline auto was
marketed from an associative or image standpoint.
In 1910, thousands of White Motor Co. steamcars boasted of 13 miles
per gallon and 60 miles per hour in a 5000 pound car. Competing for the same
market at the same time, Olds and Chevy had the Coca-Cola girl draped across
the well painted hood.
Everyone knows who won that marketing war.
Today, cars are still a possibility, but steam has more potential in trucks,
tractors and trains. Even now, China has modern locomotives and some American
farmers still use old steam tractors. It can be done.
The restrictive factor in most steam plants is the boiler. More
specifically, the combustion space required to burn a given amount of fuel.
Raw resources need to be in as large of pieces as possible to avoid excessive
material handling costs. This means combustion spaces that will accommodate
said fuels have to be large enough to hold and efficiently burn those fuels.
As you can see, small and portable boilers require labor intensive fuels and
therefore are usually not very practical.
While steam doesn't hold all the answers, it is on the right path for
the economic, physical and cultural salvation for our country. Ideally, folks
will start heading in this direction and become more self-sufficient. After
all, you are not free if you are not self-sufficient.
Most likely, what must happen (and definitely needs to happen) is that
refined fuels will become excessively expensive. When that happens, the good
old laws of subsitution kick in and people seek cheaper ways to do things.
Hopefully, at the same time the majority of our society will move away from
parasitical occupations and back into productive occupations. If or when that
happens, we will be as strong as a nation and culture as we were in the
1800's. ............A time when a man could take a punch.

*figures courtesy of D.O.E. (www.eia.doe.gov)
**courtesey of Chrysler foundry in Detroit, MI
Skip Goebel
"Sensible Steam" consultants
152 Von Goebels Lane, Brasnon, MO 65616 417-336-2869
e-mail:104247.127@compuserve.com & 146942@msn.com
www.chatlink.com\~soltherm\tinypwr.htm
contact: Tiny Power Steam Engines-PO Box 1605, Branson, MO 65615417-334-2655

 

 

From i97rtruslove at bcoll.demon.co.uk Thu Mar 26 10:34:09 1998
From: i97rtruslove at bcoll.demon.co.uk (i97rtruslove@bcoll.demon.co.uk)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: penpal?
Message-ID: <351A76AB.78C0@bcoll.demon.co.uk>

Hello!

I know we don`t know each other,but I searched for Penpals on the net as
I wanted to start writing to...well a friend some where else!The web
site with your E-Mail on it didn`t make a lot of sense so I wondered
whether you could tell me how I should go about gaining a friendship
with someone,

Thank you!

Jane Knowles*

 

From Robbcpc at aol.com Thu Mar 26 13:24:40 1998
From: Robbcpc at aol.com (Robbcpc)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: penpal?
Message-ID: <5d81b6ef.351a9edb@aol.com>

Hi Jane,

You have reached a "list-serve" site where people that are involved with and
interested in the design and development of technology for converting biomass
resources into useful products such as electricity, heat, etc., share their
experiences and ask each other questions.

We are generally engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and/or tinkerers with a
strong interest in discovery, innovation and invention. There is a strong
international character to the group.

This is probably not the site or group you were looking for - but then, who
knows?

Interested in communicating? What are your interests, hobbies, sports, age
range, or any thing else you would care to share???
Cheers!

Robb
robbcpc@aol.com

 

 

 

From jnphatch at gis.net Thu Mar 26 17:19:24 1998
From: jnphatch at gis.net (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
In-Reply-To: <199803241400.GAA18769@mailtod-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <351ACA84.C127F409@gis.net>

Charles,

You raise some good questions. Here's my best explanation based on a "10
minute analysis":

The key to where the chromium and arsenic ends up is the vapor pressure
versus temperature relationship of those two elements. I've extracted the
following from the Chemical Rubber Company "Handbook of Physics and
Chemistry":

Vapor Pressure (in mm Hg): 1 10 40 100 400
760
Arsenic (temp in deg. C): 372 437 483 518 579
610
Chromium (temp in deg. C): 1616 1845 2013 2139 2361 2482

What the above means is that if you heat a chunk of arsenic up to 372 deg.
C, you will drive some arsenic vapors into the gas phase surrounding the
block. Once the "partial pressure" of the arsenic vapor reaches 1 mm Hg
(1/760th of 14.7 psi), the vapor phase will be "saturated" or in equilibrium
with the block of solid arsenic. If the temperature then increases, more
arsenic will sublime into the gas phase, and if the temperature decreases
below 372 C, some of the arsenic vapor will reverse sublimate (de-sublime?)
back into solid arsenic.

If you have a gasifier that operates at 1200 deg. C, one can safely assume
that all of the arsenic and none of the chromium will be converted to
vapor. That means all of the chromium will be found in the bottom ash. In
the case of the Shell coal gasifier (which operates around 1500 deg C), the
temperature is above the melting point of the ash, so a molten slag is
produced. Once quenched with water, this slag is completely non-leachable
and non-hazarous even though it has some chromium in it.

So what happens to the arsenic that goes into the gas phase? Eventually it
precipitates out of the gas when the gas is cooled below the saturation
temperature that corresponds to the vapor pressure of the arsenic. If the
vapor pressure of arsenic is 1 mm Hg, then that would be 372 deg C. So, you
cool the gas to below the saturation temperature of the arsenic, the arsenic
precipitates out on the flyash which is removed by a filter. Of course,
some of the arsenic will precipitate out on any duct surface that is cooler
than the saturation temperature (so if your "chimney" is cold, arsenic will
deposit there).

