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

October 1998 Gasification Archive

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

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Thu Oct 1 00:11:37 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Y2k systems/compliance and relavence to future use
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810010422100600@classic.msn.com>

Silly question to some, I know. But, the possibilities of y2k problems with
the fuel supplies may make using a renewable resource very viable. It may
become appealing to investors at this particular point in time.
With the hoarding laws and those new executive orders concerning personal and
perhaps institutional and industrial fuel supplies, the ball may be in our
(wood burners) court.
Nice thing to consider is that in a crisis, some of the regulations get
thrown out the window and progress gets made.
Whadda ya tink?
Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam Consultants
www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/6362

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

 

From ahe1 at cableol.co.uk Thu Oct 1 10:41:42 1998
From: ahe1 at cableol.co.uk (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Y2k systems/compliance and relavence to future use
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810010422100600@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <199810011441.KAA20617@solstice.crest.org>

At 04:21 01-10-98 UT, skip goebel wrote:
>Silly question to some, I know. But, the possibilities of y2k problems with
>the fuel supplies may make using a renewable resource very viable.
I have no knowledge or opinion on this!
> Nice thing to consider is that in a crisis, some of the regulations get
>thrown out the window
This I have personal experience of and it is very true.
>and progress gets made.
Well perhaps,
AJH

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

 

From paavani at giasbga.vsnl.net.in Thu Oct 1 12:42:03 1998
From: paavani at giasbga.vsnl.net.in (P Nagpal)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: CO level
In-Reply-To: <896DD0FA4846D211A80A00A0C955FAD4010FFE@mail_mulgrave>
Message-ID: <3613B33D.3834F79B@giasbga.vsnl.net.in>

Dear List Members,

My friend Mr. Sowinder Singh also one of this "list's addicts" is an expert on
these matters. There is a small detector you can wear on your belt, like a
pager, which "shouts" when CO levels are unsafe. With a copy I leave it to him
to comment. I have seen his subsequent posting but more about the gadget would
be interesting.

Pavan Nagpal.

Campisi, Tony wrote:

> I suggest you buy or borrow a personal CO monitor (with alarm).
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dale Costich [SMTP:costich@pacifier.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 23 September 1998 22:14
> > To: gasification@crest.org
> > Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re: CO level
> >
> > Dogru: Forgive me for this unscientific but practical answer: If you get
> > a
> > headache you've got too much CO!
> >
> > ----------
> > > From: Dogru, M. <Murat.Dogru@newcastle.ac.uk>
> > > To: gasification@crest.org
> > > Subject: GAS-L: Re: CO level
> > > Date: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 2:00 PM
> > >
> > > Dear List members,
> > >
> > > What should be the highest CO level (in ppm) to stay in the
> > > gasification lab. for three hours ?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Murat
> > >
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

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

 

From arcate at email.msn.com Thu Oct 1 14:43:54 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: March for Peaceful Energy
Message-ID: <000101bded6c$d4bdc7a0$0100007f@localhost>

FORWARDING MESSAGE:

Hello,

The March for Peaceful Energy is now a reality. The launching pad march
will be held on October 24, 1998 on the National Mall in Washington, DC.
This
march hopes to lead to a bigger and more historical event on October 24,
1999.
All conditions are set for this year--permits are intact, speakers and
musical
guests are confirmed. T-shirts for the 1999 march are also available. For
more info on speakers and T-shirt ordering please refer to the MFPE website
at
http://www.peacefulenergy.org
If you would like a series of flyers and a press release for the 1998
march
mailed to you please provide a mailing address and they will be on their
way.
You may also reach us on the telephone at (301)345-3454.
We will be meeting at the Lincoln Memorial before noon on Saturday,
October
24, 1998. At noon we will march to the Capitol for a 1:00pm rally.

As our mission statement we will be presenting the "Citizens Peaceful Energy
Plan" which is as follows:

WHEREAS, the present global energy policies exploiting coal, oil and nuclear
technologies may be contributing to tensions leading to wars and terrorism
as
well as oppressing indigenous peoples, and

WHEREAS, present fossil fuel combustion of oxygen and production of carbon
dioxide may be contributing to global warming and ozone layer depletion,
and,

WHEREAS, the pollutions and dangers of nuclear and fossil fuel power
technologies may threaten the health of life on earth with such things as
nuclear waste, acid rain, air pollution, etc., and,

WHEREAS, according to the new US national energy policy plan, CNES
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy, alternative technologies are
available
which can effectively ameliorate these problems while increasing America's
energy independence, furthering global peace,

NOW THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
HEREBY RESOLVE TO DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENT TO AFFECT:

1.Implementation of a new energy strategy to prevent the US from ever going
to
war again over oil supplies and to stop oppression of indigenous peoples
from
imposed mining and waste dumping,

2.Implementation of the "Million Solar Rooftops Initiative", with special
attention to solar assisted air conditioning for the poor in the sunbelt,
people in remote areas, and to MSRI contributions to the electricity grid,

3.Implementation of tax incentives on renewable energy technologies, and tax
penalties for pollution and energy resource depletion,

4.A ban on new construction of nuclear power plants and a resolve to shut
down
existing plants in a timely manner,

5.Government funding for the research and development of new energy
technologies.

6.Allocate funding for an accelerated public education campaign about the
ecological and economic benefits of energy conservation, electric vehicles,
hybrid vehicles, and other alternative and renewable energy technologies
including simple mechanical adjustments to allow gasoline and diesel engines
to run on non-polluting biofuels.

We encourage your input if you feel anything is missing.

We are now working to develop a full organizational plan for the coming year
leading up to the 1999 march. We will not be able to create a significant
change unless there is serious global participation from around the world to
make this movement happen.
I am setting up an official plan which will be posted with names on the
website when it is completed. Please consider being a part of the
organizing
committee, we need you.

The organizational plan is as follows:
There will be 4 boards. We encourage both individuals or organizations to
take on the responsibility of a board position. One person may take on more
then one position. All board members will be listed on the "Contact Us"
page
on the www.peacefulenergy.org website. This will allow people with
questions
to contact the proper person, thus allowing experienced people to address
related issues involved in the MFPE.

I. The General Board
A. Executive Director - Richard Lasken <plantseedk@aol.com>
B. Technical Director - Eric Wolf <redwolf@wam.umd.edu>
C. Art Director - Jon-William Brown <sspirit@tiac.net>
D. Entertainment Director
E. Webmaster - Kisan Bhat <kisan@indax.com>
F. Media Director
-The responsibility of the executive director is to manage finances,
provide all delegates with necessary information, oversee all processes,
manage all legal responsibilities (i.e. permits), schedule speakers and
booths.
-The responsibility of the Technical Director is to oversee the providing of
all necessary equipment needed for the march; including stage, sound,
lighting, power.
-The responsibility of the Art Director is to provide art work for flyers or
any other postings related to the march. The Art Director may also find it
necessary to appoint a team of artists to provide more artwork.
-The responsibility of the Entertainment Director is to find talent to
appear
at the march. This person will directly deal with artists and managers.
-The responsibility of the webmaster is to update and maintain the
www.peacefulenergy.org website.
-The responsibility of the Media Director is to act as a liaison for
contacting and responding to the media.

II. The Political Board
7 members
The responsibility of the political board is to discuss the legal issues
that
the MFPE addresses. It will be up to this committee to make decisions on
what
should be done in terms of using the MFPE to influence legislation. The
political board will also be responsible for alerting lobbyist groups of any
signature or letter writing campaigns and encourage them to get involved, as
well as informing lobbyist organization of the march itself and encourage
them
to participate. The number 7 was chosen to allow a majority vote in the
event
it is needed. When and if this board is developed a forum will be developed
for it, which should be open for public comment.

III. The Liaison Board
A. Solar Liaison
B. Hydrogen Liaison
C. Wind Liaison
D. Biofuels Liaison
E. Fuel Cell Liaison
F. Misc. Renewables Liaison
G. New Energy Liaison
H. Geothermal Liaison
I. Clean Air Liaison
J. Clean Water Liaison
K. Native American Liaison
L. Electric Vehicle Liaison
M. Green Party Liaison
N. Sustainable Agriculture Liaison
O. Hemp Liaison
P. Permaculture Liaison
Q. Peace Liaison
R. Spirituality/New Age Liaison
S. Alternative Government Liaison
T. Civil Rights Liaison
U. Do-It-Yourself Technology Liaison
V. Y2K Liaison
W. Anti-nuclear Liaison
X. Developing Nation Liaison
Y. General Environmental Liaison
Z. Free Tibet Liaison
AA. Boycotters Liaison
AB. Offshore Drilling Liaison
AC. Efficiency/Conservation Liaison
AD. Church Liaison
AE. Synagogue Liaison
AF. Battery Liaison
AG. UFO Liaison
AH. Water Pumping Liaison
The responsibilities of the liaisons are to contact and be in touch with the
more prominent organizations that relate to ones area. The liaison will be
regularly contacting the organizations, providing them with information,
getting new organizations involved and interested in participating. The
liaison will be the center of the mobilization process for organizations
related to their area. The liaison must also keep him/herself updated on
the
latest info on their field and provide knowledge to the executive director
of
any new developments that need to be addressed in the MFPE. (I encourage you
to let me know if you feel any specific group of issues is missing)
This list does not necessarily reflect the content of the march, but is to
be
sure that all types of people are aware of the movement.

IV. The Regional Board
The responsibilities of regional board members are to contact all the
organizations in their area and mobilize them to come to the march. They
must
provide their local organizations with information and encourage them to
participate. The regional board members should also work with organizations
to arrange buses to come to Washington. The regional board members should
also make information available about the march in their community, ensuring
that people will know the MFPE is happening. This is also a call for
international board members and representatives from other universities.
There
are no limits to the amount of people that can be on the regional board.

I hope you will all consider taking on some of these responsibilities, as we
are now at the core period of it all. These responsibilities will require a
bit of dedication over the next year leading up to the 99 march. Hopefully,
a
significant board will be developed as we cross the Oct 24 1998
introduction,
giving us an organized central group as we enter the year long campaign.

Please let me know if you are interested in any of these positions.

To Subscribe to the MFPE forum:
Send a blank email to
renergy-subscribe@lists.kz

To Unsubscribe from the MFPE forum:
Send a blank email to
renergy-unsubscribe@lists.kz

Please forward this message to any potentially interested parties.

Warm Regards,
Richard Lasken

 

Richard Lasken -- Executive Director
The March for Peaceful Energy
UMCP Student Union Box 73
College Park, MD 20742 USA
(301)345-3454
http://www.peacefulenergy.org
PlantSeedK@aol.com

 

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

 

From fkuzel at cglg.org Thu Oct 1 19:38:17 1998
From: fkuzel at cglg.org (Fred Kuzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BioEnergy '98 conference
Message-ID: <01BDED6D.8395E960@ts004d31.chi-il.concentric.net>

It's not too late to register for BioEnergy '98, October 4-8 in Madison, Wisconsin. Go to our web site at www.cglg.org/bioenergy98 for more information and to register on line. It all starts with the opening of the Trade Show on Sunday evening, October 4. But there is a full agenda for the entire week. Here's the closing day's program.

Thursday, October 8 "Criteria for Success"

7:00 - 8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast - Grand Terrace, Level Four
7:00 - 8:00 a.m. Speakers Breakfast - The day's presenters will meet to review their respective panel discussion or concurrent session. - Grand Terrace, Level Four
Plenary Sessions - Lecture Hall, Level Four
8:00 - 8:45 a.m. Keynote Address: "U.S. Environmental Agency's View of Bioenergy," Robert M. Wolcott, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
8:45 - 10:00 a.m. Panel Discussion: Environmental Perspective on Biomass Energy
Moderator: Michael Vickerman, Executive Director, RENEW Wisconsin
Panelists:
* Steve Clemmer, Senior Energy Analyst, Union of Concerned Scientists
* Carol Werner, Executive Director, Environment and Climate Institute
* William Grant, Director-Midwest Office, Isaac Walton League
* Megan Smith, Western Biomass Consortium

10:00 - 11:30 a.m. Panel Discussion: Criteria for Success
Moderator Kevin Craig, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
* Richard Bradshaw, Special Assistant to Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
* Kathleen Bryan, Vice President, Bryan & Bryan Inc.
* Darrell Cruea, Secretary, South Dakota Department of Agriculture
* Matt Janes, Vice President Technology, Commercial Alcohols, Inc.
* Gerry Roussel, Alternative Fuels Regulatory Planner, Ford Motor Company
* Steve Shurts, Manager of Generation Development, United Power Association
* Scott Sklar, National Bioenergy Industries Association
* Ed Neuhauser, Vice President, United Biomass Energy Commercialization Program

11:30 - 12:00 p.m. Conference Wrap Up
TOURS: Off Site Technical Tours. These tours will depart immediately after the program adjourns (12:00 noon). Box lunches will be served on the bus.
12:00 - 7:00 p.m. 7. Ethanol Production and Wood Fired Energy
* Tour Leader: Don Wichert, Wisconsin Department of Administration - Energy Bureau
12:00 - 8:30 p.m. 8. Co-Burning and Anerobic Digestion
* Tour Leader: Alex DePillis, Wisconsin Department of Administration - Energy Bureau
12:00 - 6:00 p.m. 9. Frank Lloyd Wright Tour of Taliesen
* Tour Leader: Angela Graf, Bryan & Bryan Inc.
REGISTER NOW!

 

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

 

From valmari at sci.fi Fri Oct 2 10:31:40 1998
From: valmari at sci.fi (FinnFuture)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Mass and energy balances
Message-ID: <199810021431.KAA28965@solstice.crest.org>

id GAA20662
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification

Hi,

I am sorry. In my earlier message there was mistakes regarding WWW page
addresses.
The right addresses are http://finnfuture.bizhosting.com,

http://members.xoom.com/finnfuture and http://www.kolumbus.fi/finnfuture

Sincerely,

Teemu Valmari
Finnfuture
Kortesuonkatu 56 A 12
40700 JYVÄSKYLÄ
FINLAND
Tel & Fax +358 14 311 0287
e-mail: finnfuture@kolumbus.fi

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

 

From shaase at neosdenver.com Fri Oct 2 11:53:23 1998
From: shaase at neosdenver.com (Scott Haase)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: charcoal/co-fire
In-Reply-To: <000101bded6c$d4bdc7a0$0100007f@localhost>
Message-ID: <3614F9D5.DF5C09F6@neosdenver.com>

Jim:
I have seen some of your postings on the Gasification list.

I am interested in discussing the concept of co-firing biomass charcoal and coal
in utility boilers. I will be in Madison from Sunday - Thursday morning, so
maybe we can try to get together and discuss the issue. I live in Colorado, and
have been working on Public Service of Colorado (PSCO) for a number of years to
get them to co-fire urban wood waste/forestry waste and coal in their metro area
coal-fired boilers. Their main argument against this is that the biomass will
gum up their pulverizers and other fuel handling equipment. I think charcoal
will ameliorate this problem. I would like to learn more about the Hawaii
charcoal making system, including if there are any commercial applications of
this technology and what are the capital and operational costs (levelized cost
in $/ton of charcoal).

Any info would be appreciated.

Scott Haase

 

Scott Haase
NEOS Corporation
215 Union Blvd., Suite 610
Lakewood, CO 80228 USA
Phone: (303) 980-1969
Fax: (303) 980-1030
email: shaase@neosdenver.com

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Oct 2 11:56:47 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L:
Message-ID: <93daccde.3614fa42@aol.com>

Tom-
Mr. Tom Newbury at Plantetary Publications asked about a 60Kw gasifier fired
engine/generator set. I responded to him what was the fuel. I will respond
further once we settle into our new manufacturing offices and facilities. His
answer was oak and madrone.
Tom Taylor
Thermogenics Inc.
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From mlefcort at compuserve.com Fri Oct 2 13:00:27 1998
From: mlefcort at compuserve.com (Malcolm D. Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: charcoal/co-fire
Message-ID: <199810021311_MC2-5B6C-2EA@compuserve.com>

Scott,

I just faxed you a write-up on externally co-firing an existing boiler with
the products of combustion of wet, dirty, wood waste from our proven
two-stage combustor, the Heuristic EnvirOcycler. Two earlier versions of
this combustor have been direct firing two rotary dryers continuously for
over 17 years at Northwood Panelboard in Solway, MN (just west of Bemidji).

Regards,

Malcolm Lefcort
Heuristic Engineering Inc
Vancouver, BC
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From paavani at giasbga.vsnl.net.in Fri Oct 2 15:30:18 1998
From: paavani at giasbga.vsnl.net.in (P Nagpal)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BioEnergy '98 conference
In-Reply-To: <01BDED6D.8395E960@ts004d31.chi-il.concentric.net>
Message-ID: <36152C1F.58B9CB18@giasbga.vsnl.net.in>

Dear Fred,

Much as I would have loved to be a part of the Bio Energy '98, I'm afraid my pre-occupation will not make it possible.

I wish all your efforts bear desired results and the function a big success.

Will the abstracts of papers and discussion be available on the web ? If there is some written material can you post it to me at:

P Nagpal
"Tulsi Nivas"
# 741, 5th A Cross
Sector A
Yelahanka New Town
Bangalore 560 064.
India.

I do not want to lose touch.

rgds

Sincerely

Pavan.