I would suspect that the flyash would be leachable if arsenic condensed out
on it. So why didn't we see any problems with the Shell coal gasifier
flyash? Because the arsenic vapor pressure was so low that it passed
through the flyash filtration step as a vapor. The arsenic was then
scrubbed from the gas in a water wash column (it may well be the case that
the arsenic vapor reacted with HCl to form arsenic tricholoride which I
assume is soluble in water - I'm a mechanical engineer, so "caveat emptor"
when I start talking about water phase chemistry!).

I should also mention that a vapor pressure of 1 mm Hg arsenic would
correspond to 1316 ppmv at a process pressure of 1 atm which seems pretty
high to me (Jim Arcate, do you have any info on the concentration levels of
arsenic in treated wood?). If the offgas from the gasifier had only 100
ppmv of arsenic, you could cool the gas down to well below 372 deg. C (Shell
cools it to 250 deg C), filter out the flyash with no arsenic deposited on
it, and then scrub the arsenic out of the gas in a water wash step. Of
course, then you have to get the arsenic out of the water, but at least then
you haven't turned all your flyash into a hazardous waste.

Okay, my 10 minutes is up. I'll let someone else carry this further if they
wish.

Jeff Phillips

Charles S Federle wrote:

> Jeff: If wood treated with CCA is gasified,
> please explain where the chromium atoms are deposited. Would they be
> found in the ashes? Would chromium atoms or chromium compounds be in
> the gases that go up the chimney? Are compounds of arsenic deposited in
> the chimney? Charles

 

--
Jeffrey N. Phillips
Managing Principal
Hatch Technology Group, Inc.
88 Hatch Street
New Bedford, MA 02745
USA
1-508-994-8844 (phone)
1-508-994-9988 (fax)
www.hatchtechnology.com

 

 

 

From MilneT at tcplink.nrel.gov Thu Mar 26 17:36:42 1998
From: MilneT at tcplink.nrel.gov (Milne, Thomas)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
Message-ID: <199803262236.RAA14042@solstice.crest.org>

Just a note, since I'm off to the Dallas ACS meeting. In gasification
or
combustion conditions, elemental arsenic or chromium would not likely be

present. Rather, a combination of oxides, hydroxides, chlorides etc
would
dominate. Week after next I'll see if I can post a reference or two on
treated
and demolition wood.

Tom Milne, NREL.
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
Author: Jeff Phillips [SMTP:jnphatch@gis.net] at SMTP
Date: 3/26/98 2:37 PM

Charles,

You raise some good questions. Here's my best explanation based on a
"10
minute analysis":

The key to where the chromium and arsenic ends up is the vapor pressure
versus temperature relationship of those two elements. I've extracted
the
following from the Chemical Rubber Company "Handbook of Physics and
Chemistry":

Vapor Pressure (in mm Hg): 1 10 40 100 400
760
Arsenic (temp in deg. C): 372 437 483 518 579
610
Chromium (temp in deg. C): 1616 1845 2013 2139 2361 2482

What the above means is that if you heat a chunk of arsenic up to 372
deg.
C, you will drive some arsenic vapors into the gas phase surrounding the

block. Once the "partial pressure" of the arsenic vapor reaches 1 mm Hg

(1/760th of 14.7 psi), the vapor phase will be "saturated" or in
equilibrium
with the block of solid arsenic. If the temperature then increases,
more
arsenic will sublime into the gas phase, and if the temperature
decreases
below 372 C, some of the arsenic vapor will reverse sublimate
(de-sublime?)
back into solid arsenic.

If you have a gasifier that operates at 1200 deg. C, one can safely
assume
that all of the arsenic and none of the chromium will be converted to
vapor. That means all of the chromium will be found in the bottom ash.
In
the case of the Shell coal gasifier (which operates around 1500 deg C),
the
temperature is above the melting point of the ash, so a molten slag is
produced. Once quenched with water, this slag is completely
non-leachable
and non-hazarous even though it has some chromium in it.

So what happens to the arsenic that goes into the gas phase? Eventually
it
precipitates out of the gas when the gas is cooled below the saturation
temperature that corresponds to the vapor pressure of the arsenic. If
the
vapor pressure of arsenic is 1 mm Hg, then that would be 372 deg C. So,
you
cool the gas to below the saturation temperature of the arsenic, the
arsenic
precipitates out on the flyash which is removed by a filter. Of course,
some
of the arsenic will precipitate out on any duct surface that is cooler
than
the saturation temperature (so if your "chimney" is cold, arsenic will
deposit
there).

I would suspect that the flyash would be leachable if arsenic condensed
out
on it. So why didn't we see any problems with the Shell coal gasifier
flyash? Because the arsenic vapor pressure was so low that it passed
through the flyash filtration step as a vapor. The arsenic was then
scrubbed from the gas in a water wash column (it may well be the case
that
the arsenic vapor reacted with HCl to form arsenic tricholoride which I
assume is soluble in water - I'm a mechanical engineer, so "caveat
emptor"
when I start talking about water phase chemistry!).

I should also mention that a vapor pressure of 1 mm Hg arsenic would
correspond to 1316 ppmv at a process pressure of 1 atm which seems
pretty
high to me (Jim Arcate, do you have any info on the concentration levels
of
arsenic in treated wood?). If the offgas from the gasifier had only 100
ppmv
of arsenic, you could cool the gas down to well below 372 deg. C (Shell
cools
it to 250 deg C), filter out the flyash with no arsenic deposited on it,
and
then scrub the arsenic out of the gas in a water wash step. Of course,
then
you have to get the arsenic out of the water, but at least then you
haven't
turned all your flyash into a hazardous waste.

Okay, my 10 minutes is up. I'll let someone else carry this further if
they
wish.

Jeff Phillips


Charles S Federle wrote:

> Jeff: If wood treated with CCA is gasified,
> please explain where the chromium atoms are deposited. Would they be

> found in the ashes? Would chromium atoms or chromium compounds be in
> the gases that go up the chimney? Are compounds of arsenic deposited
in
> the chimney? Charles



--
Jeffrey N. Phillips
Managing Principal
Hatch Technology Group, Inc.
88 Hatch Street
New Bedford, MA 02745
USA
1-508-994-8844 (phone)
1-508-994-9988 (fax)
www.hatchtechnology.com

 

From thermogenics at worldnet.att.net Thu Mar 26 20:17:14 1998
From: thermogenics at worldnet.att.net (Steve Brand)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <01bd591e$fc3d2b00$d3a6410c@steve>

 

Date:  Wednesday, March 25, 1998 8:43:44
AMFrom:  Subj:  Various questions on gasificationTo: 
gasification list 
Dear Jeff, Charles et al:RE: Heavy
metals Heavy metals will not be evolved from gasification processes if the
emission temperature from the bed is below the vaporization temperature of the
metal, at least to a large degree.  The binding of heavy metals in ash
depends upon the other ions present, calcium will bind with most of them. 
There is also anhydride forms which will pass the TCLP test, which says the TCLP
test is a relatively weak extraction procedure.  Dilute HCl or others will
see more, however, it still depends upon the other ions present to buffer and
react to form insoluble precipitates.  The reason why incinerators are such
a problem is the high exhaust temperature, entrainment, short residence time
which does not allow the reaction with neutralizing ions to occur. Hydrogen
as a strong reducing chemical will also cause some interactions such as metallic
formation from oxides, as an example, copper oxide goes to metallic phase
without melting at 600 F.  Iron will do the same at higher
temperature.  This is called direct reduction in the industrial parlance.
Metallic forms of heavy metals react differently than the oxides and changing
the valence of Cr will change it's toxicity.  Hydrogen will definitely
change the valence. I am not sure of heavy metal analysis of gas emissions
from downdraft gasifiers.  Perhaps Tom Reed has more information on this
.  Our philosophy is to keep the temperature as low as possible to prevent
volatilization to start with and condense further in the gas cleaning train.
As has a relatively low boiling/sublimation point and is more diffiult to
control than Cr.RE: Ag residues and gasification Corn by itself is a
rather expensive commodity for fuel.  The corn, milo, cotton wheat stocks
are virtually free if harvested with the grain.  Now they are thrown out
the back of the combine and replaced in the soil as humus, however, over years,
humus does not build up and the use of ash replacement for his process is
possibly more effective where the oxidation of potassium in ag residues creates
potassium hydroxide (lye, soap) which is more available than the slowly oxidized
forms which return to the soil.  Putting a baler behind a combine would
give a managable material to feed to a gasifier. Besides the conversion of
producer/synthesis gas to liquid fuels by catalysis which we are involved
with,(whatever happened to the NREL project for this and the equipment? we have
an interest in securing it) which is more efficient than fermentation processes
and can use a wider range of materials, the use of crop residue for agricultural
pumping, corn drying, cotton processing,  all have vast applications for
reasonbly economic systems. Even replacing natural gas with crop residue
gasified fuels makes significant sense.  The Section 29 tax credits made
this look really good.  Originally there was a tax credit for building a
plant which used renewable energy of 10%, similar to Investment Tax Credit which
was not offered to alcohol plants that use natural gas.Corporate philosophy:
Thermogenics has specifically addressed many of these concerns when it developed
it's gasifications process. The process has the benefits of the updraft design
and the downdraft, it can handle fines not usable in downdraft, higher moisture,
varying heating values, has less tars and oils (as visibly seen) than the
conventional top feed countercurrent updraft, and reduces the char to ash very
effectively. We have a unit which can be used for close coupling to wood kilns
using sawdust as a fuel, and other biomass residues for use in drying or heat
recovery operations. We have 5 patents in the gasification arena and more to
come.  Original one was issued in 1980.  Love to visit about the
field.  
Leland T. "Tom" TaylorThermogenics
Inc.  

From campa at hrl.com.au Thu Mar 26 20:51:00 1998
From: campa at hrl.com.au (Campisi, Tony)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
Message-ID: <F93B6CC905B0D111A7E800A0C955FAD4342A@mail_mulgrave>

Tom,

There have been a number of papers and reviews published regarding the
fate of major and trace inorganics in combustion and gasification
systems including measurements and thermochemical calculations. For
example see Helble et al "Trace Element partitioning during coal
gasification", Fuel, 1996, Vol 75(8), pp931-839.