Fred Kuzel wrote:

> It's not too late to register for BioEnergy '98, October 4-8 in Madison, Wisconsin. Go to our web site at www.cglg.org/bioenergy98 for more information and to register on line. It all starts with the opening of the Trade Show on Sunday evening, October 4. But there is a full agenda for the entire week. Here's the closing day's program.
>
> Thursday, October 8 "Criteria for Success"
>
> 7:00 - 8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast - Grand Terrace, Level Four
> 7:00 - 8:00 a.m. Speakers Breakfast - The day's presenters will meet to review their respective panel discussion or concurrent session. - Grand Terrace, Level Four
> Plenary Sessions - Lecture Hall, Level Four
> 8:00 - 8:45 a.m. Keynote Address: "U.S. Environmental Agency's View of Bioenergy," Robert M. Wolcott, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
> 8:45 - 10:00 a.m. Panel Discussion: Environmental Perspective on Biomass Energy
> Moderator: Michael Vickerman, Executive Director, RENEW Wisconsin
> Panelists:
> * Steve Clemmer, Senior Energy Analyst, Union of Concerned Scientists
> * Carol Werner, Executive Director, Environment and Climate Institute
> * William Grant, Director-Midwest Office, Isaac Walton League
> * Megan Smith, Western Biomass Consortium
>
> 10:00 - 11:30 a.m. Panel Discussion: Criteria for Success
> Moderator Kevin Craig, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
> * Richard Bradshaw, Special Assistant to Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
> * Kathleen Bryan, Vice President, Bryan & Bryan Inc.
> * Darrell Cruea, Secretary, South Dakota Department of Agriculture
> * Matt Janes, Vice President Technology, Commercial Alcohols, Inc.
> * Gerry Roussel, Alternative Fuels Regulatory Planner, Ford Motor Company
> * Steve Shurts, Manager of Generation Development, United Power Association
> * Scott Sklar, National Bioenergy Industries Association
> * Ed Neuhauser, Vice President, United Biomass Energy Commercialization Program
>
> 11:30 - 12:00 p.m. Conference Wrap Up
> TOURS: Off Site Technical Tours. These tours will depart immediately after the program adjourns (12:00 noon). Box lunches will be served on the bus.
> 12:00 - 7:00 p.m. 7. Ethanol Production and Wood Fired Energy
> * Tour Leader: Don Wichert, Wisconsin Department of Administration - Energy Bureau
> 12:00 - 8:30 p.m. 8. Co-Burning and Anerobic Digestion
> * Tour Leader: Alex DePillis, Wisconsin Department of Administration - Energy Bureau
> 12:00 - 6:00 p.m. 9. Frank Lloyd Wright Tour of Taliesen
> * Tour Leader: Angela Graf, Bryan & Bryan Inc.
> REGISTER NOW!
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

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

 

From valmari at sci.fi Fri Oct 2 20:19:50 1998
From: valmari at sci.fi (FinnFuture)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Mass and energy balances
Message-ID: <199810030019.UAA28912@solstice.crest.org>

id GAA20662
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification

Hi,

I am sorry. In my earlier message there was mistakes regarding WWW page
addresses.
The right addresses are http://finnfuture.bizhosting.com,
http://members.xoom.com/finnfuture and http://www.kolumbus.fi/finnfuture

Sincerely,

Teemu Valmari
Finnfuture
Kortesuonkatu 56 A 12
40700 JYVÄSKYLÄ
FINLAND
Tel & Fax +358 14 311 0287
e-mail: finnfuture@kolumbus.fi

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Oct 5 08:54:03 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: BioEnergy '98 conference
Message-ID: <199810050904_MC2-5B9F-E04C@compuserve.com>

Dear Dave, Harry et al:

Hey guys, take it easy. Invective is unacceptable here at CREST. (See
attached fight.)

a) I generally find Harry Parker's position that of a realist in today's
world, and many of the rest of us are working toward a world which will
have to develop from that reality. I'm glad to have both his technical and
general comments. We can all stand constructive criticism. I hope Harry
will continue to comment in this forum, even if I don't always agree with
him.

b) I have also been deleting multiple announcements from Dave on the
BioEnergy '98 conference, but it is so easy with E-mail that I just smile.
Smile, Harry.

c) I am afraid that Harry's views on the "pep squad" nature of many
scientific meetings are close to my own. I have been attending biomass
meetings sponsored by government agencies for 20 years. I almost always
learn something new, but often from discussions with real people in the
halls. The amount of REAL information presented is usually pretty dilute
and all of us are there in part to enjoy the trip and meet people in the
field. So I guess we'll have to keep having meetings. Does Dave's reaction
suggest that Harry's comments were too close to the bone for comfort?

Smile when you say that, guys. Yours truly, TOM
REED

Harry;

So easily fatigued. I for one am fatigued about your rah rah spirit for
fossil fuels and your repeated attacks on those who accept funding for
anything other than your own pet projects.

I guess everybody but Harry is intellectually dishonest and a leach on
society.

By the way, I think that it's likely that you won't be missed at BioEnergy
'98 anyway.

David Rezachek

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

Harry W. Parker wrote:

> Dear Fred and all,
>
> I am becoming very fatigued at having to repeatedly delete
> announcements regarding the BioEnergy '98 conference! For that reason
> I make the following observation:
>
> It should be remembered that these BioEnergy meetings are just
> cheer-leader meetings and people are needed just for the "pep-squad" at
> the meeting. I have participated in two. Nothing much ever happens
> except plots for addition federal funding for bioenergy and blame aimed
> at the sources of economical energy which we depend on and enjoy, even
> as flying to the BioEnergy cheerleader meeting.
>
> Harry
<

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

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Tue Oct 6 00:20:26 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <199810060431.VAA17306@mail.easystreet.com>

What commercial systems can gasify corn grain at 1 MMBTU for heat or power?

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

 

From boilrmkr at surfsouth.com Tue Oct 6 08:20:30 1998
From: boilrmkr at surfsouth.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:
In-Reply-To: <199810060431.VAA17306@mail.easystreet.com>
Message-ID: <361A0C74.A70BFDB8@surfsouth.com>

Please be more specific, Tom. 1 MMBTU / ?

Gene
mailto:boilrmkr@surfsouth.com

Tom Miles wrote:

> What commercial systems can gasify corn grain at 1 MMBTU for heat or power?
>
> Tom
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Wed Oct 7 00:00:44 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: USED BOILERS AND ENGINES
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810070407180596@classic.msn.com>

I have three hwt boilers that I am brokering.
One is 400hp and another is 600hp-both are 'd' type and the 600 has superheat.
Both are package boilers and with minor mods will burn biogas and produce
around 8-12k lbs/hr. good for 450 psi.
another is a 450hp 3 drum that I may rebuild. The furnace is toasted but the
water end is ok. It is shippable as it is and can be millwrighted easy.
Also, several used engines and turbines in the 20 to 200 hp range. The turbs
are 250kw 440 3phase setups.(Coppus)
All this equip is in good shape and low hrs.
Prices (boilers) are in the $25,000 to $40,000 range and engines much cheaper.
What this means is that for less than $50,000 of my tax dollars, one of you
guys could have a 50,100 or even 250kw "bio-energy" powerplant.
Shipping and setups would be extra.
Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam
152 Von Goebels Ln.
Branson, MO 65616 417 336 2869 146942@msn.com

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

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Oct 7 20:57:54 1998
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSW Plasma Torch Pyrolysis Gasifier
Message-ID: <6aa3dbf5.361c1092@aol.com>

Gasification list members,

Thought you might be interested in this link, a brief article about MSW
gasification plant going online in USA.


> 2) GA County May Be First with MSW Plasma Plant
>
> Lumpkin County, GA, is in the process of obtaining a plasma (torch)
> pyrolysis vitrification facility for destroying its municipal waste. If
> realized, the facility imputably would be the first commercial plant of its
> kind in the U.S.
>
> http://news.solidwaste.com/industry-news/19980925-6691.html
>
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Thu Oct 8 01:07:03 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:
In-Reply-To: <199810060431.VAA17306@mail.easystreet.com>
Message-ID: <199810080518.WAA24814@mail.easystreet.com>

Gene,

Sorry about that. When you're at a Bioenergy conference your grammar gets
fuzzed by an excess of ethanol - call it E14 (14% ETOH).

I meant 1 MMBtu/hr or 1 GJ/hr for a direct heat - drying at 120 F -
application or a CHP application with 1 MMBtuh to a hot air dryer.

Tom

At 08:26 AM 10/6/98 -0400, Gene Zebley wrote:
>Please be more specific, Tom. 1 MMBTU / ?
>
>Gene
>mailto:boilrmkr@surfsouth.com
>
>Tom Miles wrote:
>
>> What commercial systems can gasify corn grain at 1 MMBTU for heat or power?
>>
>> Tom
>> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
>
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com

1470 SW Woodward Way http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/
Portland, Oregon, USA 97225 Tel (503) 292-0107 Fax (503) 605-0208
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Thu Oct 8 01:27:21 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers in Europe
Message-ID: <199810080538.WAA26562@mail.easystreet.com>

Who's keeping a list of industrial gasifiers in Europe? Do we know what
type, size, capacity and applications are in use at what locations?

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

 

From michael.schwerin at internetMCI.com Thu Oct 8 11:49:11 1998
From: michael.schwerin at internetMCI.com (Michael Schwerin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: use for low btu gas
Message-ID: <0F0I009CPN40CP@PM06SM.PMM.MCI.NET>

I am working with a technology company seeking to commercialize their
process for converting syngas (CO, H2, CO2) into fuels. Unlike traditional
methanol or Fischer-Tropsch catalytic processes, this process is not
particularly sensitive to CO:H2 ratio or the presence of inerts or other
contaminants. The company is currently operating a pilot plant and we are
eager to move up to a semi-commercial scale demonstration plant. We were
hoping to find someone in the process of developing or testing a biomass
gasifier which we could mate to our conversion units. A gasifier consuming
upto 50 tons/day biomass whould probably be ideal for this facility.
Ultimately, we expect this technology will provide much better economic
value added than power production for low btu produced gases and avoids gas
clean-up or separation expenses. Does anyone know of an opportunity for a
symbiotic relationship of this sort?

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

 

From jiachun at hawaii.edu Thu Oct 8 16:07:51 1998
From: jiachun at hawaii.edu (Jiachun Zhou)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: To: Abatzoglou, N.; Evans,R.; Milne, T. A. only
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981008100730.18846A-100000@uhunix4>

Dear Gentelmen,

I hope you are in these two lists and can get this message.

>From the paper of Prof. Corella et al, I noticed that one IEA/NREL
Report titled "Tars", Their Nature, Formation and Conversion, was
published at June, 1998 by you. I am interested in this topic and looking
for this report. Could you please send me this report or tell me how I
can get this report.

It would be highly appreciated if you could give me this help. I am
looking forward to hearing from any one of you.

Sincerely

Frank Zhou, Ph.D
Biosystems Engineering Department
University of Hawaii at Manoa
3050 Mail Way, Gil 111
Honolulu, HI 96822
Ph: (808) 956-5711
Fax: (808) 956-2335

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

 

From tpreston at hcm.vnn.vn Thu Oct 8 20:42:23 1998
From: tpreston at hcm.vnn.vn (T R Preston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: use for low btu gas
Message-ID: <006001bdf31e$cfc67460$5d73a7ca@tpreston>

Hello Michael
As I indicated on this list some weeks ago in Colombia there are great
opportunitiies for integrated food, feed and fuel production from sugar cane
and 50 tonne biomass/day (120 -150 ha farm) is the size of plant that would
have wide application. The only problem is how to make it all happen as
there is sceptism about the reliability of the trechnologoy mainly I think
from the point of viiew of getting the low density biomass (bagasse and leaf
trash) into the gasifier in a form that is functional. There are several
offers of help from list members so I hope somethingcan be done. I am
convinced that sugar cane offers more potential than other biomass sources
as it contains the basis of three important productrs: food, feed and fuel.

I will keep you posted of developments.

Reg Preston

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Schwerin <michael.schwerin@internetMCI.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Thursday, October 08, 1998 11:27 PM
Subject: GAS-L: use for low btu gas

>I am working with a technology company seeking to commercialize their
>process for converting syngas (CO, H2, CO2) into fuels. Unlike traditional
>methanol or Fischer-Tropsch catalytic processes, this process is not
>particularly sensitive to CO:H2 ratio or the presence of inerts or other
>contaminants. The company is currently operating a pilot plant and we are
>eager to move up to a semi-commercial scale demonstration plant. We were
>hoping to find someone in the process of developing or testing a biomass
>gasifier which we could mate to our conversion units. A gasifier consuming
>upto 50 tons/day biomass whould probably be ideal for this facility.
>Ultimately, we expect this technology will provide much better economic
>value added than power production for low btu produced gases and avoids gas
>clean-up or separation expenses. Does anyone know of an opportunity for a
>symbiotic relationship of this sort?
>
>Thanks
>Mike Schwerin
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Oct 9 08:42:39 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Message from Internet
Message-ID: <199810090853_MC2-5C2E-B325@compuserve.com>

Dear Tom:

I have gasified corn kernels in my turbo stove and they worked OK, just a
little small for good air passage. Corn is probably cheaper than wood
pellets. There exist corn- pellet stoves for heating in the 100,000 Btu
range, also for wood pellets. Is there any difference? But I haven't seen
any gasifiers DESIGNED for corn burning.

It is surprising that the pellet people pay so little attention to the size
of their pellets - they range from 3/16 to 1/2 inch, with no
recommendations as to when to use each. I believe the 1/2 inch die wear
will be less, so why not always use 1/2 inch??

Many problems remain. TOM R

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Fri Oct 9 10:58:15 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Mess/corn/fluid bed
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810091508540735@classic.msn.com>

Why couldn't fluidized bed tech. be used for corn? Instead of a wide bed, a
narrow, funnell shaped bed could be used and large quantities of egr used with
incoming air to reduce the oxidation. By using a funnell shape, high velocity
air could be used with minimal power reqs and of course, a simple gravity feed
could be used from the top of the funnell. I continue to advocate the use of
'cerablanket' with hardner for the refractory, not only due to low cost, and
high radiance values, but since I have used it to cover all surfaces like a
paint almost, I have noticed no corrosion on my furnace structure.
Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam
152 Von Goebels Lane
Branson, MO 65616 417 336 2869
www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/6362

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Fri Oct 9 12:05:48 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CORN GASIFICATION-FLUIDIZED BED
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810091508520720@classic.msn.com>

Why couldn't fluidized bed tech. be used for corn? Instead of a wide bed, a
narrow, funnell shaped bed could be used and large quantities of egr used with
incoming air to reduce the oxidation. By using a funnell shape, high velocity
air could be used with minimal power reqs and of course, a simple gravity feed
could be used from the top of the funnell. I continue to advocate the use of
'cerablanket' with hardner for the refractory, not only due to low cost, and
high radiance values, but since I have used it to cover all surfaces like a
paint almost, I have noticed no corrosion on my furnace structure.
Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam
152 Von Goebels Lane
Branson, MO 65616 417 336 2869
www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/6362

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

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Fri Oct 9 12:32:11 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Mess/corn/fluid bed
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810091508540735@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <199810091643.JAA23011@mail.easystreet.com>

Tom R., Skip,

Thank you for your comments. My quest has turned up some small commercial
small scale systems that claim to gasify and burn corn at up to 1 MMBtuh.

We are gasifying several tons per hour in a fluidized bed. Corn burns or
gasifies very well in a fluidized bed if you control the bed media,
temperatures etc. But 1 MMBtuh is pretty small for a commercial FB system.

At least one of the pellet stove manufacturers has built a 1 mmbtuh system
that burns corn efficiently. The same company found that corn slagged
readiliy in some of its models. Corn has low ash but high concentrations of
K and P in the ash. Heated properly you can fuse the fuel into an
uninteresting piece of art.

I remember several models that were promoted for corn burning in the 70's.
Many are not longer in business - no sales. One supplier of a downdraft
gasifier that was developed for corn cobs in the 70's and 80's has found
cobs now have higher valuse uses and are not available.

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

 

From boilrmkr at surfsouth.com Fri Oct 9 13:10:21 1998
From: boilrmkr at surfsouth.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Mess/corn/fluid bed
In-Reply-To: <199810091643.JAA23011@mail.easystreet.com>
Message-ID: <361E44DD.C5C024C1@surfsouth.com>

 

Tom Miles wrote:

> Corn has low ash but high concentrations of
> K and P in the ash. Heated properly you can fuse the fuel into an
> uninteresting piece of art.

Tom,

I am suprised by your disinterest in this art form. \;-)

The mother of a friend of mine purchased and had installed a corn fired, "whole house"
heater this past winter. I'll see if I can get some contact info and operating history.

Gene

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

 

From PowerEnergyFuels at email.msn.com Fri Oct 9 18:33:03 1998
From: PowerEnergyFuels at email.msn.com (Power Energy Fuels, Inc.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: use for low btu gas
In-Reply-To: <0F0I009CPN40CP@PM06SM.PMM.MCI.NET>
Message-ID: <000401bdf312$9891e120$ab6eb30a@workstation>

Dear Michael Schwerin,

I couldn't find your private e-mail so I will send this out to the
entire Gasificatio @ crest. Hello Dr. Tom Reed and all of you on this
list. We at Power Energy Fuels, Inc. web page www.powerenergy.com and
e-mail PowerEnergyFuels@msn.com have been working on as similar technology
with syngas into a particular fuel trade named Ecalene. We have been
successful in small bench type tests as well as larger tests performed
through third parties. We would be interested to know if we have any
common grounds that we may join forces. To do this on an economic
conversion basis will be quite a feat and may make all of the gasification
people very happy as well as meaby place a few shekels in their pockets.
Please get in touch and if we can come to some mutual playing field we would
definitely be interested.

Thank you Gene Jackson Chairman Power Energy Fuels, Inc. (303)
403-0647 telephone and fax number (303) 403-0647 and of course my e-mail is
PowerEnergyFuels@msn.com Thanks again.

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Sat Oct 10 11:44:17 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Mess/corn/fluid bed
Message-ID: <58c9b11b.361f8351@aol.com>

Mr. Skip Goebel,
Your inquiry about running a gasifier on corn has several apsects which have
nothing to do with gasification, but reflect upon my other company which sells
to farmers. The low cost of grains has opened them up for use as fuels which
is really disappointing to the longer term interests of maintaining a stable
fuel supply. It has really affected the farming industry and will ripple
through the other economy over time.
Operating an internal combustion engine on gasified fuels has a significant
quantum leap above just heat production. The purity of gas to successfully run
an internal combustion engine makes it a different animal, particularly in
cost.
Several years ago I build a 55 gallon sized gasifier with chimney combustor
for wood burning heating of a cabin. It was a dual stage combustor which had
a gasification stage and the chimney acted with air introduction as a
combustor, radiating heat to the cabin. The chimney would glow red hot in
about 5 minutes of spontaneous ignition. After filling with wood up to 3 feet
long and a normal starting manner, the door would be closed and the combustor
in the chimney would spontaneously ignite. For the 20X40 cabin, it would get
too hot and have to be throttled back or a door opened in the cabin as it
would get too hot.
This same gas could be cleaned, cooled and used in an engine. Thermogenics
has the gas cleaning equipment to prepare the gas for engine operation.
For corn operation, a gravity feeder with external storage box would allow
long term unattended operation. A small hand cranked or shaded pole motor
could be used for removal of the ash/clinker. With adequate torque, the
clinker could be broken into more art forms.
This unit could operate a 60Kw engine, natural gas, diesel, gasoline, propane
with the right manifolding. Some timing changes can be made. A skid unit
about 3 feet wide and6 feet long could do the trick. Some start up power may
be necessary or a start up fuel supply for the engine and power from the
engine used to start the gasifier, depending on how automatic you want it.
There is a significant amount of interest in the country with disposal of
chicken and other animal wastes. This could operate as a basis for this
application.
If farmers were to put a baler behind the combine, the cobs, leaves and
chopped up stalks could be harvested and baled for fuel. The same for wheats.
Cobs are excellent fuel. Their irrigation pumps could be run on the waste
biomass. Some people argue against using this biomass as fuel and not using
on the ground, but the ash could preserve the mineral content if reapplied to
the soil.
Any one interested? Give me a call and there is a lot which could be
developed.

Tom Taylor

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

 

From arcate at email.msn.com Sat Oct 10 14:47:49 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: First Biomass-to-Gas Plant in the Netherlands
Message-ID: <001e01bdf47f$e16d42e0$0100007f@localhost>

Hello Discussion Group Members:

I found this biomass gasification news on the Lurgi web site and thought it
might be of general interest.

(Also for charcoal advocates : Lurgi built an industrial size plant to
produce 27,000 tpa of charcoal from domestic jarrah wood in Kemerton Park,
near Bunbury in West-Australia. The charcoal plant forms part of a Silicon
Metal Complex (SIMCOA) at Kemerton, near Bunbury Western Australia. The
plant has successfully operated since late 1989.)

aloha,

Jim Arcate
------------------------------------------
>From http://www.lurgi.com/englisch/index1.html

First Biomass-to-Gas Plant in the Netherlands
NEWS (May 19, 1998)

Lurgi Nederland B.V., a subsidiary of Lurgi Umwelt GmbH, was commissioned by
N. V. Elektriciteits-Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland, EPZ,-- with the
construction of a plant for the production and cleaning of fuel gas from
CO2-neutral fuels (wood) at the Amercentrale location in Geertruidenberg. A
joint venture of EPZ and its parent company PNEM/MEGA Groep is to
manage/operate the plant.
The contract value for Lurgi amounts to around DM 45 million. The new gas
production plant is due to start commercial operation already in early 2000.

The process applied has a special feature in that the gas production unit is
coupled with an existing power plant. The concomitant substitution of
bituminous coal meets the global demand for CO2 abatement.

The key reactor of the process is a gas production unit based on the
Circulating Fluid Bed (CFB) principle, a method that has been deployed in
the most diverse units of Lurgi with great success. CFB gas generators
feature compact design, great flexibility with respect to the feed materials
and safe process control.
------------------------------------------

 

 

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

 

From Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz Sat Oct 10 15:17:55 1998
From: Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz (Anne and Dean Corson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CORN GASIFICATION-FLUIDIZED BED
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810091508520720@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <361E8914.1665@xtra.co.nz>

Hi Skip - Can you tell me what is 'cerablanket'?

Thank

Dean

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Sat Oct 10 22:20:56 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CORN GASIFICATION-FLUIDIZED BED
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810110230120400@classic.msn.com>

cera blanket is a trade name for a refractory/insulating material that is used
widely in the foundry buisness. it is the same material they make space
shuttle tiles with.
when used with a hardner such as 'kaowool rigidizer', it has excellent
insulation properties and will glow white hot. i demonstrate it by taking a
piece that is 1/2" thick and lay it in my hand and melt a penny on it with a
torch. on my boilers, i take strips of the cloth, soak in the rigidizer, then
squeeze out what i can, and tack it to the surfaces of the firebox and
concentrator. i then cover with expanded metal to protect it from the chunks
of wood. the high radiance qualities allow me to burn wet and garbage wood as
the fire becomes concentrated. with brick, it takes forever to get it to
temperature, plus, the way i lay this stuff in, all surfaces are protected and
therefore corrosion is not a problem. best of all this stuff is cheap. 1/2"
wool is 80 bucks a square.
i get mine from CANTFIELD AND JOSEPH of tulsa, ok.
the hardner is 30 bucks a gallon.
when i hit the stuff with an oxycetelene torch, the surface melts and glazes
to for a smooth surface that glows brighter than a light bulb and i have
noticed a quick sunburn. good stuff.
skip
sensible steam
www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/6362
(you can see a boiler with this stuff in the door here)

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Oct 11 06:14:49 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers in Europe
Message-ID: <199810110624_MC2-5C52-7671@compuserve.com>

Dear Tom:

I know it isn't complete - I'm updating it in a few weeks - but see my
website list of gasifiers around the world from our SURVEY... at

www.WEBPAN.COM/BEF

If you find any glaring omissions, please let me know.

TOM REED

Who's keeping a list of industrial gasifiers in Europe? Do we know what
type, size, capacity and applications are in use at what locations?

Tom Miles

 

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

 

From me42ms at surrey.ac.uk Sun Oct 11 11:27:39 1998
From: me42ms at surrey.ac.uk (Martin Swain)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification
Message-ID: <199810111527.LAA25227@solstice.crest.org>

Hello

I am a final year student of a MEng degreeat the University of Surrey,
England. I have been given a final year project to design a waste to
energy plant. I have choosen a Gasification scheme using Refuse Derived
Fuel (RDF) and I was hoping to contact some manufacturers of such
equipment to get some specifications from them.

Therefore I would be very grateful if anyone vould let me know of any
manufacturers or any contacts.

Thanks alot

email: me42ms@surrey.ac.uk

Martin

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

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Sun Oct 11 11:27:42 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers in Europe
In-Reply-To: <199810110624_MC2-5C52-7671@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Version.32.19981011082448.00deba50@mail.teleport.com>

Thank you Tom. It's an ongoing process. We could consolidate some of the
projects (PrimEnergy and PRM Energy for example), place some on the
"Inactive" list (Purox), and add new adventures (Foster Wheeler's Lahti
gasifier and the new Lurgi system Jim Arcate mentions.)

It looks like atmospheric gasification for co-firing with coal or gas will
be the next few large scale installations until there is money available in
the developing world and a compelling demand for combined cycle plants in
the 20-30MW+ range. Biomass is already behind "last year's" coal technology.

Brazil has an ambitious sugar mill boiler replacement program for
environmental and efficiency reasons. However we seem to see high pressure
conventional boilers with improved scrubbers rather than attempts to
integrate gasification and combined cycle technology.

Regards,

Tom

At 06:24 AM 10/11/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Tom:
>
>I know it isn't complete - I'm updating it in a few weeks - but see my
>website list of gasifiers around the world from our SURVEY... at
>
>www.WEBPAN.COM/BEF
>
>If you find any glaring omissions, please let me know.
>
>TOM REED
>
>Who's keeping a list of industrial gasifiers in Europe? Do we know what
>type, size, capacity and applications are in use at what locations?
>
>Tom Miles
>
>
>
>
>Thomas B. Reed: The Biomass Energy Foundation
>1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
>303 278 0558V; 303 278 0560F
>E-mail: reedtb@compuserve.com
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
T.R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
1470 SW Woodward Way http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles
Portland, OR 97225
Tel 503-292-0107 Fax 503-605-0208
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From DMcilveenw at aol.com Sun Oct 11 11:31:35 1998
From: DMcilveenw at aol.com (DMcilveenw@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers in Europe
Message-ID: <546f51ee.3620d1e9@aol.com>

In a message dated 10/11/98 10:27:49AM, you write:

<<
Dear Tom:

I know it isn't complete - I'm updating it in a few weeks - but see my
website list of gasifiers around the world from our SURVEY... at

www.WEBPAN.COM/BEF

If you find any glaring omissions, please let me know.

TOM REED

Who's keeping a list of industrial gasifiers in Europe? Do we know what
type, size, capacity and applications are in use at what locations?

Tom Miles


>>
NOVEM, Netherland's agency for energy and the environment contracted BTG to
produce (Sept 1996) a report called "State of small-scale gasification
technology". Many plants were visited in 1995. Most of the report concerns
activities in Europe.

David McIlveen-Wright,
NICERT/ Energy Research Centre,
University of Ulster,
Coleraine BT52 1SA
N. Ireland
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Sun Oct 11 12:28:27 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification/4 martin
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810111631030621@classic.msn.com>

Mr. Martin,
good luck on your degree. one thing that is seldom talked about and is quite
important is the preheating of both the fuel and the air. in modern boiler
practice, the radiant heat is utilized for energy transmission while the left
over convective energy (20-30%) is utilized in air and fuel heat. with wet
garbage, etc... this could be of strong consideration.
cheerio
skip goebel
sensible steam consultants
152 von goebels lane
branson, mo 65616 417 336 2869
www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/6362 146942@msn.com

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

 

From PQVC79B at prodigy.com Sun Oct 11 15:36:45 1998
From: PQVC79B at prodigy.com (MR BEN WIANT)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: use for low btu gas
Message-ID: <199810111944.PAA23618@mime4.prodigy.com>

Dear Mike,

There is an "engineering development" scale unit (50 to 100 tpd) that
is available and you could utilize for proving your process. The unit
is the Biomass Gasification Facility (BGF) in Hawaii. The unit is
currently standing idle and you would have to move to quickly to
express an interest in utilizing the facility as it may be dismantled
after the first of the year. If you are seriously interested, I can
provide you information on the facility with regards to ownership,
permitting, costs to run, potentials for cost sharing, contacts, and
technical particulars.

Regards,

Ben Wiant
Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp.
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From SHGOLDT0 at wcc.com Mon Oct 12 10:35:37 1998
From: SHGOLDT0 at wcc.com (SHGOLDT0@wcc.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pressurised Downdraft Gasification of Wood
Message-ID: <0001B9E5.1586@wcc.com>

Recent discussion on this email list about the merits of pressurised
gasification prompts me to ask:-

What is the current status of pressurised (say > 5 bar) downdraft
gasification?

My reading of the biomass gasification literature has not revealed any
work on this gasification approach since the work by SERI in the
1980's. Does anyone know of any current or recent work on high
pressure downdraft gasification, or any references to progress beyond
the 1980's SERI programme and the SynGas gasifier?

References to pressurised biomass gasification technology in papers
indicate that all current work seems to be related to updraft,
fluidised bed or circulating fluidised bed.

Why so?

Steve Goldthorpe
Energy Systems Analyst

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Oct 12 13:30:44 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Insulation again...
Message-ID: <199810121341_MC2-5C6C-F1C7@compuserve.com>

Skip Goebel et al:

I'm so glad to hear from Skip on the subject of high temperature insulation
for stoves and gasifiers. Large gasifiers and stoves can be made without
good insulation because the heat losses only occur at the outer surfaces of
the pyrolysing/gasifying/combustion (PGC) masses. In SMALL gasifiers and
stoves these loses become major AND interfere with the proper PGC. Those
of us not using some form of insulation aren't serious about stoves and
gasifiers.

I have mentioned before the riser sleeves that I buy 12 inch tall by any
diameter for $2-$4 retail and the 1/2" to 2" board. They are basically the
same Cera felt blanket that have been vacuum formed into these shapes.
They will also pass Skip Goebel's "penny" test. They are easy to cut and
shape with knife and sandpaper. With the rigidizer they develop good
mechanical integrity.

I have been shocked at the price of the rigidizer - $40/gal, and
particularly when I find a year later that it has hardened, even though
well sealed. Apparently it is sensitive to cold, and this year I am
storing in my 15 C basement.

I suspect that we could make our own rigidizer. It is coloidal silica
which is easily made by neutralizing sodium silicate (water glass) with
acid or CO2 and washing out the residual salts.

HELP! Any suggestions on this? Also I wonder if anyone can suggest a glaze
for the resulting piece.

I am still experimenting with a vermiculate (exploded mica) + water glass
paint to line my stoves and gasifiers. Insulates very well, but hard to
apply inside cans that have a plastic paint (epoxy?) liner. I hope anyone
with suggestions here will let us know too.

Yours truly, TOM RED

Skip Goebel said:

cera blanket is a trade name for a refractory/insulating material that is
used
widely in the foundry buisness. it is the same material they make space
shuttle tiles with.
when used with a hardner such as 'kaowool rigidizer', it has excellent
insulation properties and will glow white hot. i demonstrate it by taking
a
piece that is 1/2" thick and lay it in my hand and melt a penny on it with
a
torch. on my boilers, i take strips of the cloth, soak in the rigidizer,
then
squeeze out what i can, and tack it to the surfaces of the firebox and
concentrator. i then cover with expanded metal to protect it from the
chunks
of wood. the high radiance qualities allow me to burn wet and garbage wood
as
the fire becomes concentrated. with brick, it takes forever to get it to
temperature, plus, the way i lay this stuff in, all surfaces are protected
and
therefore corrosion is not a problem. best of all this stuff is cheap.
1/2"
wool is 80 bucks a square.
i get mine from CANTFIELD AND JOSEPH of tulsa, ok.
the hardner is 30 bucks a gallon.
when i hit the stuff with an oxycetelene torch, the surface melts and
glazes
to for a smooth surface that glows brighter than a light bulb and i have
noticed a quick sunburn. good stuff.
skip

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Oct 12 13:31:07 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The REAL efficiency of electric and wood-gas stoves
Message-ID: <199810121341_MC2-5C6C-F1D8@compuserve.com>

Dear Stoves (and gasification, since I am talking about wood-gas, not wood
stoves):

ELECTRIC STOVE MEASUREMENTS

INTRODUCTION: In researching, designing and building renewable energy
stoves, it is important to know the competition - the performance level
reached with fossil fuels in 100 years of development by GE, Phillips and a
billion US and European housewives. The modern electric and gas stove is
truly a wonder of industrial evolution (and the Industrial Revolution).
Almost all my meals have been cooked on one or the other (exceptions,
camping, barbecue, foreign travel meals) - no complaints.

STOVE TESTS: This morning (5 AM) I decided to characterize our (Whirlpool)
electric kitchen stove as a benchmark we should shoot for in designing
renewable energy stoves. It has an oven, two large (17.5 cm diam) and 2
small (13 cm diam) "burners" (interesting we keep the old name). I
measured the voltage as 248 V (Radio Shack Micronta Digital Auto Range
meter - $20) and current 8.3 and 5.7 amps (Micronta clamp on AC meter)
respectively on each, giving a power level of 2058 W for the LARGE and 1414
W for the SMALL burner. While I am sure there are other power levels
available, these are representative of most electric stoves in the U.S. and
probably Europe. Since it would be easy to make these burners any other
size, I think we can presume that this represents the preference of three
generations of housewives (and husbands) in stove buying and using.

While few people have looked at the construction of the metal burner coil,
it is the heart of the stove and oven. It has a Kanthal metal heat
resistant cover, flat on top, swagged over a magnesium oxide insulation
encasing a tiny resistance coil. (That is why there is no electrical shock
hazzard). The coil by itself has so little surface area that it would burn
out immediately. The MgO conducts the heat to the larger kanthal surface
where it only reaches about 900 C, cooled by conduction to the pot or by
radiation.

TURNDOWN: Another very important feature of the modern stove is that it
can bring water to a boil quickly, then simmer at very low power. This is
achieved by an ingenious switch (Robertshaw) that intermittently turns the
power on, then off for various periods thereby avoiding the need for
variacs, silicon controlled rectifiers or saturable core reactors that
could do the same job at 10X the cost. It operates by heating a bimetallic
switch with the current, much like the turn signal on your car. Turning
the switch changes the distance the contacts must move.

I used a stop watch to measure the fraction of time the power was on for
the complete switch cycle and multiplied this fraction to give the
following table:

POWER LEVEL VS SETTING ON WHIRLPOOL ELECTRIC KITCHEN
STOVE
Setting Small - Watts Large - Watts
HI 1414 2058
MED-HI 848 1470
MED 530 1457
MED-LO 298 515
LO 118 144

Incidentally, my laboratory assistant (and wife), Vivian Reed, has
complained that the temperature control on the stove burners is difficult.
I suggested that it might be her imagination. Note that the steps are not
regular on the large burner and the Med Hi setting is essentially the same
as Med, so much for theory.

EFFICIENCY: I measured the efficiency of the electric stove the same way I
measure that of my biomass stoves, ie by boiling water. Not only is this
relevant to cooking, but it is simple and quite accurate due primarily to
the HIGH heat of vaporization of water, 550 cal/g, 2300 J/g (or ml).

I measured 500 ml(g) of water and poured into an open copper bottom cook
pan (7 ¼ in diam X 3 ¼ in tall. I set it on the small burner (5 ½ in
diam), turned it to Hi, and measured the following time-temperatures:

Time (min) 0 1 2 3 :56 15
Temp (C) 26 33 49 75 94 94
(Note: water boils at 94 C here in the "mile high" (5,280 ft) city.

I then measured the water remaining as 190 ml, so water vaporized = 310
ml.

I calculated the overall efficiency of bringing the water to boiling as

Eff(boiling) = Heat to pot/Heat in
= [500 ml x 1 cal/C-ml x (94-26 deg C)x 4.186J/cal] / [1440
J/secx900 sec]
= 48.5%
I also calculated the overall efficiency of water boiling for the 4 min
heating and 11 min boiling as

Eff(boiling) = Heat to pot/Heat in
= {[(94-26)x1x4.186x500] + [310x550cal/g(to
vaporize)x4.186]}/[15x60secx1414J/s] = 67.6%

I have measured this efficiency before more casually and known that
electric heating is efficient, these are VERY impressive numbers!

THE DOWNSIDE:
Cost: Our electric stove probably cost $500 (came with house) and will
certainly last 50 years if needed. However, it is attached to an electric
system that is attached to a meter that is attached to a power line that
goes to the Four Corners power plant that might add another few thousand
dollars to the cost of the privilege of electric cooking, and another few
thousand dollars for less clean air and more CO2.

REAL EFFICIENCY:
If we assume that the power arrives at my house (generation and
transmission losses) with 33% efficiency, then the OVERALL efficiencies are
16% for bringing to a boil and 23% for the full 15 minute cycle. Not much
more than a three stone stove. We won’t have much trouble beating that
with wood-gas stoves (approximately 40-50% efficient).

GAS STOVES: Not having a gas stove, I can’t make the equivalent
measurements on gas, but I hope someone else will (or this shouldn’t be
called a stove development network). If you have natural gas, you can get
a small boy to read the meter before and after the tests. (1000 Btu/ft3,
HHV). If you use propane, you can weigh the tank before and after to
determine fuel used.

If anyone knows someone in the stove industry, you might send this to
him/her and hope they can supply us the official figures from the electric
and gas industries. (I’ll try and send to Don Klass formerly IGT. Does
anyone have his E-mail address?)

Yours for truth in energy…
TOM REED

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Mon Oct 12 16:51:32 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The REAL efficiency of electric /Nrgy manifesto (4kpost)
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810122101310149@classic.msn.com>

Gentlemen,
This test brings to light an article I wrote a few years ago for several mags
and is now public domain. It is also used in a German University now!
Perhaps it applies.............
Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam
>>>>>>>
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 kilowatt hours 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 made 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 substitution 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)
**courtesy of Chrysler foundry in Detroit, MI
Skip Goebel
"Sensible Steam" consultants
152 Von Goebels Lane, Brasnon, MO 65616 417-336-2869
e-mail:146942@msn.com www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/6362

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

 

From bentermm at convertech.co.nz Mon Oct 12 18:12:33 1998
From: bentermm at convertech.co.nz (Markus M Benter-Lynch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The REAL efficiency of electric and wood-gas stoves
Message-ID: <v01540b03b248d98eb63d@[202.37.189.99]>

Dear Tom,
I liked your " ELECTRIC STOVE MEASUREMENTS". An immediate thought on the
efficiency comparison would be though that while it is true that you have
to factor in 33% or so for electricity generation, you also have to assume
"a number" for producing biomass and getting it to your wood gas stove.
Also, there are efficiencies attached to heat losses after use (for both
wood gas and elctric stove, very low for gas stoves!).
Just a comment.
Cheers
Markus

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

 

From campa at hrl.com.au Mon Oct 12 20:33:37 1998
From: campa at hrl.com.au (Campisi, Tony)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: use for low btu gas
Message-ID: <35C16953AB61D211A81000A0C955FAD4AE75@mail_mulgrave>

Dear Michael,

HRL operates a 10MW-scale, pressurised fluidised-bed gasifier with a nominal
fuel throughput of around 240 tonnes per day. This unit was used for
testing HRL's IDGCC (Integrated Drying Gasification Combined Cycle)
technology which is designed to handle high moisture content fuels. The
air-blown gasifier operates at 25 bar pressure and includes 5MW gas turbine
with modified combustors to allow combustion of the low btu gas. The unique
feature of the IDGCC technology is the integrated dryer which is used to dry
the fuel (at pressure) whilst cooling the hot product gas from the gasifier.
The drying technology could also be incorporated into the Hawaii gasifier.
Details of the IDGCC technology can be found on the HRL web site.