Tony Campisi

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Campisi PhD
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: Milne, Thomas [SMTP:MilneT@tcplink.nrel.gov]
> Sent: Friday, 27 March 1998 8:43
> To: gasification@crest.org ; Jeff Phillips
> Subject: RE: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
>
>

 

From campa at hrl.com.au Thu Mar 26 20:51:05 1998
From: campa at hrl.com.au (Campisi, Tony)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: Recall: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
Message-ID: <F93B6CC905B0D111A7E800A0C955FAD4342B@mail_mulgrave>

Campisi, Tony would like to recall the message, "GAS-L: Treated Wood for
Gasification".

 

From Qtwain at aol.com Thu Mar 26 21:45:30 1998
From: Qtwain at aol.com (Qtwain)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: E-mail
Message-ID: <18aea71d.351b143a@aol.com>

Please remove my name from your e-mail listing.

Thank you,

Qtwain@aol.com

Mark Benton

 

From phoenix at transport.com Fri Mar 27 00:16:05 1998
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:
Message-ID: <199803270503.VAA21109@brutus.transport.com>

To Steve Brand,

I was very impressed with your dialog regarding the volatilization of
metals at high temperatures but when you got to one part I saw a concept
which needed improving in my humble opinion.

Your statement was......>Now they(organic materials) are thrown out the
back of the combine and >replaced in the soil as humus, however, over
years, humus does not build up and the use of ash >replacement for his
process is possibly more effective where the oxidation of potassium in ag
residues >creates potassium hydroxide (lye, soap) which is more available
than the slowly oxidized forms which >return to the soil. Putting a baler
behind a combine would give a managable material to feed to a >gasifier.

I would take it from your excellent comments that your formal training was
in Inorganic Chemistry of some form or another. In the real world, the one
which sustains you and I, organic matter in the soil is a key to food
production. The reason it does not build up is that organic matter acts as
food for the biology necessary for the complete organic cycle. Add only
minerals and, in a short time scale, you can use the soil for pavement.

Again I stress, organic matter produced as a course of food production
should be recycled back to the organic food cycle as organic matter for the
soil. Man can use up the geologically deposited organic matter for a time
when raising their crops but eventually the organic bank can run dry. Then
long term things like problems with the ozone layer, the green house
effect, etc will be overcome by shorter term problem called starvation.

To exemplify this effect, in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, fields were
always burned of their organic matter for the better part of 40+ years. In
1992, some parts of the valley already required special equipment
specifically designed to break up the dirt clods after plowing so a crop
could be planted again. This happened in land which was known to be some
of the most fallow in the world (a geological river valley).

In a long term scenario, not all organic matter can be burned as fuel
especially with the population load we are carrying on the earth.

Thank you.

Art Krenzel
phoenix@transport.com

 

 

From campa at hrl.com.au Fri Mar 27 01:26:35 1998
From: campa at hrl.com.au (Campisi, Tony)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
Message-ID: <F93B6CC905B0D111A7E800A0C955FAD4342C@mail_mulgrave>

There have been a number of papers and reviews published regarding the
fate of major and trace inorganics in combustion and gasification
systems including measurements and thermochemical calculations.
For example see Helble et al "Trace Element partitioning during coal
gasification", Fuel, 1996, Vol 75(8), pp931-839.

Tony Campisi

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Campisi PhD
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: Jeff Phillips [SMTP:jnphatch@gis.net]
> Sent: Friday, 27 March 1998 7:37
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
>
>

 

From tk at tke.dk Fri Mar 27 03:55:04 1998
From: tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
In-Reply-To: <351ACA84.C127F409@gis.net>
Message-ID: <199803270901.KAA13826@proxy.image.dk>

 

Does anyone have an idea of how the vaporisation of metals is
influenced by the atmosphere?

Can one ecpect any difference between a gasifier, where there is
no free oxygen present and a combuster where ther is surplus oxygen?

Will the distribution of the metals between the gas, fly ash
and botoom ash be different for a gasifier that for a combuster,
assuming that the temperatur is the same.

Regards

Thomas Koch

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Mar 27 09:16:06 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tuning combustion in a pellet burner; corn burning
Message-ID: <199803270922_MC2-3828-7204@compuserve.com>

Dear Norbert:

I agree that it is rather silly to burn food, but no sillier than burn
chemical feedstocks (petroleum).

More important, there is enough energy in the stover of corn to make
syn-gas which can then be converted to ammonia or methanol for fertilizer
or fuel. Ultimately that makes a LOT of sense. In the 1970s I called this
a "biomass refinery" and envisaged hauling the trash into a central
location (like a farm co-op for instance) for processing. However, we will
have to wait for the end of cheap petroleum before this is likely to
happen. The economics are good today, but nothing competes with cheap oil,
energywise.

Hang in there.... TOM
REED

 

From jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com Fri Mar 27 17:00:02 1998
From: jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com (Jane H. Turnbull)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: penpal?
In-Reply-To: <5d81b6ef.351a9edb@aol.com>
Message-ID: <351A663D.3EA8@ix.netcom.com>

Robb-

I have been on this list for many months and am very interested in the
area.