The current phase of the IDGCC process development has been completed and
the test unit reactor could be made available for your syn-gas application.
Please contact me directly if you require further information.

regards

Tony Campisi

---------------------------------------------------------
Dr Anthony Campisi
Senior Research Scientist
Combustion, Gasification, Ash Fouling, Process Chemistry
HRL Technology Pty Ltd
677 Springvale Road, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia 3170
Telephone: +61 3 9565 9760
Facsimile: +61 3 9565 9777
e-mail: campa@hrl.com.au
WWW: http://www.hrl.com.au
---------------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Schwerin [SMTP:michael.schwerin@internetMCI.com]
> Sent: Friday, 9 October 1998 2:00
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: use for low btu gas
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From onar at con2.com Mon Oct 12 21:20:55 1998
From: onar at con2.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Onar_=C5m?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The REAL efficiency of electric and wood-gas stoves
Message-ID: <199810130120.VAA11561@solstice.crest.org>

Skip, your argument is flawed. First of all, the energy consumption of
today's society is not directly comparable to that of the 19th century
because the societies are *qualitatively* different. Second, you state that
"a pound of fuel consumed is a pound of air pollution." This, was to some
degree true in the past. Due to bad rinsing technology coal plants produced
quite an amount of soot and sulphur. But modern coal technology is very
clean. There is virtually no air pollution from modern coal plants.
Therefore the premise for your analysis is wrong.

Onar.

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Mon Oct 12 22:22:18 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The REAL efficiency of electric and wood-gas stoves/ouch!
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810130228020451@classic.msn.com>

Onar,
Sorry you feel that way. Some folks don't like all the CO2 that we keep
putting in the atmosphere. Also, from past experience, even though the
powerplant looks good on paper, a lot of ugly emmisions can happen the day
after the inspector leaves, especially at 3 am.
To your credit though, I personally know of a modern 49 meg plant in CA that
not only puts out cleaner air than it takes in, but, takes nasty oilwell water
and purifies it too.
The manifesto stands. The concept is the total energy required to achieve
the end result. The gas from beans may not be considered
pollution......unless your the one who has to share the same bed. (ha)

skip
sensible steam
(a guy with a little dirt under his fingernails)

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

 

From PQVC79B at prodigy.com Tue Oct 13 09:14:51 1998
From: PQVC79B at prodigy.com (MR BEN WIANT)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: use for low btu gas
Message-ID: <199810131323.JAA20812@mime4.prodigy.com>

Tony,

Is it possible for you to provide me information on the 5 MW gas
turbine you used for your demo plant and is it available?

Thanks,

Ben Wiant
Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp.
Phone: (407) 281-2781
E-mail: Ben.Wiant@swpc.siemens.com or pqvc79b@prodigy.com

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

 

From costich at pacifier.com Tue Oct 13 09:35:32 1998
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The REAL efficiency of electric and wood-gas stoves/ouch!
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810130228020451@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <36235A9E.3577@pacifier.com>

Skip: I am in your choir! Any detractors to your perspective on
self-reliant production of energy are "sheeple" in my opinion. And I
hope the day comes soon when they are on the phone bitching to their
local power bureau about quality, availiability, etc.
I greatly appreciate your contributions to the "Home Power" magazine
issues where you have demonstrated your mastery of knowledge about
steam! I enjoy building Stirling engines but have friends who are small
steam curators.(keepers of older steam machines)
If lemmings drove cars and had computers, it would provide me with a
more perfect analagy. Sincerely Dale Costich
http://members.tripod.com/~costich
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Tue Oct 13 18:59:27 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Distillation & hyrdrogenation of cellulose
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810132310010804@classic.msn.com>

Soon, I will be building a chamber for which to admit steam and distill
products. I know that steam in this fashion is how methanols and such are
distilled from coal, wood, etc. and of course, fuels have been created in this
way.
My big question is: Does anyone have a chart for temps at which cellulose
products will distill at a high vacuum of say 28" hg? Also, at what
temperature will these esters, etc... hydrogenate if at all?

Since the idea of gasification is to create a combustion source that is
convenient (cheap) and controllable (efficient and low emissions), this may be
an old tack that would bear doing again. Myself, I am trying to distill the
oils from red cedar which is considered a weed here in the ozarks.

Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam
152 Von Goebels Lane
Branson, MO 65616
417 336 2869 www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/6362

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

 

From rabello at uniserve.com Tue Oct 13 20:01:07 1998
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Efficiency, etc. . .
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19981014001915.00681298@popserver.uniserve.com>

Hello!!!

Please allow me to express a few observations concerning the
efficiency thread Mr. Reed began a few days ago. If someone could please
explain why a resistance load, like a stovetop coil, could have less than
100% efficiency when producing HEAT, my understanding of the world and how
it works would be enriched.

Mr. Goebels presents many challenges in his manifesto. While I do
not agree that a comparison of our technological society and its energy use
can be accurately measured against an earlier era, he is absolutely correct
that we have been brought up to understand efficiency in terms of a refined
and delivered fuel, rather than assessing the entire picture. This
fundamental misconception and the continued abundance of subsidized energy
are synergizing to create dependence on a fragile infrastructure,
structurally weaken the American economy and deny access to resources that
belong as much to our grandchildren as they do to us.

But there is a value in refined fuel, and that value is hard to
quantify because its measured in terms of convenience, safety and an
economic value (even if it's a distorted one!) that directly impacts the
quality of our lifestyle.

I burn free wood to keep my family warm. That wood has been cut,
shaped and shipped here from all over the world only to be discarded. I
have to borrow a truck in order to access my "free" supply and spend a
considerable amount of time with a chainsaw cutting the pallets to a small
enough size to fit into my woodstove. My wife complains about this all the
time. My children would prefer that I invest my time with them rather than
cutting wood. The value I get for that "free heat" can be measured in
economic terms (it is certainly cheaper to do this than pay B.C. hydro for
the requisite electricity), but it's really hard to measure the impact that
doing this has on the relationships with my family.

Not everyone has the ability to do what I do. My lot is too small
for much of anything else, except p.v. panels and maybe a mini wind turbine
or two, and I can only imagine the shrieks from my neighbors if I were to
install a boiler or gasifier in my back yard! (Ok, maybe a SMALL one
wouldn't be noticed. . .)
Without drastic lifestyle changes and a significant investment in equipment,
we couldn't be energy independent for our home if our salvation depended on
it, and don't even bring up the automobile we drive!

I challenge Mr. Goebels and Mr. Costich to re-evaluate some of their
statements. Wood stoves are outlawed in California because of air
pollution. You cannot convince me that burning wood does not result in
creating hazardous chemical compounds--we cannot breathe wood smoke for very
long without suffering for the experience! I am originally from Los Angeles,
I grew up with bad air, and as far as I'm concerned, ANY air pollution is
unacceptable because there are too many of us to allow everyone to pollute
even a little. The same legislation has been enacted here in the Vancouver
area for new construction. While this may create dependence on B.C. Hydro
and B.C. Gas, the air around here is easier to breathe as a result, and I
know from experience (living way up north before coming here) that winter
air quality in some of the inland valleys is simply deplorable!
(Temperature inversions and many wood stoves firing at the same time create
a NASTY smog!)

But I have to keep my family warm, so what do I do? (I do what
everyone else does--I pollute!) This is one reason why gasification has
interested me, but from what I have read in this forum and the literature
I've actually been able to find, gasification results in pollution as well.
Perhaps combustion in excess of 2000 degrees F would alleviate this problem,
but I doubt my wood stove comes anywhere near that temperature for most of
its operation. The problems are intractable and in some cases, made worse
on a small scale because some of these processes are better suited for
industrial/utility applications.

Mr. Goebels correctly asserts, however, that we are in or nearing a
crisis. Biogas may not be the best answer for everyone, but in certain
situations, it makes the most sense. Wind, solar and small hydro may not
have applications in every circumstance, but for some of us, they are the
ONLY viable options. Steam power, stirlings, biofuels, geothermal and tidal
energy can be applied in their appropriate niches. A diverse,
locally-generated energy supply keeps us in tune with our resources and
gives us an incentive to avoid waste--one of our biggest problems!

So keep working. If we are to have a future energy supply, it will
have to come from many different places. Those of you who CAN be
independent, I congratulate you. Some of the rest of us are trying. . .
For those who don't care, well, "a wise man sees a flood a moves to high
ground, but a fool continues in his folly. . ."

I hope Mr. Goebels will keep us informed on the progress of his
planned project. I would personally like to reform steam with my "free
wood" as a carbon donor and use the hydrogen as fuel for my car, and it
sounds like he is moving in that direction.

respectfully,

robert luis rabello
VisionWorks Communications

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Tue Oct 13 21:44:18 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Efficiency, etc. . ./WARNING! long winded post
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810140147550500@classic.msn.com>

Mr. Rabello,
I think I like you so don't take this post personal...
First let me make it clear that although I am partial to steam, I know that
alternate forms of energy need to be developed and even of greater importance,
keep it diverse instead of centralized. Man does not have the cultural
capabilities to properly manage large scale energy.(i.e. atomic, etc...)
Now, since you lived in L.A., you know that the real pollution there comes
from San Pedro....from the refineries! Anyone who flies there can trace the
smoke for 50 miles. When I left the El Paso refinery (owned by yours truly,
George Bush) there were over 300 wrongful death lawsuits against it. But
then, those victims were only real young, real old, very poor and of course
they weren't white. (mexican) therefore they didn't count. And, since they
weren't in the media, they don't really exist. Do you understand my point,
good sir?
Iraq, Africa, Bohpol, notwithstanding, ...yes-you live a good clean,
'efficient' life. After all, we are the Powaquattsi, and those folks arent
God's people (are they?)
the point is that the material handling is what is done at a severe human
cost. We live in an insulated society here in the west. No bombs fall on our
shores and damn near all of us don't even slaughter our own meat. Dont take
this personal, i, as a three time cancer victim have been forced to change my
prospective on reality. I fear that someday soon that all those other
'victims' may demand retribution for what we have done to them. enough
philosophy!
I would submit that the real question is 'what kind of pollution'? I would
rather smell woodsmoke than drink plutonium laced water. Wood, especially
gasification, produces heavy particulates, monoxides etc...which break down
quickly. The lower temps avoid nitrogen compounds also. Now, if folks in
southern CA used wood, yes, there would be smoke. I bet not too much though.
I submit that for the actual btu's used by locally obtainable wood, they would
be small in comparason to the enormous amount of hydrocarbons oxidized to melt
the steel to make the train to remove the mountain to make the highway to move
the coal to make the wire to produce the steel appliance (disposable of
course) and on and on...but it IS good for the economy.
As an aside, Isreal is 100% solar on their heating. Why?
All that pollution goes on somewhere else. Gasification seems to me to be a
much more responsible way of producing the end result. The big problem is
that it is not "economically correct". When we turn on the lights, we are not
buying electricity. What we are buying is COAL, in a refined and disposable
one way form. period. And thanx to Ben Franklin and those agreements long
ago that gave our mineral rights away, that coal does not belong to the
Americans who use it. It belongs to that Family you know so well in
Canada...The Windsors! Of course, the Royal Dutch family has a large chunk of
the powerplants and coal on the west coast but I hope you understand my line
of reasoning.
I am fond of Mr. Rabello for the fact that he does work with youth and
instills into them the fact that there are alternatives to the way things are
right now. I only hope that there is something for them when they grow up.
Here in Branson, MO, there is a lot of very expensive motorhomes with the
bumper sticker that says "We're spending our children's inheritance" I think
that says it all.
sorry for the long post. (never ask for my opinion unless you have buku
time to kill) :)

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

 

From campa at hrl.com.au Wed Oct 14 04:13:17 1998
From: campa at hrl.com.au (Campisi, Tony)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: use for low btu gas
Message-ID: <35C16953AB61D211A81000A0C955FAD4AE82@mail_mulgrave>

Ben,

The gas turbine used in trialing HRL's IDGCC gasification technology was a
5MW EGT (European Gas Turbines) Typhoon gas turbine with the required
modified combustors to allow combustion of the low specific energy gas
produced. The technology uses an air-blown pressurised fluid-bed gasifier.
The compressor side of the gas turbine was used to provide the compressed
air. Although the combustor had a dual fuel capability, the gas turbine was
operated to full power using the produced gas.

The current phase of the IDGCC process development has been completed
however we are interested in discussing potential opportunities for the
technology (in full or part) or applications where our HRL skill's and
capabilities could be used.

regards

Tony

---------------------------------------------------------
Dr Anthony Campisi
Senior Research Scientist
Combustion, Gasification, Ash Fouling, Process Chemistry
HRL Technology Pty Ltd
677 Springvale Road, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia 3170
Telephone: +61 3 9565 9760
Facsimile: +61 3 9565 9777
e-mail: campa@hrl.com.au
WWW: http://www.hrl.com.au
---------------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: PQVC79B@prodigy.com [SMTP:PQVC79B@prodigy.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 October 1998 10:00
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: RE: GAS-L: use for low btu gas
>
> Tony,
>
> Is it possible for you to provide me information on the 5 MW
> gas turbine you used for your demo plant and is it available?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben Wiant
> Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp.
> Phone: (407) 281-2781
> E-mail: Ben.Wiant@swpc.siemens.com or pqvc79b@prodigy.com
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From onar at con2.com Wed Oct 14 10:30:43 1998
From: onar at con2.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Onar_=C5m?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Coal, efficiency, renewables
Message-ID: <199810141430.KAA19325@solstice.crest.org>

There seems to be fundamentally different philosophies at work here. I
myself have been working with gasification of biomass for years, I enjoy it
and I believe that it will become an important part of future energy
infrastructure. I'm also very familiar with Gross energy calculations and
essentially stopped calculating in terms of net energy a long time ago. But
from here to leap to the conclusion that fossil fuels are bad is
incomprehensible. Our current economic structure allows for inefficient
usage of them. But everyone familiar with the business knows that this
cannot continue for long. According to the most comprehensible estimates
the max in world oil production will be reached somewhere around 2010. This
forces a bifurcation of possibilities: 1) either energy prices will go up
dramatically or 2) the inefficiency of the energy system is addressed. I
think the second option by far is the most likely one, since it is the one
that makes most economical sense. People realize how dependent the economy
is on low energy prices, and will therefore do quite a lot to make sure
that the prices stay low. The most important and resilient method for doing
so is to improve the technology. If you look at all the technology that
exists today, either in pre-commercial or prototype stages, then it becomes
clear that we're only going to improve gross energy efficiency.

Onar.

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Oct 14 10:56:44 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pressurised Downdraft Gasification of Wood
Message-ID: <199810141107_MC2-5C9E-BE1B@compuserve.com>

Dear Gasification:

Steve Goldthorpe asked....
> Recent discussion on this email list about the merits of pressurised
gasification prompts me to ask:-

What is the current status of pressurised (say > 5 bar) downdraft
gasification?

My reading of the biomass gasification literature has not revealed any

work on this gasification approach since the work by SERI in the
1980's. Does anyone know of any current or recent work on high
pressure downdraft gasification, or any references to progress beyond
the 1980's SERI programme and the SynGas gasifier?

Steve, there have been many many pressurized gasifiers built in the 1980s
and 1990s. The IGT-gasifier, the Biosyn (Canadian) , the TPS, to name a
few. I designed and ran the SERI gasifier at high pressure at Hazen
Research using lock hoppers, but it was never very reliable. Pressure
feeding biomass is a bitch and the death of many projects. For more
expertise, talk to Tom Miles or Esteban Chornet.

References to pressurised biomass gasification technology in papers
indicate that all current work seems to be related to updraft,
fluidised bed or circulating fluidised bed.

Why so?

Not so; no one running updraft or downdraft pressurized that I know of,
but a number of fluidized beds are in operation. In particular Varnamo has
succeeded in operating their combined cycle system (Nov. 1996).

Check my webpage at www.webpan.com/BEF for a fairly complete listing of
world gasifiers. I'll be bringing it more up-to-date in a month or so.

Yours truly, TOM
REED

Steve Goldthorpe
Energy Systems Analyst
<

 

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Wed Oct 14 13:59:22 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Coal, efficiency, renewables
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810141809290372@classic.msn.com>

Good points Onar.
Skip

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

 

From jphillips at alumni.stanford.org Wed Oct 14 15:09:49 1998
From: jphillips at alumni.stanford.org (Jeffrey N. Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification
In-Reply-To: <199810111527.LAA25227@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <000201bdf7a7$b2034600$181e29d8@jnphatch.gis.net>

Martin,

I suggest you contact Lurgi. They have a large gasification project in
eastern Germany where they are consuming various waste streams including
sludges and wood waste:

Dr. Waldemar Liebner
Sr. Technology Manager
Lugi Oel Gas Chemie GmbH
Lurgiallee 5
Frankfurt, D-60295
Germany

e-mail: dr_waldemar_liebner@lurgi.de

Good luck with your research,

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

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org] On
Behalf Of Martin Swain
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 1998 11:28 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification

Hello

I am a final year student of a MEng degreeat the University of Surrey,
England. I have been given a final year project to design a waste to
energy plant. I have choosen a Gasification scheme using Refuse Derived
Fuel (RDF) and I was hoping to contact some manufacturers of such
equipment to get some specifications from them.

Therefore I would be very grateful if anyone vould let me know of any
manufacturers or any contacts.

Thanks alot

email: me42ms@surrey.ac.uk

Martin

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

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

 

From rbaileyj at prmenergy.com Thu Oct 15 09:18:54 1998
From: rbaileyj at prmenergy.com (Ronald W. Bailey, Sr.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: GASIFICATION OF RDF
Message-ID: <3625F7CA.B726A1A2@prmenergy.com>

    Dear Martin Swain:

For Gasification of RDF and other biomass and waste fuels, please visit
the following web sites: Click for PRM
Energy Systesm, Inc.

Click for PRiMEnergy, Inc.

PRME has gasification systems operating on four continents in high demand
industrial applications supplying heat, steam and electricity.  PRiME
is PRME's US and Philippine Licensee and operates a full scale Biomass
Gasification demonstration/test Center in Tulsa, OK. Commercial operating
systems have been in operation for over 16 years and range in size from
30 tons/day to 600 tons/day.
Regards,
Ron Bailey

From Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz Thu Oct 15 16:33:27 1998
From: Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz (Anne and Dean Corson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Distillation & hyrdrogenation of cellulose
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810132310010804@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <36255221.4F7C@xtra.co.nz>

Hi Skip

I have also been taking an interest in what has in the past been called
"Destructive Distillation". Their was a considerable amount of work done
in the 30's to 60's. If you have access to "Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry", in particular September 1969, page 261; February 1941, Page
188; and March 1943, Page 302 you may find it quite an interesting read.

Dean

>
> Soon, I will be building a chamber for which to admit steam and distill
> products. I know that steam in this fashion is how methanols and such are
> distilled from coal, wood, etc. and of course, fuels have been created in this
> way.
> My big question is: Does anyone have a chart for temps at which cellulose
> products will distill at a high vacuum of say 28" hg? Also, at what
> temperature will these esters, etc... hydrogenate if at all?
>
> Since the idea of gasification is to create a combustion source that is
> convenient (cheap) and controllable (efficient and low emissions), this may be
> an old tack that would bear doing again. Myself, I am trying to distill the
> oils from red cedar which is considered a weed here in the ozarks.
>
> Skip Goebel
> Sensible Steam
> 152 Von Goebels Lane
> Branson, MO 65616
> 417 336 2869 www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/6362
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Thu Oct 15 20:27:20 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Distillation & hyrdrogenation of cellulose
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810160037390426@classic.msn.com>

To my knowledge, destructive distillation is when something was burned without
enough O2 and the heat passed over raw fuel for the esters. if the gasses
were passed over the coals, then it was called co gas. i have the old audels
books, but i will try to find the books you are talking about.
Is it considered destructive distillation if you evaporate the wood using
steam without the presence of oxygen. also, what about hydrogenation? does
that occur after 900C?
One more....some woods are high in oils. Would it be preferrable to extract
the oil via steam and not hassle with the last bit of cellulose??
skip
sensible steam

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

 

From onar at con2.com Thu Oct 15 21:34:45 1998
From: onar at con2.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Onar_=C5m?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The impacts of CO2
Message-ID: <199810160134.VAA29933@solstice.crest.org>

For those who are interested in what consequences increasing concentrations
of CO2 has, I recommend the website www.co2science.org. It paints a more
complex image of the topic than the simplistic one usually presented in
media.

Onar.

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Thu Oct 15 22:34:09 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The impacts of CO2
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810160240300768@classic.msn.com>

One of my favorite red flag words is the word "center".
It usually is nothing more than one bored professor who has the time to invent
a paid opinion 'group'. These "centers" almost always have to be funded by
either the ignorant govt. or an industry that has a financial stake in the
positive results.
I notice in the mission statement they used the word 'consortium'. I am sure
that everyone in this forum is too intelligent and definitely too opinionated
to change their mind readily. Myself, I know that I have a lot to learn, but,
I am skeptical of my sources. That is why I crave experience.
So,
without sounding to sarcastic, just who is this 'Center for C02 studies', how
many are active members and most important of all, where does the money come
from?
Onar,
I do agree with you that CO2 is a benign gas. However, it should be used as
a measuring stick of how we manage our planet. Like wine, it should be
observed in moderation.
Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam

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

 

From greensue at hotmail.com Fri Oct 16 01:02:00 1998
From: greensue at hotmail.com (Susanne Machler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Poverty and Kowledge
Message-ID: <19981016051303.25502.qmail@hotmail.com>

 

Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:49:00 +0300
To: stoves@crest.org
From: elk@net2000ke.com (E. L. Karstad)
Subject: Deforestation and Fuelwood

Stovers;

I sit here in my office on the outskirts of Nairobi flanked on two sides
with the remnants of an indigenous forest. Fuelwood predation has
reduced
this forest in size and quality - it's now more bush than forest. This
is
still an official Government 'protected' forest. The depredation
continues
daily as streams of women carry out bundles of sticks- both fresh and
'windfall' during the day, and teams of more determined poachers fell
and
remove entire trees during the night. There is a great econonomic
intentive
here that is countered by low risk of punishment. As far as I can
determine, nearly all of this wood (primarily the hardwood, Brown Olive)
is
used for domestic fuel. Possibly a small proportion ends up in the hands
of curio wood carvers.

>As far as I am concerned the rural fuel use is a mystery.

Further from the urban areas great tracts of bushland has been reduced
to
shrubland by charcoal manufacturers. Efforts to collect wood are
certainly
minimised around the home- with backyards being denuded of trees first-
if
a forest is half an hours walk away, you can be sure that trees not
protected by their owners will be removed if they happen to be closer to
home than the forest is. It's logical when you live a here-and-now,
hand-to-mouth existance, isn't it? And it's only getting worse as the
population increases. Per-capita income decreases along with a
diminished
buying power of the currencies this income is measured by.

The family 'shamba' (farm) has been divided time and again as adult
offspring claim their share of the family assets. It's sad to see tall
cyprus trees surrounding these tiny farms with just a tuft of green
foliage
at the very top.....all lower branches have been stripped off for
firewood.

Just picture an East African city as a termite mound.... the depredation
of
forests for both timber and fuelwood extends in a radial pattern
outward.
At the furthest reaches the pattern becomes more patchy- due to road
access
mainly- and is confined to wood harvested for charcoal production.
Timber
harvesting can be more easily controlled (though poaching is rampant)
than
woodfuel collection. The forest resources are rapidly diminishing under
this pressure.

Why differentiate between rural and urban? Wood, in one form or the
other
is still the primary domestic cooking fuel in Africa- urban or rural.

>The fact that people are using ag. residues and dung is predicated
>upon the fact that the forests disappeared before the current lot
>arrived on the scene.

It's happening here now. Maybe dung will be used more commonly once all
woody vegetation has disapeared from the scene, but here at present very
few people indeed use dung as a fuel. Dung is used as a building
material
when mixed with mud, and as an insect repellent (smoke) within houses in
small quantity. I've just interviewed several of my staff here from
different tribes and areas within Kenya to confirm this.

SURELY a more efficient wood burning stove would help. So would a more
efficient charcoal stove. So would the stop-gap of fossil fuel use. And,
hey- why not reduce emmissions while we are at it? Maybe people who are
healthier can plan their lives beyond tomorrow......

elk

_____________________________
Elsen Karstad
P.O Box 24371 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel/Fax:254 2 884437
E-mail: elk@net2000ke.com
_____________________________

Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

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

 

From onar at con2.com Fri Oct 16 08:30:43 1998
From: onar at con2.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Onar_=C5m?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The impacts of CO2
Message-ID: <199810161306.JAA06117@admin.con2.com>

> One of my favorite red flag words is the word "center".

I've seen a lot of these centers. One of the things that makes me lend my
credibility to this one in particular is the fact that for every issue
about
five new *scientific papers* are reviewed. I don't know about you but
"scientific
paper" is my green flag.

> Myself, I know that I have a lot to learn, but,
> I am skeptical of my sources. That is why I crave experience.

Indeed, this site even has an educational section which describes
experiments which
you can perform yourself to get first hand experience.

> So,
> without sounding to sarcastic, just who is this 'Center for C02 studies',
how
> many are active members and most important of all, where does the money
come
> from?

The center consists of two active site maintainers and 7 people on the
scientific advisary board. They basically accept money from donators given
provided they sign a statement saying that they will not attempt to
influence the center.

> Onar,
> I do agree with you that CO2 is a benign gas. However, it should be
used as
> a measuring stick of how we manage our planet. Like wine, it should be
> observed in moderation.

If this is true the world was drunk 60 million years ago, when CO2
concentrations were some 10-20 times higher than today.

Onar.

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

 

From vvnk at teri.res.in Fri Oct 16 10:29:33 1998
From: vvnk at teri.res.in (V V N Kishore)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Backfiring from SI engines part II -Reply
Message-ID: <s6278122.052@teri.res.in>

Dr.Frederic Bourgoise (I am sorry if I spelt the name wrongly) posted
mails on this list last year giving his experience on operation of SI
engines with producer gas.You may go through the archives of this list
for further information.
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From vvnk at teri.res.in Fri Oct 16 11:21:40 1998
From: vvnk at teri.res.in (V V N Kishore)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:46 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification vs. "Just Burning" -Reply
Message-ID: <s6277dae.029@teri.res.in>

We had installed an updraft gasifier system for a magnesium chloride
plant in 1996.The wood consumption is about 150 kg/hr.The cost of the
gasifier itself was under $5000,but the total contract including fuel
charging system,installation fees,professional costs,modification of the
old furnace etc was about $18000.The system has been operating for
the last one and half years,three shifts a day,6 days a week and paid
back for itself interms of wood savings (60%) within one year.The
company took commercial loan for the project at 18% interest and no
govt.subsidy was involved.
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Fri Oct 16 12:00:43 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The impacts of CO2
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810161610520201@classic.msn.com>

>>>>>>

If this is true the world was drunk 60 million years ago, when CO2
concentrations were some 10-20 times higher than today.
>>>>
maybe that was what happened to the dinosaurs?

#*!hiccup!*#

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

 

From greensue at hotmail.com Fri Oct 16 18:50:10 1998
From: greensue at hotmail.com (Susanne Machler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Deforestation and Fuelwood
Message-ID: <19981016230114.3877.qmail@hotmail.com>

OOoops! I am so sorry for sending a mail of Elsen without the relevant
attachment below.

I have to really THANK all of you on these lists who have helped us
(http://members.tripod.com/~colibri_cove/myindex.htm ) in the past and
are dedicated to doing so in the future. To all who think that to
discuss over technical trivia, in endless threads close to the 102
percent efficiency mark, and those who have the expertise but choose to
ignore requests for help on these lists, beware..maybe you should stop
reading here.

I was moved and touched by the report of Elsen there in Kenya. Economic
frustration is something that drives folks to all sorts of things.
Although we on the homestead don't suffer many of these effects because
of our efforts, there are folks out there eating from the filth and
garbage, and going to some very desperate ends to feed clothe and care
for themselves. It caused me really to think how blessed we really are
here in the Caribbean.

I have been procrastinating for a long time now about writing to these
newsgroups after a message by Tom Reed on the gasification list,
concerning my request for help in making activated charcoal for water
purification use, as I write this, the news is going in the background.
The price of water has just been increased by 20 percent!! Isn't this
paradoxical for "XAYMACA" (Arawak Indian name for Jamaica) meaning
...land of wood and water? More power to my attempts to catch the God
given rain showers ....free as can be....As I speak we are collecting
material to effect trials, and will be glad to disseminate this to
anyone who needs help, or has a similar problem.

I have been overwhelmed by the amount of information accessible and
shared in these groups although there are still some folks (flamers) who
still need to grow up. I was disappointed though, before approaching Tom
Reed and was sharing with Tom the reluctance of many knowledgeable
people to HELP... with PRACTICAL ideas and suggestions . I find it
relates to Elsens comment..

>> Maybe people who are healthier can plan their lives beyond
tomorrow...... (and flame and find 100 faults with putterers ideas, and
end off threads without having dealt with the PROBLEM...)

For the more practical of you on the group, those like our homestead
manager, who gets dirt, oil grease and lots of other things under his
fingernails.... They will understand the yearning to sometimes have
something up and running to experiment with, that works enough to eke
out an existence. Sometimes it spells the only chance for those people
to survive. Have any of you ever seen the joy on the faces of folks who
have just seen how you show them how easy setting up a garden is with a
bit of dedication?
( http://members.tripod.com/~colibri_cove/dumpgard.htm ) Has anyone on
the group tried eating a few crackers and sugar and water for the DAY..
and then work for 8 hours in the roasting sun 35 degrees simply because
the garden is the only way to get food? Has anyone of you burnt coal
with thorn bushes to sell the coal in the market to feed the family? We
from the homestead had the joy of seeing a community realize that self
help is definitely sometimes the only way out, even if the efficiencies
are low, and the process is not yet perfect.
I would like to "large up" (Jamaican slang for acknowledge praise to)
Tom Reed, Harry Parker and Danny Day for their help in this respect.
Mr. Day, for example helped even though he makes HIS lifebread from the
same technology, drawings and all, that I asked about. I guess he
realizes that if a homestead like ours makes clean water with his
drawing, and are able to help 300 people indirectly dependent on us (if
even for ideas) , that we will be more inclined to deal with him when we
are economically better off than someone who spoke from a well fed
position to tell us why this and that wont work? Even if you did a
one/off I still respect that move Sir! We drink live and eat from what
we discuss, many of you just theorize and unfortunately fritter away
arguing while precious time flies...

(Or am I simply treading on the putterer/ hobby-man vs. scientist
divide?)

I herald your help as having been HIGHLY exemplary. Lets face it.
Although the newsgroups are sometimes dominated by geographic groupings,
and market competition exists, let us remember that there are those who
act as catalysts in weird and wonderful places and in no way pose a
threat!!Our even low/efficiency thingie-mi-jigs often bring in the meals
and get th job done!! Isnt that another definition of Quality?

I think the knowledgeables like to have the A1 model up and working
before speaking to anyone, without realising that the man in the woods
and bushes sometimes just needs something that runs to survive. Hey
"knowledgeables", maybe you need to see a bushman burning coal , or
hillmen burning wood in what is effectually a two stage gasifier.
Chariots, trucks of wood with hydraulic brakes, water wheels, pumps,
ploughs, hammermills etc all built of JUNK and what those of us in the
know would call RUBBISH is what these persons use to make their living.

>>It's logical when you live a here-and-now, hand-to-mouth existence,
isn't it?

Yes Elsen I agree, although not so affected we try to alleviate the
plight of many so affected and yes, they do find what you said VERY
logical and sometimes, as in your case unfortunately practical.

OK Sue you ask so where is this going...well I would like to suggest a
few points...

** NEVER THINK your inputs are unimportant. Sound Technical uplifting
and forward thinking comment, with a sense of urgency are welcome too.

** ALWAYS envision a hungry father and poverty stricken mother beside
you asking you the technical question so that he/she can eat tomorrow.

** ASK ...Is that negative comment necessary, that flame, that time
wasting peoples time who might have gotten further with their queries?
That time online might have bought a meal for the family!!

** DON'T INSTINCTIVELY cling on to renewable energy ideas as if they
were ours...countless tribes and tongues have unlocked and lost many of
Natures secrets. Those in the renewable field should be setting a bench
mark in terms of readiness to assist. Have the joy of seeing your ideas
reach the direct and indirect lives of hundreds of people.I personally
think my conribution could be a collection of ideas that could be posted
on http://members.tripod.com/~colibri_cove/eco.htm

Many folks are clinging to general ideas that are soon in public domain
instead of speaking to the user of these technologies as a friend, so
that development of the next stage will be like a long drink with an old
friend discussing this and that...

** LOOK INTO using the experiences of homesteads such as Colibri Cove
and so may other be a FREE experience curve generator, laboratory,
feedback source ... whatever.
( http://members.tripod.com/~colibri_cove/myindex.htm )

I hope that the folks on the groups can realize that some of their
suggestions have been implemented over days and months and that many of
them are ALREADY leaving a living legacy? Not in vain..!!

Why ACT urgently ??

>>you can be sure that trees not protected by their owners will be
removed if they happen to be closer to home than the forest is.
>>and it's only getting worse as the population increases.
>>Per-capita income decreases along with a diminished
buying power of the currencies this income is measured by.
>>The family 'shamba' (farm) has been divided time and again as adult
offspring claim their share of the family assets. It's sad to see tall
cyprus trees surrounding these tiny farms with just a tuft of green
foliage at the very top.....all lower branches have been stripped off
for firewood.

And many more stories I could share as well..

There is still room to help. For those not offended by my tirade, there
is also opportunity to help as you can see at...
( http://members.tripod.com/~colibri_cove/quest.htm )

and for those willing to take a look overseas....
( http://members.tripod.com/~colibri_cove/workie.htm )

Still love you all,
Shalom, and out Sue.

OOoops!! Many apologies for mailing wihout the intended attachment!!

Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:49:00 +0300
To: stoves@crest.org
From: elk@net2000ke.com (E. L. Karstad)
Subject: Deforestation and Fuelwood

Stovers;

I sit here in my office on the outskirts of Nairobi flanked on two sides
with the remnants of an indigenous forest. Fuelwood predation has
reduced
this forest in size and quality - it's now more bush than forest. This
is
still an official Government 'protected' forest. The depredation
continues
daily as streams of women carry out bundles of sticks- both fresh and
'windfall' during the day, and teams of more determined poachers fell
and
remove entire trees during the night. There is a great econonomic
intentive
here that is countered by low risk of punishment. As far as I can
determine, nearly all of this wood (primarily the hardwood, Brown Olive)
is
used for domestic fuel. Possibly a small proportion ends up in the hands
of curio wood carvers.

>As far as I am concerned the rural fuel use is a mystery.

Further from the urban areas great tracts of bushland has been reduced
to
shrubland by charcoal manufacturers. Efforts to collect wood are
certainly
minimised around the home- with backyards being denuded of trees first-
if
a forest is half an hours walk away, you can be sure that trees not
protected by their owners will be removed if they happen to be closer to
home than the forest is. It's logical when you live a here-and-now,
hand-to-mouth existance, isn't it? And it's only getting worse as the
population increases. Per-capita income decreases along with a
diminished
buying power of the currencies this income is measured by.

The family 'shamba' (farm) has been divided time and again as adult
offspring claim their share of the family assets. It's sad to see tall
cyprus trees surrounding these tiny farms with just a tuft of green
foliage
at the very top.....all lower branches have been stripped off for
firewood.

Just picture an East African city as a termite mound.... the depredation
of
forests for both timber and fuelwood extends in a radial pattern
outward.
At the furthest reaches the pattern becomes more patchy- due to road
access
mainly- and is confined to wood harvested for charcoal production.
Timber
harvesting can be more easily controlled (though poaching is rampant)
than
woodfuel collection. The forest resources are rapidly diminishing under
this pressure.

Why differentiate between rural and urban? Wood, in one form or the
other
is still the primary domestic cooking fuel in Africa- urban or rural.

>The fact that people are using ag. residues and dung is predicated
>upon the fact that the forests disappeared before the current lot
>arrived on the scene.

It's happening here now. Maybe dung will be used more commonly once all
woody vegetation has disapeared from the scene, but here at present very
few people indeed use dung as a fuel. Dung is used as a building
material
when mixed with mud, and as an insect repellent (smoke) within houses in
small quantity. I've just interviewed several of my staff here from
different tribes and areas within Kenya to confirm this.

SURELY a more efficient wood burning stove would help. So would a more
efficient charcoal stove. So would the stop-gap of fossil fuel use. And,
hey- why not reduce emmissions while we are at it? Maybe people who are
healthier can plan their lives beyond tomorrow......

elk

_____________________________
Elsen Karstad
P.O Box 24371 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel/Fax:254 2 884437
E-mail: elk@net2000ke.com
_____________________________

Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

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

 

From onar at con2.com Fri Oct 16 20:48:22 1998
From: onar at con2.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Onar_=C5m?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The impacts of CO2
Message-ID: <199810170124.VAA20199@admin.con2.com>

> >>>>>>
>
>
> If this is true the world was drunk 60 million years ago, when CO2
> concentrations were some 10-20 times higher than today.
> >>>>
> maybe that was what happened to the dinosaurs?
>
> #*!hiccup!*#

:-) The only thing CO2 did to the world back then was to enable dinosaurs
to live at 80 degrees north, make plants grow darn fast and make them more
resistent to drought.

Onar.