Jane

 

 

From CharlesFederle at webtv.net Sat Mar 28 11:09:50 1998
From: CharlesFederle at webtv.net (Charles S Federle)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Corn burning
Message-ID: <199803281616.IAA05685@mailtod-141.iap.bryant.webtv.net>

Tom: Kernals of corn, and corn stover. have nearly the same
heating value. The important question is "what was the source of the
carbon dioxide?" It came throm the air, and not from the mines. Corn
can grow and burn every year, and CO2 does not build up.
When the coal, oil, or gas burns, and the CO2 also goes to the air,
CO2 from the corn is added to the CO2 from burning coal,. The result is
extra heavy rains some places, and very little rain other places.
An answer to climate change caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere,
is to capture the CO2, and let the sun furnis knock the oxygen off CO2.
The result is carbon, which will make heat again, as it burns.
Using air, as a source of oxygen, to burn coal, oil, or gas, is BAD.
Do you want to use a better source of oxygen to burn something better
than coal, oil, or gas? Charles

 

From gdyadav at lw1.vsnl.net.in Sat Mar 28 14:56:30 1998
From: gdyadav at lw1.vsnl.net.in (gdyadav)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <9803282032.AA26960@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in>

dear sir i am interestd in having the video on gasification to
electricity.request to kindly send me the details about acquring the same.
thanking you ,
anil k. agnihotri.

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sun Mar 29 02:25:13 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Agricultural residues
Message-ID: <199803290731.TAA18595@powerlink.co.nz>

In response to everyone's interest to include agricultural residues as
biomass resources, I would like to remind the enthusiastic researcher that
those of us who have the responsibility to design and build the systems of
conversion have some beautiful obstacles to overcome. There are many
contaminants in biomass residue and they have all been discussed in this,
and other forums. While looking through some old files, I located some
electron microscope photographs of coconut / palmwood showing the raphide
bundles - (calcium oxalate) which can cause problems in poorly designed
gasifiers. Take a moment to ponder the beauty of these unseen
troublemakers.

Follow the link from:

http://powerlink.co.nz/~graeme/fluid.html

Doug Williams
FLUIDYNE GASIFICATION

 

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sun Mar 29 02:25:50 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Soot and PAH
Message-ID: <199803290731.TAA18589@powerlink.co.nz>

Dear Claus,

I have just regained access to the internet after Graeme's computer decided
to expensively melt down. We lost a lot of files but thank goodness we can
still discuss flocculation albeit in a confused manner!

1. I do not consider spherical soot particles to be flocculated
2. Impacted spherical soot (as per diesel information) is not flocculated
3. Flocculated soot grows in fluffy clumps - quite visible to the eye
exposing large surface areas (as in trees and leaves)
4. It is my opinion that flocculation is initiated by the presence of C60
at temperatures of between 850 to 500°C, which I believe energises the C60
in a way that breaks the CO bond of the gas. The C stays with the C60 in
chains and the released O grabs the CO to become CO2. I doubt if you will
find any other references specifically referring to this phenomena in
gasification literature other than the soot reverts back to C and O2 if the
gas is held over 500°C. This is not an area of the technology that has
been easy to discuss as very few have experienced this type of soot
formation in the same sort of conditions that exist in high performance
down draft gasification. I would appreciate comment - critical or
otherwise of how I perceive this phenomena. I should mention that I
haven't seen any ash in this type of formation although it has to be there
by entrapment.
5. There is no free ambience oxygen in the area of gasification where
flocculation occurs, and it is possibly something that has slipped into
your thinking relating to soot and diesel engines. I don't believe that
flocculation is an oxidising phenomena, at least in hot producer gas.
Flocculation only exposes a larger surface to oxidation for the purpose of
combustion.
6. Early Fluidyne gasifiers were of the same general specification as the
Pacific Class. At the time of these tests and photographs of residue
samples, oversized fuel (wood blocks) caused the interstitial space of the
oxidation and reduction zone to become too large whereby causing a high ash
fall on the surface of the char. In this situation nearly all the cleanout
material is ash particles instead of the thumbnail size pieces of activated
carbon. It is a very old problem we experienced right at the beginning of
our work, but I know it exists today in many of the systems that are
currently being presented as state of the art.
7. Auckland - largest city in New Zealand is 1400 miles east of Australia
and separated by the Tasman Sea (some don't know where we are) and from 29
March 1998 the Central Business District of the city will be returning to
full hydro and electric power which is proving a little harder to achieve
than expected. At the end of January four ten kilometre feeder cables
supplying the CBD all failed at the same time which according to Mercury
Energy management was a highly unusual occurrence. It was also the hottest
February we have ever experienced. So the CBD basically closed down.
Gensets were flown in from Australia and further afield but too late for
many small businesses who went bust. As you can imagine there is now all
sorts of court action and lawsuits pending.

Auckland has over 200,000 tonnes per annum of demolition wood going into
landfills which at NZ$65.00 per tonne to dump should make gasification a
considered option. It isn't and possibly never will be so even though my
job is to make them work, I certainly don't have the skill to convince
society to use them.

Finally, I am now entering an extremely busy period of personal study and
development. It will limit my ability to contribute to so many of these
discussions which I have had the privilege to have practical experience.
You can be assured that I will continue to read the list, and if I see the
need will make an effort to reply. I will respond to personal
communication sent directly to Graeme's e-mail address, but cannot enter
into conducting gasification by what amounts to be a correspondence course.
Joining the ranks of the lurkers ...