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

 

From Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz Fri Oct 16 22:06:02 1998
From: Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz (Anne and Dean Corson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Distillation & hyrdrogenation of cellulose
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810160037390426@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <3627E107.75FF@xtra.co.nz>

Hi Skip - The term "Destructive Distillation" is one that’s not often
used these days, in fact was in more common use 30 or so years ago
(please correct me if I am wrong), I believe it has been replace by the
terms "Pyrolysis" & "Carbonisation" though these both can involve the
use of partial oxidation to supply the necessary heat for the reaction.
In general "Destructive Distillation" involves the heating of an organic
substance in the absence of air. Steam distillation is used extensively
in the extraction of plant oils (i.e. those used in aroma therapy) and
is a lot less severe than destructive distillation unless you can get
the steam hot enough, greater than say 250oC, though some smaller
changes occur before this. As for your question on hydrogenation, well I
have not had much to do with this, maybe someone else in the group can
answer it.

Regards

Dean

 

skip goebel wrote:
>
> To my knowledge, destructive distillation is when something was burned without
> enough O2 and the heat passed over raw fuel for the esters. if the gasses
> were passed over the coals, then it was called co gas. i have the old audels
> books, but i will try to find the books you are talking about.
> Is it considered destructive distillation if you evaporate the wood using
> steam without the presence of oxygen. also, what about hydrogenation? does
> that occur after 900C?
> One more....some woods are high in oils. Would it be preferrable to extract
> the oil via steam and not hassle with the last bit of cellulose??
> skip
> sensible steam
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

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

 

From greensue at hotmail.com Sat Oct 17 01:31:54 1998
From: greensue at hotmail.com (Susanne Machler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <19981017054301.14220.qmail@hotmail.com>

Hi Dale,

been very busy of late but I found a A1 site for cichlids, Tilapia
breeding, I must have downloaded all the manuals here...
http://www.ag.auburn.edu/dept/faa/extprog.html
Any joy with the mylar yet? Havent got the drawings yet, the post down
here is sometimes undependable so it will take a few weeks, but do you
have the cicuits included so that we can build the steering controls
too?
This week has been my "Aquaculture Week" and I have been MOST pleasantly
surprised at the amount of info available. Why cant RE people take a cue
from the fish folks? My water situation is getting worse as the spring
is quite atrickle and water is mucky, and full of tannins. Working on
an activated carbon filter as you might have seen in the CREST
newsgroups, as well as need to get ourselves into serious action on the
dish as we need desperately to sterilize now.

Will be in the bush country for a few days but look forward for news.
Tell me more about the fish you breed in terms of problems, growth,
protein value, taste etc.I might be able to get an import permit!! :)
Have you had any luck with getting fishling Tilapia in USA now? Shouldnt
be a prob apparently. Is this your first trial with fish farming, and
for someone just going into it.. what sort of advice would you give us?
Do you do your own spawning as well? Where did you learmn the necessary
stuff? We have had a few offers from folks who would like to teach us
basics of fish farming.I would love to learn more on prawn and shrimp
farming too!! That would give us some tasty income too!!
Anyway gonna be a early trip so got to sign off now!

http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/ata.html
http://library.kcc.hawaii.edu/praise/hames/
http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/philippines/clsu.htm
http://www.biddeford.com/rainforest/fishfarm.htm#farm
http://www.ag.auburn.edu/dept/faa/
http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/aquanic/publicat/usda_rac/efs/srac.htm
http://www.ag.auburn.edu/dept/faa/extprog.html

Good luck...Sue M.

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

 

From greensue at hotmail.com Sat Oct 17 01:40:01 1998
From: greensue at hotmail.com (Susanne Machler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fishy Bizness etc.
Message-ID: <19981017055106.6643.qmail@hotmail.com>

Sorry that mail was intended for Dale Costitch.

Who knows maybe there are a few secret fish breeding, gasifier building,
solar-concentrator loving, free life loving folks out there hiding...
well zou are not alone.. maybe time to come out of the wood work.
Seems like weve been caught red handed...

Still smiling,
Sue M.
http://members.tripod.com/~colibri_cove/myindex.htm
Colibri Cove Homestead

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Sat Oct 17 03:09:44 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fishy Bizness etc.
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810170720160997@classic.msn.com>

Sue,
I do mission work
or are you just venting because you are having difficulty converting somebody
else's culture to our 'manifest destiny'?
skip
sensible steam
www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/6362

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

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sat Oct 17 13:55:36 1998
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Distillation & hyrdrogenation of cellulose
Message-ID: <4b7ca642.3628dbb5@aol.com>

Dear Skip, Anne & Dean, et al,

FYI, another word being used for pyrolysis is "thermolyse." There is a site
promoting the technology as an alternative to MSW incineration at the
following address:

http://www.ic.be/incin/LEIGNON.HTM

The site is primarily in French, but there is a type of executive summary in
English. Since I can't read French I don't know all the details, but they
maintain there is a difference between pyrolysis and thermolyse. Lots of links
to other sites.

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Oct 18 08:04:13 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: By Hook and By Crook...
Message-ID: <199810180815_MC2-5D0F-3CA0@compuserve.com>

Dear Susanne, ELK and all concerned with deforestation:

Here is a footnote on history that I hope others will expand on. The lord
of the manor in medeivel days granted the wood to his peasants that they
could get "by hook or by crook (sheppherd?)". All other wood taken was
poaching and punished accordingly.

Wood famines occur regularly in history. When the pilgrims landed in
Massachusetts England had already lost much of its forest. When they saw
the forest they said "Wow, we could never burn that down" and got busy
immediately. By the time of the Revolution (150 years later) Boston was
receiving firewood from as much as 200 miles away. On a world basis we
have converted 1/3 of the fertile lands of the world to dessert. They make
wonderful museums of failed civilizations. Now with chain saws and steel
plows we are working on the other 2/3.

However, this is not always an irreversible process. Now that we don't
burn much wood, New England is in danger of disappearing back into the
trees. Trees were rare in China in 1930 due to "free" use of trees. They
had a BIG reforestation program under Mao to combat the "sand dragon" and
now boast about 10% forest. Same for Korea. The U.S. heard the dust bowl
message loud and clear in the early 1930s and fundamentally changed its
farming habits to prevent errosion with shelter belts, contour plowing.....

So, deforestation is not a one way street. I hope others have more facts
on deforestation/reforestation.

Yours truly, TOM REED

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Oct 18 08:04:29 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Efficiency, etc. . .
Message-ID: <199810180815_MC2-5D0F-3CA8@compuserve.com>

Dear robert luis rabello et al:

You said

Please allow me to express a few observations concerning the
efficiency thread Mr. Reed began a few days ago. If someone could please
explain why a resistance load, like a stovetop coil, could have less than
100% efficiency when producing HEAT, my understanding of the world and how
it works would be enriched.

Of course we don't run the stove to heat the heater, but to boil the water,
cook the food whatever. So 100% efficiency at the pot only translates into
~65% heat for the intended purpose (or ~20% from the original source, coal
or natural gas).

I hope this enriches your world and understanding....

Yours truly, Tom Reed

 

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Oct 18 08:04:49 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Skip's Steam Engines
Message-ID: <199810180815_MC2-5D0F-3CAF@compuserve.com>

Dear Skip et al:

I enjoyed reading your diatribe against traditional energy and agreed with
maybe 50%. I'm not sure it belongs here in the GASIFICATION node, but
can't think offhand of a better place within CREST. (Tom Miles -
suggestions?)

In particular, as a thermodynamicist, I believe that SMALL conventional
piston steam engines have efficiencies in the 5-10% range, and to achieve
even this, they need enormous cooling surfaces to condenser steam to near
vacuum. Compare a steam locomotive to a diesel locomotive. The diesel
engine is the size of a large desk.

The Stanley, White and other "steamers" Achilles heel was condensation. As
long as they were willing to exhaust live steam they could beat anything on
the road - but had to stop for water every 10 miles. That steam thrown
away carried 550 calories/g if I remember correctly.

So, in spite of imperfections in the present fossil fueled energy system, I
don't think small steam engines will compete again. I do think that small
wood gasifiers may be perfected for local scale power generation with IC
(or stirling or fuel cell) engines.

The dear old days don't bear close examination.

Hope to meet you for a long discussion someday....

Yours, TOM REED

 

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Oct 18 09:41:09 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis vs Thermolysis
Message-ID: <199810180952_MC2-5D10-BB08@compuserve.com>

Dear Skip, Anne & Dean, et al:

In 1978 I proposed the following definitions for "pyrolysis" and
"thermolysis" and have been using them ever since:

PYROLYSIS - Destruction by heat

THERMOLYSIS - Alteration of properties by controlled application of heat

Thus when I cook a pie in the oven, it is thermolysis; when I forget to
turn the oven off and the pie becomes a charred mummy it is pyrolysis.

When we heat wood to 450 C to make charcoal it is pyrolysis. When we heat
wood to 350C to make Sea Sweep, an oil absorbent, it retains the structure
of the wood, but becomes hydrophobic and oleophilic; this is thermolysis.

I'm sure you can think of many other example
I hope you may find these distinctions useful.

Using "thermolysis" as a synonym for pyrolysis just extends the confusion.

Comments??

Yours truly, ` Tom Reed

Thomas B. Reed: The Biomass Energy Foundation
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
303 278 0558V; 303 278 0560F
E-mail: reedtb@compuserve.com

Dear Skip, Anne & Dean, et al:

FYI, another word being used for pyrolysis is "thermolyse." There is a
site
promoting the technology as an alternative to MSW incineration at the
following address:

http://www.ic.be/incin/LEIGNON.HTM
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Sun Oct 18 09:56:35 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Skip's Steam Engines
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810181407050182@classic.msn.com>

thanx tom
the manifesto was to make a point, and of course, extend the fireside chat.
of course, the steam engine is not trying to compete with other forms of power
today. the object always is to create a powerplant that is most convenient to
do the job. this means refined fuel. the question remains, and of course
this applies to gasification....material handling.
if you had a powerplant that was 90% efficient or a car that got 100 miles to
the gallon...but... it took an enormouse amount of energy to make that fuel
before you used it
then i say: what is the point. there is a film called 'Powaqquatsi' that i
reccomend for entertainment that may expound my point. you can get it at a
video store. it has good credits too.
probably we have beat this important subject to death though. i guess the two
camps of opinion boil down to those who live pristeene lives and work in an
institution (sheltered) and those who are victims of the end result of that
'manufactured' comfort. and we will never agree but eventually revolt :(

i have a question that maybe you can answer.
modern fire ext. systems take advantage of highly atomized water with a strong
positive static charge added and then that fog will seek out the products of
combustion. could this principal be applied to superheated steam? does the
charge of H2O change when it becomes a gas?
also, with the free hydrogen and esters in gasifiers, could this be applied?
i would like to take a sample of the scum that is on those electrostatic
precipitators that are used in powerplant emission systems.
skip
sensible steam

btw...condensers were not the prob. i am very active in the steam car world
and it was really a marketing problem and lack of capital.
it is infinitely more practical to use a engine designed for the fuel. gas
belongs in a gas engine, and raw fuel belongs in a boiler.
it is all politics ya know.
that is also to note that a man named rockefeller financed a man who had
three bankruptsies under his belt (ford) and of course, rockefeller got into a
tiff with a man over his vegetable oil engine (r. diesel)

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Sun Oct 18 09:58:53 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: By Hook and By Crook.../rr
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810181407070104@classic.msn.com>

good point tom
dont forget isreal
skip

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

 

From Robbcpc at aol.comArntKarlsen Sun Oct 18 11:08:02 1998
From: Robbcpc at aol.comArntKarlsen (Robbcpc@aol.comArntKarlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: By Hook and By Crook...GAS-L: ..Alaska, was:Skip's Steam Engines
In-Reply-To: <199810181907.MAA23931@mail.easystreet.com>
Message-ID: <66bc3025.362a06ed@aol.com>

Tom Miles wrote:

> At 08:15 AM 10/18/98 -0400, Tom Reed wrote:
> >So, in spite of imperfections in the present fossil fueled energy system, I
> >don't think small steam engines will compete again. I do think that small
> >wood gasifiers may be perfected for local scale power generation with IC
> >(or stirling or fuel cell) engines.
>
> After cranking so long at it, why can't we get this small scale technology
> started? Why so few operating systems? Cost? Convenience? Or, Complexity?

..in engineering, unit control is always helpful: according to ISO, 1 GJ/hr divided by
the 3600 seconds in that hour, becomes, ahem, 278 kW infired...

> The 1 GJ/hr Alaskan village district heating boiler that I cited earlier on
> this forum
> (http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive/msg00628.htm
> l) provides a useful community function - it heats a "washeteria" or
> communal laundry and a village heating loop. Can a gasifier be put on the
> loop to generate heat and power via an IC or sterling engine? If so, what
> size and cost? If not, why not?
>
> We have seen some examples of commercially operating gasifiers on this list
> but if you go to a gasifier directory (e.g.,
> http://www.webpan.com/BEF/small.htm) you will find it difficult to buy a
> system. It seems that we are still in development.

..agreed, anyhow, I'd like to try my luck:
for details, see URL: http://142.17.170.5/Arnt/index.html .
If any of you guys like what you see,
good enough to pay for a plant,
I'd like to hear from you...

 

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

 

From Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz Mon Oct 19 01:51:32 1998
From: Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz (Anne and Dean Corson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis vs Thermolysis
In-Reply-To: <199810180952_MC2-5D10-BB08@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <362AC06A.2A69@xtra.co.nz>

Hi Tom - I did enjoy your culinary description of the
thermolysis/pyrolysis differences, however, I am having difficulty in
seeing this difference when reading the article at
http://www.ic.be/incin/LEIGNON.HTM on an alternative to MSW
incineration. Here it reads that the temperature reaches 450 to 550oC,
now I am no expert on pyrolysis but doesn’t pyrolysis occur anywhere
above say 300oC as it is quoted in many published journals?. You
mentioned "Alteration of properties by controlled application of heat",
I personally feel that their is plenty of room for definition overlap
between the two phrases, I mean it's up to the individual how he/she
likes their Pie(Just an opinion) . It also reads that it produces
activated carbon, now reading what was said a couple of weeks ago at
this group, carbon activation doesn’t occur until ~800oC, am I wrong?.

Non-brutal comments please.

Dean.

Tom Reed wrote:
>
> Dear Skip, Anne & Dean, et al:
>
> In 1978 I proposed the following definitions for "pyrolysis" and
> "thermolysis" and have been using them ever since:
>
> PYROLYSIS - Destruction by heat
>
> THERMOLYSIS - Alteration of properties by controlled application of heat
>
> Thus when I cook a pie in the oven, it is thermolysis; when I forget to
> turn the oven off and the pie becomes a charred mummy it is pyrolysis.
>
> When we heat wood to 450 C to make charcoal it is pyrolysis. When we heat
> wood to 350C to make Sea Sweep, an oil absorbent, it retains the structure
> of the wood, but becomes hydrophobic and oleophilic; this is thermolysis.
>
> I'm sure you can think of many other example
> I hope you may find these distinctions useful.
>
> Using "thermolysis" as a synonym for pyrolysis just extends the confusion.
>
> Comments??
>
> Yours truly, ` Tom Reed
>
> Thomas B. Reed: The Biomass Energy Foundation
> 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> 303 278 0558V; 303 278 0560F
> E-mail: reedtb@compuserve.com
>
> Dear Skip, Anne & Dean, et al:
>
> FYI, another word being used for pyrolysis is "thermolyse." There is a
> site
> promoting the technology as an alternative to MSW incineration at the
> following address:
>
> http://www.ic.be/incin/LEIGNON.HTM
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Mon Oct 19 03:30:57 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: ..atomized water, was: GAS-L: Skip's Steam Engines
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810190306430127@classic.msn.com>

arnt-
i am familiar with what you explained and am quite familiar with the
gasification units that were familiar on the ships of the great lakes. i have
seen units big enough to park a truck in, etc....

i think we went off on a tangent and the tech question became a history
lesson. my question is this again.
in modern computer rooms, a highly atomized fog is generated by a ceiling
mounted sprinkler. it passes through an electrostatic generator that gives it
a + charge?? and this fog will now travel across the room without contacting
anything except the negative combustion process. i have seen this
demonstrated in a room with a wastepaper basket burning 30 feet away!
so my question is how can this be applied to gasification and more
importantly, instead of a fog, why not steam itself, which is already occuring
in the combustion process. or better still, why not apply steam to the
cellulose whether gasified or not and see if it will adhere to the free
hydrogen or esters that are being generated at lower temps? also, water being
a bipolar molecule, couldnt these gases be lined up and separated via a laser?
history is nice, but job security is better......
how about it guys? you have the labs.
skip

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Mon Oct 19 09:27:22 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: envision future combustion
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810191337380783@classic.msn.com>

I have a few ideas that merit discussion.
What if these venues were followed in combustion?

Ionization of H2O and mixed with distilled gasses.

Alignment of gas molecules via lasers. This could entail the use of a
integral steam divergent nozzle that has a laser in the center.

Ideal condition where combustion air would be preheated past 500C and aligned
via laser, mixed just above the bed which would allow distillation from
radiation annd not convection which should be controllable and keep temps low.

The distilled gasses, now aligned from the laser, can enter a centrifuge and
now will easily separate from the CO2, free hydrogen, esters and CO, etc...
These gasses, still aligned, would already have the positive charge that
results from combustion, and if the negatively charged, high velocity steam
was injected at say 160 to the fuel streams, we now could have a compound
reaction occur in a small space.

Granted, some bonds would be weak, but this might make for a fuel that would
readily oxidize.
Note also, that there are gizmo's out there that basically are magnets that
you put on water lines to psuedo soften water (this would take care of the
toxic metal prob) and magnets that go on the fuel line of your car with the
claim that the gasoline oxidizes more readily. This tech should be applied to
gasifiers.

Of course, I am to practical to play around with all this as I just keep
throwing wood in boilers, but you all have the labs, the money and the free
labor to investigate these avenues. We all know that for the future to
advance, technology is going to have to travel in this direction. I can only
pray that if all this research is done on the govt. dole, that it is not
stolen and patented by some scumbag megagiant link ADM or BP.
This stuff is too important and I hope that the responsible thing will be done
and open patents are created out of all this.

Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam
www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/6362

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Oct 19 09:35:56 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis vs Thermolysis
Message-ID: <199810190946_MC2-5D21-8E43@compuserve.com>

Dear Dean and those concerned with accurate application of words:

I would call the MSW process pyrolyis, and so would everyone for the last
100 years. In a sense pyrolysis to charcoal is an uncontrolled process,
since when you reach a temperature of 250-300C, it becomes self heating and
goes to an "end point" of 400-450C, depending on feedstock, insulation etc.

But I sure agree that there will be intermediate cases where either word
works fine. I haven't looked a the LEIGNON site yet, but will visit today.