Doug Williams
FLUIDYNE GASIFICATION

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Mar 29 17:07:47 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
Message-ID: <199803291713_MC2-384F-57CE@compuserve.com>

Jeff, Charles:

In UPDRAFT gasification of biomass, all of char-ash (resulting from
pyrolysis) is burned on the grate at 1000-1300 C, leaving a white ash. I
presume that some volatile metals join the gas stream (mostly CO-N2) in
this phase. However, the gas then passes successively through the high T,
low T and drying zones, rapidly cooling to 100 C. This should condense
most of the volatile metal oxides and they are then carried back down with
the incoming charge, thus recycling around and around and .... and
occasionally escaping with the gas.

In DOWNDRAFT gasification about 4-8% of the original biomass winds up as a
char-ash that is not consumed and still contains most of the metal oxides.

In FLUIDIZED BED gasification you have all of the above and more.

Hmmm, worth a study.

(Who is Jeff? Who is Charles? Please identify yourselves more clearly
when addressing CREST nodes. Many of us may remember from previous
communications, but that doesn't help in consulting the archives.
Electrons are cheap.)

Yours truly, TOM REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Mar 29 17:07:57 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
Message-ID: <199803291714_MC2-384F-57D9@compuserve.com>

Dear Jeff, Charles et al:

Jeff's approach was interesting - to look at the vapor pressure of the
metals (from handbook). It would suggest that arsenic is a terrible
problem (high vapor pressure at low temperature) and chromium is no problem
at reasonable temperatures.

Unfortunately, the problem is MUCH more complicated.

Jeff's analysis would be appropriate in an inert atmosphere. However, in
an oxidizing atmosphere we need the vapor pressure of the oxides, not the
metals. And, worse yet, in a reducing atmosphere containing CO and H2 as
well as CO2 and H2O, almost anything can happen, including transport of ash
as suboxides, hydroxides, unknown species, .... . (See, among others, "The
Free Energy of Binary Compounds: An Atlas of Charts for High Temperature
Chemical Calculations", Reed, T. B., MIT Press, 1971). I was the chief
crystal grower at MIT in 1971 and had to concern myself with the vapor
growth of all kinds of crystals. So, I'm eagerly awaiting further info on
this thread (worm?).

So, we may actually have to resort to making measurements, and I hope NREL
can concentrate on the treated wood problem with their Molecular Beam Mass
Spectrometer and years of experience.

Onward, TOM
REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Mar 29 17:08:11 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tom Taylor comments
Message-ID: <199803291714_MC2-384F-57DB@compuserve.com>

Dear Tom Taylor:

Although I talk often to Steve Brand about your gasification projects, I
don't often hear from you. But I clearly remember (and have a video of)
your early gasification steps in 1986. Hope you will keep visiting.

Corn: Corn at the retail level is cheaper than wood pellets and has about
the same energy. So, from a practical viewpoint, if you have corn (or
diseased corn or cheap corn or local corn), consider burning it in small
quantities for heat. In particular, it takes about 1/2 lb to cook a dinner
on our wood gas stoves, and 1/2 lb at $3 per bushel costs 5.5c. Hickory
chips at our hardware store cost about 10X this.

Vapors from gasification of Treated Wood: I hope you can get NREL to come
visit your gasifier with their molecular beam mass spectrometer to quantify
what uglies you have or don't have. Otherwise, I'll have to set up a
gasifier for them when they get around to it.

Your WWW page (www.thermogenics.com): Great.

See you around, TOM REED

 

From jnphatch at gis.net Sun Mar 29 22:05:04 1998
From: jnphatch at gis.net (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated Wood for Gasification
In-Reply-To: <199803270901.KAA13826@proxy.image.dk>
Message-ID: <351F0CC4.51B6F8A0@gis.net>

Tom, and Thomas,

You are correct that my analysis is really only valid for the case of an
inert atmosphere (but I did warn you that mine was only the result of a
"10 minute analysis").

To do a more accurate analysis, one needs a good Gibbs Free Energy
solver (should be some freeware out there somewhere). Punch in all the
possible compounds that might be created, the initial composition, and
the gasifier (or combustor) temperature, and let the solver figure out
which combination minimizes the free energy.

I am,

Jeffrey N. Phillips
Managing Principal
Hatch Technology Group, Inc.
88 Hatch Street
New Bedford, MA 02745
USA
1-508-994-8844 (phone)
1-508-994-9988 (fax)
www.hatchtechnology.com

Thomas Koch wrote:

> Does anyone have an idea of how the vaporisation of metals is
> influenced by the atmosphere?
>
> Can one ecpect any difference between a gasifier, where there is
> no free oxygen present and a combuster where ther is surplus oxygen?
>
> Will the distribution of the metals between the gas, fly ash
> and botoom ash be different for a gasifier that for a combuster,
> assuming that the temperatur is the same.
>
> Regards
>
> Thomas Koch

 

--

 

 

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Mon Mar 30 03:52:59 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Agricultural residues
Message-ID: <199803300859.UAA29093@powerlink.co.nz>

In response to everyone's interest to include agricultural residues as
biomass resources, I would like to remind the enthusiastic researcher that
those of us who have the responsibility to design and build the systems of
conversion have some beautiful obstacles to overcome. There are many
contaminants in biomass residue and they have all been discussed in this,
and other forums. While looking through some old files, I located some
electron microscope photographs of coconut / palmwood showing the raphide
bundles - (calcium oxalate) which can cause problems in poorly designed
gasifiers. Take a moment to ponder the beauty of these unseen
troublemakers.

Follow the link from:

http://powerlink.co.nz/~graeme/fluid.html

Doug Williams
FLUIDYNE GASIFICATION

 

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Mon Mar 30 03:55:05 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re Soot and PAH
Message-ID: <199803300900.VAA29105@powerlink.co.nz>

Dear Claus,

I have just regained access to the internet after Graeme's computer decided
to expensively melt down. We lost a lot of files but thank goodness we can
still discuss flocculation albeit in a confused manner!

1. I do not consider spherical soot particles to be flocculated
2. Impacted spherical soot (as per diesel information) is not flocculated
3. Flocculated soot grows in fluffy clumps - quite visible to the eye
exposing large surface areas (as in trees and leaves)
4. It is my opinion that flocculation is initiated by the presence of C60
at temperatures of between 850 to 500°C, which I believe energises the C60
in a way that breaks the CO bond of the gas. The C stays with the C60 in
chains and the released O grabs the CO to become CO2. I doubt if you will
find any other references specifically referring to this phenomena in
gasification literature other than the soot reverts back to C and O2 if the
gas is held over 500°C. This is not an area of the technology that has
been easy to discuss as very few have experienced this type of soot
formation in the same sort of conditions that exist in high performance
down draft gasification. I would appreciate comment - critical or
otherwise of how I perceive this phenomena. I should mention that I
haven't seen any ash in this type of formation although it has to be there
by entrapment.
5. There is no free ambience oxygen in the area of gasification where
flocculation occurs, and it is possibly something that has slipped into
your thinking relating to soot and diesel engines. I don't believe that
flocculation is an oxidising phenomena, at least in hot producer gas.
Flocculation only exposes a larger surface to oxidation for the purpose of
combustion.
6. Early Fluidyne gasifiers were of the same general specification as the
Pacific Class. At the time of these tests and photographs of residue
samples, oversized fuel (wood blocks) caused the interstitial space of the
oxidation and reduction zone to become too large whereby causing a high ash
fall on the surface of the char. In this situation nearly all the cleanout
material is ash particles instead of the thumbnail size pieces of activated
carbon. It is a very old problem we experienced right at the beginning of
our work, but I know it exists today in many of the systems that are
currently being presented as state of the art.
7. Auckland - largest city in New Zealand is 1400 miles east of Australia
and separated by the Tasman Sea (some don't know where we are) and from 29
March 1998 the Central Business District of the city will be returning to
full hydro and electric power which is proving a little harder to achieve
than expected. At the end of January four ten kilometre feeder cables
supplying the CBD all failed at the same time which according to Mercury
Energy management was a highly unusual occurrence. It was also the hottest
February we have ever experienced. So the CBD basically closed down.
Gensets were flown in from Australia and further afield but too late for
many small businesses who went bust. As you can imagine there is now all
sorts of court action and lawsuits pending.

Auckland has over 200,000 tonnes per annum of demolition wood going into
landfills which at NZ$65.00 per tonne to dump should make gasification a
considered option. It isn't and possibly never will be so even though my
job is to make them work, I certainly don't have the skill to convince
society to use them.

Finally, I am now entering an extremely busy period of personal study and
development. It will limit my ability to contribute to so many of these
discussions which I have had the privilege to have practical experience.
You can be assured that I will continue to read the list, and if I see the
need will make an effort to reply. I will respond to personal
communication sent directly to Graeme's e-mail address, but cannot enter
into conducting gasification by what amounts to be a correspondence course.
Joining the ranks of the lurkers ...

Doug Williams
FLUIDYNE GASIFICATION

 

 

 

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Mar 30 12:39:24 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (L INVENT)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas analysis/corn fuel
Message-ID: <d26d6b8.351fda44@aol.com>

Dear Tom,
I stay very busy working at Agronics to keep the funds flowing and support my
bad habit, gasification.
I am not sure if you know it or not, but Allis Chalmers built a rotary drum
oxygen fired coal gasifier for some facility fin the Midwest. A severe freeze
hit the facility and the pipes froze. It cost millions to repair the damage
if ever done, and put AC into bankruptcy. Zimmermann built a pyrolytic
gasifier and was livingoff of real estate funds and the real estate market
went south (a lot of wrecks in the south?) So much for his gasifier. Both of
the entities we have been involved with in large scale operations, the Gas
Research Institute (GRI), and Ontario Hydro Technologies have had serious
setbacks and downsizing after we became involved with them. Even the group we
met through, Houston Industrial System got hit with tax reality and shriveled
up.
The field of gasification has curses all over it.
There are methods of measuring volatilized heavy metals such as liquifaction
and measuring the liquified gas for heavy metals. This is what the flow chart
looked like that was proposed for the GRI testing of our gas stream by Radian
Corp. I presume any heated pipe with feed into a MS would do the trick down to
pg levels. The trick is to keep the gas from condensing on the walls and
losing the metal analysis.
Being in the ag business, any economic use of grains is of benefit to the
market. Most growers have a difficult time meeting their financial
obligations at the current prices. However, would you buy corn fired bar-b-q
ribs? Hickory does sound better. That is what most of the price is based
upon.
Once again, what is NREL doing in the field and are there any coals over
there to be stirred. Sandia has TAP (technology assistance program) do they?
Whatever happened to their catalytic equipment? If we were ready for a
molecular beam MS, which one of the ghostbuster would we call?
I am fairly well of the opinion that the low temperature of our gasifier exit
gas from the reactor, 400F will preclude most heavy metals from volatilizing,
and the reduction to 40-60F in the output gas stream will further remove any
others left over.
Various chemical interactions play roles in this, such as condensing water
and solubility in water. We condense most of the water in the system out and
as such, any reactive metals such as alkalis will solubilize in the water
droplets and come out in the water drain. The complex interactions require
specific measurements, and if a comparison is to be made, the large gasifiers
working on muny waste which have high reactor output temperatures do not seem
to have the heavy metals emissions as from the NREL report on the operations
of these systems around the world.
Tom I look forward to seeing you soon. I have plans to get together with you
in the near future.