H. L. Menken said that if you don't have to invent at least one new word a
year, you probably aren't thinking.

TOM REED

>Hi Tom - I did enjoy your culinary description of the
thermolysis/pyrolysis differences, however, I am having difficulty in
seeing this difference when reading the article at
http://www.ic.be/incin/LEIGNON.HTM on an alternative to MSW
incineration. Here it reads that the temperature reaches 450 to 550oC,
now I am no expert on pyrolysis but doesn’t pyrolysis occur anywhere
above say 300oC as it is quoted in many published journals?. You
mentioned "Alteration of properties by controlled application of heat",
I personally feel that their is plenty of room for definition overlap
between the two phrases, I mean it's up to the individual how he/she
likes their Pie(Just an opinion) . It also reads that it produces
activated carbon, now reading what was said a couple of weeks ago at
this group, carbon activation doesn’t occur until ~800oC, am I wrong?.

Non-brutal comments please.

Dean.

Tom Reed wrote:
>
> Dear Skip, Anne & Dean, et al:
>
> In 1978 I proposed the following definitions for "pyrolysis" and
> "thermolysis" and have been using them ever since:
>
> PYROLYSIS - Destruction by heat
>
> THERMOLYSIS - Alteration of properties by controlled application of heat
>
> Thus when I cook a pie in the oven, it is thermolysis; when I forget to
> turn the oven off and the pie becomes a charred mummy it is pyrolysis.
>
> When we heat wood to 450 C to make charcoal it is pyrolysis. When we
heat
> wood to 350C to make Sea Sweep, an oil absorbent, it retains the
structure
> of the wood, but becomes hydrophobic and oleophilic; this is
thermolysis.
>
> I'm sure you can think of many other example
> I hope you may find these distinctions useful.
>
> Using "thermolysis" as a synonym for pyrolysis just extends the
confusion.
>
> Comments??
>
> Yours truly, ` Tom Reed
>
> Thomas B. Reed: The Biomass Energy Foundation
> 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> 303 278 0558V; 303 278 0560F
> E-mail: reedtb@compuserve.com
>
> Dear Skip, Anne & Dean, et al:
>
> FYI, another word being used for pyrolysis is "thermolyse." There is a
> site
> promoting the technology as an alternative to MSW incineration at the
> following address:
>
> http://www.ic.be/incin/LEIGNON.HTM
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

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

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Oct 19 09:36:11 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TRENDS in RENEWABLE ENERGIES
Message-ID: <199810190947_MC2-5D21-8E4F@compuserve.com>

>From our friend, Jim Arcate....

Please post if you think it would be of interest to Gasification, etc.

Thank you.

Jim Arcate
www.techtp.com

=============
Canadian Association for Renewable Energies

http://www.cyberus.ca/~doitrite/renewables.html

Since 1997, CARE has produced a weekly email newsletter on TRENDS in
RENEWABLE ENERGIES that is designed to showcase the growth of renewable
energies in Canada and abroad, to highlight the fortes and deficiencies of
various renewable energy technologies, and to indicate how conventional
combustion energy options are coping in the Climate Change debate. The
content serves as a heads-up notice on important trends.

 

 

<

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Oct 19 09:36:27 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Stirling, now or never??
Message-ID: <199810190947_MC2-5D21-8E59@compuserve.com>

Gasification:

Tom Miles says

>*Please* it is a STIRLING not a sterling engine.

Thanks - I'll be more careful.

>Can a gasifier be put on the loop to generate heat and power via an IC or
sterling engine? If so, what
>size and cost? If not, why not?
>
>Tom Miles

We (Community Power Corp.) are currently working with Stirling Technology
Corp. of Seattle Washington to develop a gasifier for their 350 Watt free
piston Stirling engine demonstrated last August at the IECEC, NREL and BEF.
It was absolutely quiet and quite elegant.

The engine still costs over $1,000, but is expected to come down with
increased production to compete with IC engines.

When I first heard of the Stirling cycle in the 1970s (teaching thermo at
MIT) I thought it was a great idea. Then I kept waiting for the practical
engine to appear - and waiting and waiting. Several years ago I came
across the "free piston" Stirling that generates power without first
turning linear piston power into rotary crankshaft power. Much improved
with rare earth magnets. So, be patient, maybe the Stirling's will replace
ICs for power (if fuel cells don't get there first).

Fortunately, producer gas works with ICs, Stirlings and fuel cells.

Onward, TOM
REED

TOM REED

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Oct 19 09:45:35 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Charged droplets...
Message-ID: <199810190956_MC2-5D21-8F8B@compuserve.com>

Dear Skip and Gasification:

Skip asks....

>i have a question that maybe you can answer.
modern fire ext. systems take advantage of highly atomized water with a
strong
positive static charge added and then that fog will seek out the products
of
combustion. could this principal be applied to superheated steam? does
the
charge of H2O change when it becomes a gas?

No. A few extra electrons on a drop of water give a useful charge; extra
electrons on one molecule will ionize it at great energy cost.

also, with the free hydrogen and esters in gasifiers, could this be
applied?
i would like to take a sample of the scum that is on those electrostatic
precipitators that are used in powerplant emission systems.
<
Again precipitators work very well on droplets, not molecules.

I started professional life as a physical chemist, and these questions fit
nicely that background.

TOM

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Oct 19 09:47:22 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Distillation & hyrdrogenation of cellulose
Message-ID: <199810190957_MC2-5D21-8F8F@compuserve.com>

Dear Skip and GASIFICATION:

A while back Skip asked....
>
To my knowledge, destructive distillation is when something was burned
without
enough O2 and the heat passed over raw fuel for the esters. if the gasses
were passed over the coals, then it was called co gas. i have the old
audels
books, but i will try to find the books you are talking about.
Is it considered destructive distillation if you evaporate the wood using

steam without the presence of oxygen. also, what about hydrogenation?
does
that occur after 900C?
One more....some woods are high in oils. Would it be preferrable to
extract
the oil via steam and not hassle with the last bit of cellulose??
<

This is approximately correct, except that destructive distillation breaks
the polymers cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin (as well as PVC PE,....in
MSW) down to their original monomers, or fragments, or other smaller
molecules (not esters).

While this can be accomplished with steam, the energy must be supplied at
>400C, so requires a lot of superheat. Hydrogenation occurs with catalysts
>500C and usually at high pressure.

Charcoal manufacture involves destructive distillation with a very small
amount of air to burn < 10% of the charge to distill the remainder.
Starting at the time of Napoleon, the smoke was condensed and supplied many
important chemicals and tar for the industrial revolution until about 1950.

By all means extract the "tall oil" and other minor constituents from the
biomass before pyrolysing if they have sufficient value. Usually they
don't.

Yours truly, TOM
REED

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Mon Oct 19 10:44:38 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Distillation & hyrdrogenation of cellulose
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810191455190564@classic.msn.com>

what about electrostatic charging of the gasses?, the steam could also be very
minimal (by poundage) and made from waste heat, no pressure needed and the
rest of the energy would be in superheat.

also, using the high velocities that can be attained w/steam, perhaps a high
velocity collision of molecules/precipitates could be utilized for compounds
and/or separation of precipitates? if nothing else, perhaps the heat energy
attained when things hit at say 5 thousand fps would work?

hope this dont cause headaches!
skip

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

 

From michael.schwerin at internetMCI.com Mon Oct 19 12:06:39 1998
From: michael.schwerin at internetMCI.com (Michael Schwerin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: some basic questions
Message-ID: <0F1300KA819F4T@PM04SM.PMM.MCI.NET>

Examining various technological approaches to gasification of carbonaceous
material for syngas production and ultimate conversion to liquid fuels, I'm
running into my own ignorance on a couple of basic points. Any help
clarifying these issues would be appreciated:

--What are the advantages of pressurized systems? If the syngas is destined
not for combustion in a turbine or other thermal device but rather for
conversion in a chemical process operating at near ambient temperature and
pressure, to these advantages still pertain?

--Most low cost carbonaceous material is wet (from mill sludge, yard waste,
wood, to subbituminous coals). Presumably, integrated pre-drying is
important to gasification efficiencies?

--Aside from the environmental issues of consuming new carbon vs. old
carbon, is there any reason coal, particularly subbituminous or lignite,
couldn't be gasified just as biomass in simple, airblown systems
(pressurized or not)? Perhaps higher temperatures are needed for
thermolysis, resulting in greater NOx or other undesirable gaseous
emissions or toxic residues?

--If syngas is the desired product, shouldn't it be possible to gasify coal
in a manner which is economically competitive with reforming methane?

--If so, why have major companies and the DOE focused on incredibly
complex, oxygen blown clean coal technologies? Is it related specifically
to the use of coal, which has special chemical properties, or does clean up
and separation of syngas products for specific uses (such as methanol
production or Fischer-Tropsch synthesis) demand this?

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

 

From rabello at uniserve.com Mon Oct 19 15:01:36 1998
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Enlightenment and Efficiency. . .
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19981019191958.0070c668@popserver.uniserve.com>

Hello!!!

Thank-you, Mr. Reed and others, who have clarified the efficiency
issue as it relates to stove top electrical coils. I consider myself
enlightened!

Concerning the ongoing discussion of efficiency, gasification and
the petrochemical system we love, I have read the postings of exceedingly
learned people and realized that academic arguments and personal preferences
aside, WHATEVER energy resource we are currently using and propose to employ
in the future should be utilized to its maximum possible extent.

Yes, microwave ovens are more efficient than high-performace halogen
cooktops, but have you ever eaten a quesadilla prepared in a microwave? How
about Mongolian stir-fry? No one can dispute that less energy is used in a
microwave to perform the same work. In the human context, however, there is
yet another unquantifiable value to the flavor and texture of pan-cooked
food that a microwave oven simply cannot approach.

Issues of this nature are where I believe we will find the niche for
a multiplicity of renewable energy resources. Using electricity to heat a
pan is prohibitively expensive if we're using photovoltaic panels to produce
that electricity, so in that case, wood gasification or methanogenesis might
be better alternatives.

In defense of Mr. Goebel, please let me argue that "inefficient"
small scale steam power makes a LOT of sense to those of us who burn wood
for heat anyway. A simple, monotube boiler fitted to the top of my stove
flue can provide me with nearly 500 watts of power that would otherwise
escape up my chimney. Dollar for dollar, few other options come close to
this kind of value, especially in climates with low solar insolation and a
LOT of wood laying around.

If we can combine technologies that are considered "inefficient" and
utilize the waste heat from one to perform another task, we are increasing
the overall effectiveness of our energy use.

As an example, wouldn't it be possible to produce charcoal and gas
in a gasifier, using waste heat from the gas and gasifier flue to preheat
domestic hot water; then burn the charcoal for space heating and use waste
chimney heat for a stirling or small steam engine to produce electricity?
Condensate from the steam engine can provide additional hot water. Any
electricity can be stored in batteries and inverted for efficient a.c. loads
(like the microwave) and other appliances. The wood gas can be used for
cooking and firing a clothes dryer, or some other suitable use, and by doing
this, I have accomplished several energy-intensive tasks from a single resource.

Given entropy losses at every conversion, I'm sure I've
oversimplified the situation. Yet how many other options do we have? Can
we really continue to denude trees in Africa, burn our hydrocarbon reserves
like there's no tomorrow and pretend there will be no day of reckoning for
our cavalier use of the earth's resources?

The single most important contribution we can all make is for
EVERYONE to use LESS. For me, transportation is the most vexing problem
because the best alternative (fuel cell/electric hybrid) is prohibitively
expensive in initial cost and fuel, and the next best one (diesel/electric
hybrid) STILL requires a lot of hydrocarbons to keep it on the road. These
hydrocarbons have to come from somewhere, and if I use a biological
resource, I am, in effect, depriving someone else of food so I can drive.

We generate a lot of valuable discussion. I wish we could generate
more solutions!

respectfully,

robert luis rabello
VisionWorks Communications

p.s.

Wouldn't solar cookers be a more suitable solution for the situation in
Africa?

What IS a close-coupled Carnot generation facility?

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

 

From shaase at neosdenver.com Mon Oct 19 15:04:38 1998
From: shaase at neosdenver.com (Scott Haase)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: follow-up from Madison conversation
In-Reply-To: <199803242210.RAA28762@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <362B906A.B95C6D32@neosdenver.com>

Kevin:

I was wondering what your schedule is like this week. If possible, I would
like to get together with you, either at your office or over lunch
(whichever is convenient), to discuss some of the things we talked about in
Madison. To remind you, these are:

1. Analysis we are doing now for Gary Nakarado on small scale solar thermal
power plants and the possiblity of looking at a hybrid biomass/solar thermal
plant in Arizona for the Apache Indians.

2. Getting PSCO interested in looking at co-firing once more.

Let me know if you are free,

Scott

Scott Haase
NEOS Corporation
215 Union Blvd., Suite 610
Lakewood, CO 80228 USA
Phone: (303) 980-1969
Fax: (303) 980-1030
email: shaase@neosdenver.com

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

 

From shaase at neosdenver.com Mon Oct 19 15:08:23 1998
From: shaase at neosdenver.com (Scott Haase)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: follow-up from Madison conversation
In-Reply-To: <199803242210.RAA28762@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <362B914E.DCE9D425@neosdenver.com>

Sorry all, that message was meant for someone on the list, not the entire list.

Scott Haase
NEOS Corporation
215 Union Blvd., Suite 610
Lakewood, CO 80228 USA
Phone: (303) 980-1969
Fax: (303) 980-1030
email: shaase@neosdenver.com

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

 

From onar at con2.com Mon Oct 19 16:43:12 1998
From: onar at con2.com (Onar Aam)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Enlightenment and Efficiency. . .
Message-ID: <003901bdfba2$c9472a80$1601a8c0@onars_machine>

> Concerning the ongoing discussion of efficiency, gasification and
>the petrochemical system we love, I have read the postings of exceedingly
>learned people and realized that academic arguments and personal
preferences
>aside, WHATEVER energy resource we are currently using and propose to
employ
>in the future should be utilized to its maximum possible extent.

That's not necessarily true. You yourself have just given a nice example of
where the most efficient method (microwaves) is not necessarily the
preferable due to *qualitative* differences. (This is what I originally
objected to in Skip's comparison of now vs. then.) This is true in general:
some efficiency which is *possible* may not be utilized because it is less
convenient (e.g. more expensive, lack of infrastructure, comfort problems
etc.) So I would like to alter your statement to "utilized to its maximum
possibl extent within a market economic realm." Only 20 years ago oil
companies saw little point in improving well-exploitation technology because
the oil prices were $40 a barrel anyway. Now, 20 years later, with oil
prices less than half of what they were, oil companies are still making a
lot of money. Why? Because oil-drilling technology has improved
dramatically, doubling the efficiency of wells. Today we are in a similar
phase with respect to electricity production. Consumers, especially in the
US, are wasting enormous amounts of energy on bad utilization of
electricity. They can do so because energy prices are low. But in 10-15
years from now we will see the first signs of oil depletion (i.e. oil
production can't keep up with demand) and as a result energy prices will
soar. But 30 years from now consumers don't have bigger energy bills than
they do now. Why? Same story: higher prices opens up for technological
improvements to compensate.

> Given entropy losses at every conversion, I'm sure I've
>oversimplified the situation. Yet how many other options do we have? Can
>we really continue to denude trees in Africa, burn our hydrocarbon reserves
>like there's no tomorrow and pretend there will be no day of reckoning for
>our cavalier use of the earth's resources?

I think so. Oil will likely last another 60-70 years, natural gas some
100-120 years, and coal some 4-500 years. Therefore I don't think we're
going to see any major energy crises in the next couple of centuries. I do
however think that energy technology will change dramatically in the next
century.

> The single most important contribution we can all make is for
>EVERYONE to use LESS.

That's not true. The single most important factor in reducing energy
consumption is improving the backbone technology

> For me, transportation is the most vexing problem
>because the best alternative (fuel cell/electric hybrid) is prohibitively
>expensive in initial cost and fuel, and the next best one (diesel/electric
>hybrid) STILL requires a lot of hydrocarbons to keep it on the road. These
>hydrocarbons have to come from somewhere, and if I use a biological
>resource, I am, in effect, depriving someone else of food so I can drive.

I am dead positive that in a decade or so from now, the basic problems of
flywheels will have been solved, allowing *mechanical* rather than toxic,
inefficient *chemical* battery storage of electricity. I am absolutely 100%
certain that carbonbased flywheel EVs will outperform the classical
combustion engine vehicle, both in terms of performance (milage,
accelleration, speed, fuelling time and fuel price) AND in terms of comfort.
EVs are a sonic pleasure which will greatly reduce noise pollution.
But here's the real beauty: since it is *electricity* based, it can now
be fueled by a multitude of energy sources: wind, solar, fossil fuel,
biomass, MSW, fission and fusion whenever that arrives. In other words,
every technological improvement on the el-backbone efficiency will in the
future translate into reduced energy consumption. Now, THAT's what I call
power.

Onar.

 

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Oct 19 18:49:14 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Charged droplets...
Message-ID: <3854442.362bc45d@aol.com>

Dear Tom Reed et. al.,
One interesting occurrence with charges is the ability to move the boundary
layer, the close "final" layer which may prevent the transfer of heat from a
gas to a surface and vice-versa. By charging the gas, the boundary layer will
move which it resists under normal circumstances. It will move, but very
slowly otherwise.
However, most elevated temperature gases are quite conductive so that the
charging has to overcome the resistance ofthe gas which is quite low and will
drain the charge very quickly. I have found this out in dealing with
precipitating particles in elevated temperature flues from stoves etc..
Charging particles will break them up in size from the surface effects which
overcome the surface tension normally holding them together. They will also
accelerate rather signifcantly from the charge. When a stream of water from a
hypodemic needle is charged it will emit from the needle as a stream and then
quickly disperse, and if you are hit by the small particle, it feels like
something hit you even though you can't see the droplets.
Interesting?

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

 

From paulh at phoenix.Princeton.EDU Mon Oct 19 21:50:44 1998
From: paulh at phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul M. Henderick)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Using corn stalks at a small scale?
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.03.9810191556100.6936-100000@tucson.princeton.edu>

 

Hi all,

I'm a graduate student at CEES (see below) working in the area of
small-scale biomass-fueled cogeneration in the rural China context, in
particular Jilin Province where corn residues are plentiful. I'm trying
to find out if there has been any success in gasification and combustion
of corn stalks (troublesome little devils that they are) at a scale
corresponding to 50-500 kWe (20% conversion or so).

I've come across "some" degree of success in gasification both by the
Shandong Energy Research Institute (the details of which I need to find)
and in the 1980's by people at Kansas State University, Manhattan
(fluidized bed). Anybody know of others? of cheaper, simpler fixed bed
possibilities?

Also, I haven't found much in the area of corn stalk combustion.

-Paul

>->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->
Paul Henderick
Center for Energy and Environmental Studies (CEES)
Princeton University
The Engineering Quadrangle
P.O. Box CN5263
Princeton, NJ 08544-5263

paulh@princeton.edu
phone (609) 258-6260
FAX (609) 258-3661
<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Mon Oct 19 22:45:31 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Charged droplets...
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810200256070622@classic.msn.com>

thanx tom
very interesting
skip

ps. how could i make a small experimental charge grid?