Sincerely,

Leland T. Taylor

 

From arcate at email.msn.com Mon Mar 30 13:10:03 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fw: Gasification of CCA treated wood
Message-ID: <001201bd5c07$4ccbe800$ee5cffd0@arcate>

Forwarding message to Gasification Group:

-----Original Message-----
From: Bjorn.Malmgren-Hansen@dti.dk <Bjorn.Malmgren-Hansen@dti.dk>
To: arcate@email.msn.com <arcate@email.msn.com>
Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 4:06 AM
Subject: Gasification of CCA treated wood

To: Mr.Jim Arcate
Transnational Technology

Our research group at the Danish Technological Institute have been working
wit
h gasification of biomass and hazardous waste for the last 10 years.

In the city of Aarhus we have a 200 kW updraft gasifier pilot plant, which
has
been used for gasification of the following types of waste:

1: Wood chips impregnated with copper, chromium and arsine (CCA)
2: Wood chips impregnated with a copper preservative
3: Chromium containing leather waste from tanneries including shavings,
fleshi
ngs, and sludge pressed into pellets.

Further, an industrial 5MW updraft gasifier was used for gasification tests
wi
th CCA impregnated wood and wood impregnated with creosote.

The main results of all experiments were:

Treated wood is suitable for gasification in an updraft gasifier.
High-boiling metals such as copper and chromium is upconcentrated in the ash
f
rom gasifier

Arsenic and sulphur will primarily be present in the off-gas from the
gasifier
. Arsenic and hydrogensulphide can be removed from the proces gas by
appropria
te cleaning methods.

The ash will probably be categorized as hazardous waste, but can also be
consi
dered a mineral resource of valuable metals such as chromium and copper,
which
will be present in concentrations of 5-20% depending on the waste.

In Denmark we see a growing interest in using gasification for treatment if
im
pregnated wood and other "wastefuels".

If you find that our information is of interest, please contact us again.
We are interested in cooperation concerning waste handling by gasification
and
recycling of waste materials.

Yours Sincerely

Bjørn Malmgren-Hansen Karsten Petersen
M.Sc.(Chem.Eng.) M.Sc.(Chem.Eng)

Our address is :

DTI Environment
Danish Technological Institute
Tekonologiparken
DK-8000 Aarhus C
Denmark

Phone: +45 8943 8919
Fax :+45 8943 8673

 

 

 

From arcate at email.msn.com Mon Mar 30 13:11:45 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fw: Burning of CCA Pressure Treated Wood
Message-ID: <001701bd5c07$89d1dac0$ee5cffd0@arcate>

Forwarding message to Gasification Group:

-----Original Message-----
From: Lackey, Shannon <shannonl@mail.chemspec.com>
To: arcate@email.msn.com <arcate@email.msn.com>
Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 3:54 AM
Subject: Burning of CCA Pressure Treated Wood

>The material safety data sheet for CCA pressure treated wood has a
>section for fire-fighting measures. It reads:
>
>" Fire Extinguishing Materials: Product will burn or contribute to
>intensity of a fire. Fire fighting should be aimed at surrounding
>materials. Water Spray, Dry Chemical, Carbon Dioxide, Halon and Foam
>are all approved fire fighting materials."
>
>"Special Fire Fighting Procedures: Incipient fire responders should
>wear eye protection and self breathing apparatus. Structural fire
>fighters must wear self-contained breathing apparatus and full
>protective equipment. Toxic vapors may be given off from burning wood."
>
>"Unusual Fire and Explosion Hazards" When heated to decomposition, this
>product may emit toxic fumes containing arsenic, copper, and/or
>chromium. Ash from fire may contain toxic compounds."
>
>CCA forms a bond with the wood fibers during pressure treatment. Fire
>will break down this bond and the heavy metals will settle in the ash.
>I would suggest the ash be disposed of as a hazardous waste.
>
>Let me know if I can be of further assistance.
>
>Shannon Lackey
>Customer Service Coordinator

 

 

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Tue Mar 31 18:09:48 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: No Attachments Please
Message-ID: <199803312316.PAA12414@radius1.teleport.com>

Bioenergy List Members:

Please do not attach files or images to your messages.

Attachments cause complications for the list users and administrators.

Rather, invite those who are interested to request and receive a file or image from you directly. Alternatively, post a file or image on your own website or ftp site.

Thank you

Tom Miles
Bioenergy List Administrator

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
Technical Consultants, Inc. Tel (503) 292-0107/646-1198
1470 SW Woodward Way Fax (503) 605-0208
Portland, Oregon, USA 97225