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Mon Oct 19 22:46:19 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Using corn stalks at a small scale?
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810200256060091@classic.msn.com>

Paul,
Go to a steam engine show. Lots of old steam tractors are restored and on
display today. Personally, with a man to move the fuel, a good size Case
tractor in the equivalant of 50-100hp diesel works good on cornstalks.
You might start on the web by looking up a local chapter of the
Early Days Gas Engine & Tractor Ass. or e.d.g.e. t.a.
If that interests you, then you can extrapolate off the shelf tech from today
and utilize it in fixed bed apps.
Skip
Sensible Steam

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Oct 20 02:18:43 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: ..atomized water, was: GAS-L: Skip's Steam Engines
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810190306430127@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <362C0C5F.FB8D87B8@c2i.net>

skip goebel wrote:
arnt-
i am familiar with what you explained and am quite familiar with
the
gasification units that were familiar on the ships of the great lakes. 
i have
seen units big enough to park a truck in, etc....
..on history: much of the discussions I see on the web, suggest nice looking
girls enjoy casually passing by localities where bright young men are supposed
to learn the basic sciences... ;-)

..I suspect you may be mistaking electrostatics for ionization: electrostatics
can be experienced by charging an electric condenser with an high voltage,
and then touching the leads to feel the bright blue dischargeing process
symptom known as "zap", "jolt" or "shock". From physics lab, you may remember
hair raising, or sheet paper and metal foil rejecting oneanother when electrostatically
charged with the same polarity, and attracting each other when electrostatically
charged with the opposite polarity, as you have seen demonstrated with
the water fog. Here, the water fog droplets, like any other physical particle
can be given a *controlled* electrostatic charge.

The best way I can think of is, in this modern computer room, is setting
it up so that everything inside it, is electrically separated from eachother
and electrostatically charge burning items as needed.
i think we went off on a tangent and the tech question
became a history
lesson.  my question is this again.
in modern computer rooms, a highly atomized fog is generated by a ceiling
mounted sprinkler.  it passes through an electrostatic generator
that gives it
a + charge?? and this fog will now travel across the room without contacting
anything except the negative combustion process.  i have seen
this
demonstrated in a room with a wastepaper basket burning 30 feet away!
so my question is how can this be applied to gasification and more
importantly, instead of a fog, why not steam itself, which is already
occuring
in the combustion process.  or better still, why not apply steam
to the
cellulose whether gasified or not and see if it will adhere to the
free
hydrogen or esters that are being generated at lower temps?  also,
water being
a bipolar molecule, couldnt these gases be lined up and separated via
a laser?
..ionization is a *completely* different animal, here a molecule
pick up, or give up, one or more electrons, this electrochemical process
chemically changes the original molecule into another chemical substance,
an ion, usually with other chemical and physical properties than the original
molecule.

..so why not? Ionization require electrochemical energy, which in the
combustion and gasification case, will come from the heat... :-|
history is nice, but job security is better......
how about it guys?  you have the labs.
skip
..lab? Me? I'm looking for one...

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Oct 20 02:18:45 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: envision future combustion
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810191337380783@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <362C1757.4772C8E@c2i.net>

skip goebel wrote:
<snip>

> The distilled gasses, now aligned from the laser, can enter a centrifuge and
> now will easily separate from the CO2, free hydrogen, esters and CO, etc...

..centrifugal chain of reasoning overlooks physical phenomen known as kinetic
molecular movement, which helps fog find fire in modern computer rooms...Sorry
Skip, I could not resist this ;-D, you may have heard of Maxwell's demon and
the Maxwell-Bolzmann distribution law, if not, look it up in Britannica.

> Of course, I am to practical to play around with all this as I just keep
> throwing wood in boilers, but you all have the labs, the money and the free
> labor to investigate these avenues.

..free labor, where? ;-)

 

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Oct 20 02:18:47 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Stirling, now or never??
In-Reply-To: <199810190947_MC2-5D21-8E59@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <362C193C.B3C39D40@c2i.net>

Tom Reed wrote:
<snip>

> We (Community Power Corp.) are currently working with Stirling Technology
> Corp. of Seattle Washington to develop a gasifier for their 350 Watt free

..you must mean 350 kW as in kilowatts? (10 yrs ago I read about a swede who
made a scale model of a WWII tractor with gasifier, where the gasifier actually
did produce smoke on charcoal...

> When I first heard of the Stirling cycle in the 1970s (teaching thermo at
> MIT) I thought it was a great idea. Then I kept waiting for the practical
> engine to appear - and waiting and waiting. Several years ago I came
> across the "free piston" Stirling that generates power without first
> turning linear piston power into rotary crankshaft power. Much improved
> with rare earth magnets. So, be patient, maybe the Stirling's will replace
> ICs for power (if fuel cells don't get there first).
>
> Fortunately, producer gas works with ICs, Stirlings and fuel cells.

..and they can be combined.

 

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Oct 20 02:18:52 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: some basic questions
In-Reply-To: <0F1300KA819F4T@PM04SM.PMM.MCI.NET>
Message-ID: <362C2018.C8511DE6@c2i.net>

Michael Schwerin wrote:

> Examining various technological approaches to gasification of carbonaceous
> material for syngas production and ultimate conversion to liquid fuels, I'm
> running into my own ignorance on a couple of basic points. Any help
> clarifying these issues would be appreciated:
>
> --What are the advantages of pressurized systems? If the syngas is destined
> not for combustion in a turbine or other thermal device but rather for
> conversion in a chemical process operating at near ambient temperature and
> pressure, to these advantages still pertain?

..beats me. Thermochemical gasification seem to produce more syngas the lower
the pressure is in the gasifier. The produced syngas will usually need
compression if used in some synthesis process. Have you seen Topsoe's papers on
their MTBE and gasoline processes?

> --Most low cost carbonaceous material is wet (from mill sludge, yard waste,
> wood, to subbituminous coals). Presumably, integrated pre-drying is
> important to gasification efficiencies?

..yes. Key point here is, how much, and, can it be utilized somehow?.Most
important is "financial efficiency", ie: "how much can we make which way?".

> --Aside from the environmental issues of consuming new carbon vs. old
> carbon, is there any reason coal, particularly subbituminous or lignite,
> couldn't be gasified just as biomass in simple, airblown systems
> (pressurized or not)?

..no. It only takes convincing the funding public that pollution come and came
from mismanagement of technology and resources, not gasification itself.

> Perhaps higher temperatures are needed for
> thermolysis, resulting in greater NOx or other undesirable gaseous
> emissions or toxic residues?

..depends on what you mean by thermolysis, see Tom's culinaric discussion for
ideas...

> --If syngas is the desired product, shouldn't it be possible to gasify coal
> in a manner which is economically competitive with reforming methane?

..sure.

> --If so, why have major companies and the DOE focused on incredibly
> complex, oxygen blown clean coal technologies? Is it related specifically
> to the use of coal, which has special chemical properties, or does clean up
> and separation of syngas products for specific uses (such as methanol
> production or Fischer-Tropsch synthesis) demand this?

..traditionally, big and public companies has a way of primarily producing
complex bureaucracies and then complex technology, sort of transforming the
problem into another complex...

 

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Oct 20 02:18:53 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Enlightenment and Efficiency. . .
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981019191958.0070c668@popserver.uniserve.com>
Message-ID: <362C2CF6.5A82800@c2i.net>

robert luis rabello wrote:
<snip>

> We generate a lot of valuable discussion. I wish we could generate more
> solutions!

..follows: Set up one gasifier up on a trailer you tow behind your car when you
drive, and another in your backyard, feeding an IC engine which again drives an
induction motor at oversyncroneous speed, feeding electricity to the grid.

The gasifiers eat wood, coal, pelletized manure, MSW etc, feeding gas for wok
cooking, barbecuing, transportation and power generation: An used V-8 eats remaining
gas and air, producing, say, 100 kW of electricity to your house and grid, and twice
that of heat to your house, sauna and pool.

Now if you wanna play with sterling stirlings, pipe V-8 exhaust thru' it to boost
electric efficiency into the 40-ies%. To make steam for the sauna and the turbine,
reheat V-8 jacket water in an exhaust boiler. Use exess gasifier heat to heat its
fuel and air. Combining all this, total efficiency should close in on the 90ies and
electric efficiency in the mid 40-ies to low 50-ies...

> Wouldn't solar cookers be a more suitable solution for the situation in
> Africa?

..sure, they are made now and sold in that market.

> What IS a close-coupled Carnot generation facility?

..aaaaw, the above *does* include Rankine cycles... ;-)

( ps The induction motor is an electric equivalent to the windmill, the grid drives
the induction motor pretty much the same way the wind drives the windmill.
Now, add power to speed up the running shaft, and the windmill will feed this added
power to the wind, as a propeller, exactly equivalent to the induction motor, which
will feed this added power to the grid, as a generator. The propeller, the windmill,
the induction motor and the generator, all slip. Cute, humm? ;-) )

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

 

From costich at pacifier.com Tue Oct 20 05:22:06 1998
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Enlightenment and Efficiency. . .
In-Reply-To: <003901bdfba2$c9472a80$1601a8c0@onars_machine>
Message-ID: <362C59CC.4D76@pacifier.com>

Onar Aam: I have always thought flywheels were a "greener" answer to our
lust to hurtle thru space at high speed. My hero Bill Lear of Lear Jet
fame had attempted mass transit bus solution with flywheels years
ago-of course he had hundreds of patents to his name and surely has a
legacy of being a innovator. But..spinning mass (potential) must also
have its concomittant down-side like everything else we mortals first
percieve as panaceas. As a armchair engineering wanna-be I fear the
catastrophic consequences of this spinning reserve during a wreck. I
always hate to be the bummer in these lets have our cake and eat it too
discussions-but when I look out thru the gridlocked streets the thought
of millions of spinning flywheels is little compensation. Thankyou Dale
Costich
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Oct 20 07:38:55 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Microwave and gas cooking efficiency
Message-ID: <199810200749_MC2-5D45-C0AA@compuserve.com>

Dear Stoves & Gasification:

Onar said...

>Let me hasten to add that the heating system with the highest net
efficiency (as well as the greatest potential for increased gross
efficiency) is the microwave oven. I'm not sure about the actual numbers,
but I am positive that it is significantly higher than for electrical
stoves. It's definitely more than 85%, but I'm not sure how much. This is
yet another example where *refined* energy ultimately can lead to greater
gross efficiencies.

Onar.
<

Sorry Onar, but you are only half correct. Microwave energy is very
efficient for much cooking because it only heats the object being cooked
(provided it couples, water and other polar molecules). Unfortunately,
the generation of microwaves from standard AC is at most 50% efficient (and
the AC is 30% after generation and transmission losses). So.... gas stoves
may be the most efficient use of PRIMARY energy, even though they are less
efficient in transferring that energy. See below.
~~~~~
I visited our local appliance store the other day. They have a dozen
different electric stoves and maybe six gas stoves, more expensive, feature
for feature. From this I conclude that Golden housewifes "cook with gas"
half as much as with electricity. Many good cooks prefer gas - it is
instantaneous heat and you can SEE the flame.

I picked up a GE TRUETEMP gas and electric stove brochure. Typical power
levels are

Gas Electric Coal/gas used for
Electric heat
Btu/hr kW
High 12,000 3.5 2.5 8.33
Low 9,500 2.8 1.8 6.0
Simmer 5,000 1.5

The above figures suggest that the gas stove requires more power for the
same cooking rate by a ratio of 3.5/2.5 or 40% more heat required with gas
than electric. Also, the lack of a special simmer burner on the electric
stove.

Yours for biomass gasification/stoves
TOM REED

 

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

 

From michael.schwerin at internetMCI.com Tue Oct 20 08:40:50 1998
From: michael.schwerin at internetMCI.com (Michael Schwerin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Basics - reply to AK
Message-ID: <0F1400BKWMENDI@PM05SM.PMM.MCI.NET>

Responding to Arnt Karlsen's reply:

> > --What are the advantages of pressurized systems? If the syngas is
destined
> > not for combustion in a turbine or other thermal device but rather for
> > conversion in a chemical process operating at near ambient temperature
and
> > pressure, to these advantages still pertain?
>
> ..beats me. Thermochemical gasification seem to produce more syngas the
lower
> the pressure is in the gasifier. The produced syngas will usually need
> compression if used in some synthesis process. Have you seen Topsoe's
papers on
> their MTBE and gasoline processes?

WE (THE PEOPLE I AM LOOKING TO FINANCE) ALREADY HAVE A CONVERSION PROCESS.
IT OPERATES AT NEAR AMBIENT PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE.
>
> > --Most low cost carbonaceous material is wet (from mill sludge, yard
waste,
> > wood, to subbituminous coals). Presumably, integrated pre-drying is
> > important to gasification efficiencies?
>
> ..yes. Key point here is, how much, and, can it be utilized somehow?.Most
> important is "financial efficiency", ie: "how much can we make which
way?".

FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY IS MY BUSINESS. THIS IS WHY I AM CONSIDERING COAL AS
A FEEDSTOCK. HARD TO BEAT $4/TON MINEMOUTH PRB COAL (=$0.20/MMBTU) AS A
CHEAP CARBON SOURCE. THEORETICALLY, "TIPPING CHARGES" MAKE MSW A NEGATIVE
COST FEED, BUT I THINK I'M COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT INCONSISTENCY IN
THE FEED AND HANDLING (SORTING, ETC) COSTS OUTWEIGH THE PRICE ADVANTAGE.
>
> > --Aside from the environmental issues of consuming new carbon vs. old
> > carbon, is there any reason coal, particularly subbituminous or
lignite,
> > couldn't be gasified just as biomass in simple, airblown systems
> > (pressurized or not)?
>
> ..no. It only takes convincing the funding public that pollution come and
came
> from mismanagement of technology and resources, not gasification itself.

I AM THE FUNDING PUBLIC (ACTUALLY I REPRESENT PRIVATE EQUITY). PLEASE
CONVINCE ME.
>
> > Perhaps higher temperatures are needed for
> > thermolysis, resulting in greater NOx or other undesirable gaseous
> > emissions or toxic residues?
>
> ..depends on what you mean by thermolysis, see Tom's culinaric discussion
for
> ideas...

I THOUGHT I WAS USING THE TERM AS TOM INTENDED. I MEANT TO ASK A BASIC
QUESTION: TO GASIFY (SUBBITUMINOUS) COAL, DO WE NEED TO OPERATE AT ELEVATED
TEMPERATURES THAT WILL RESULT IN UNDESIRABLE EMISSIONS OR NASTY RESIDUES?
CERTAINLY, THIS WOULD SEEM TO BE THE HISTORICAL LESSON OF COAL GASIFICATION
IN THIS COUNTRY.

> > --If syngas is the desired product, shouldn't it be possible to gasify
coal
> > in a manner which is economically competitive with reforming methane?
>
> ..sure.

OUR CONVERSION PROCESS CAN ACCOMODATE N2 DILUTION OF THE SYNGAS, ALTHOUGH
AT LOWER MASS TRANSFER EFFICIENCIES. THUS WE CAN USE AIR BLOWN SYSTEMS,
EITHER IN GASIFICATION OR METHANE REFORMING. THEREFORE, THE ECONOMIC
COMPETITION TO GASIFICATION IS AUTOTHERMAL REFORMING (CATALYTIC PARTIAL
OXIDATION) OF METHANE. ATRs ARE ROUTINELY USED AS SECONDARY REFORMERS IN
THE AMMONIA BUSINESS (WHERE NITROGEN IS OBVIOUSLY A NECESSARY COMPONENT)
AND HAVE VERY LOW CAPITAL COSTS. FIGURE $1.75/MMBTU FOR THE METHANE FEED.

> > --If so, why have major companies and the DOE focused on incredibly
> > complex, oxygen blown clean coal technologies? Is it related
specifically
> > to the use of coal, which has special chemical properties, or does
clean up
> > and separation of syngas products for specific uses (such as methanol
> > production or Fischer-Tropsch synthesis) demand this?
>
> ..traditionally, big and public companies has a way of primarily
producing
> complex bureaucracies and then complex technology, sort of transforming
the
> problem into another complex...

CAN WE REALLY DISMISS THEM SO EASILY?

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Tue Oct 20 09:35:45 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: envision future combustion
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810201343190416@classic.msn.com>

big words art,
where is the experience?

the attraction of the water to the combustion gasses is due to opposite static
charges. that is what i wanted to pursue. i know that there is a connection
there somewhere.
btw...i am out of the armchair and on the lathe this morning building a
prototype governor for my engines. it is not all that efficient, but has very
low drag and needs no seals. that makes it fall into my realm...practicality.

please elaborate on 'maxwells demon'
skip

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

 

From onar at con2.com Tue Oct 20 09:54:49 1998
From: onar at con2.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Onar_=C5m?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Enlightenment and Efficiency. . .
Message-ID: <199810201431.KAA18664@admin.con2.com>

> But..spinning mass (potential) must also
> have its concomittant down-side like everything else we mortals first
> percieve as panaceas.

Probably but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

> As a armchair engineering wanna-be I fear the
> catastrophic consequences of this spinning reserve during a wreck. I
> always hate to be the bummer in these lets have our cake and eat it too
> discussions-but when I look out thru the gridlocked streets the thought
> of millions of spinning flywheels is little compensation.

Did you know that the energy density in gasoline is at least an order of
magnitude larger than that of flywheels? But we still drive around with
fuel tanks, all of us, don't we? Here's the deal: if you encage flywheels
99.9% of the danger involved disappears. There will be a small explosion
due to the integration of the flywheel, but it's not like it will fly out
miles in any direction destroying everything in its path. I'd say they
are pretty safe.

Onar.

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

 

From iti at connect-2.co.uk Tue Oct 20 10:27:17 1998
From: iti at connect-2.co.uk (ITI)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L:Gasifiers & Dual Fuel Engines
Message-ID: <01bdfc00$ba47a920$LocalHost@fpgcsxhi>

Dear Mr. Singh,

I was most interested to read you item dated 24 Sept = 1998 concerning
electrical energy generation using gasifiers in conjunction = with dual
fuel diesel engines.

There has recently been a great increase of interest = in this subject
here in Ireland, due mainly to the drive towards non-fossil fuel energy generation. One or two pilot plants have been established in the 100-250 kWe power output range. They have faced significant
difficulties in commissioning the schemes however, since the diesel engines do not seem content to run on high percentages of production = gas.
(To qualify as a non-fossil fuel provider, at least = 90% of the power
must be derived from the gas, and only 10% from diesel fuel .)

You say that your organisation = " is engaged in marketing and support
of gasifiers...for thermal and electrical = energy generation" -
INCLUDING use of dual fuel diesels. I = would be interested to receive
more information concerning your organisation and = the state of
cogeneration technology in India.
For instance :
Would you have experience or = knowledge of many power generating
gasification plants in your area in the 100-500 kWe = power output range ?
How high a proportion of these would employ dual = fuel diesel engines ?
What other power units might otherwise be employed = (spark ignition gas
engines ? gas turbines ? Stirling ? Reciprocating Steam ?)
Would you be able to give an estimate of the typical = specific fuel
requirement of the various plant types - in terms for example of kg dry biomass per kWh of electrical output ?
For the dual = fuel diesel engines, would you often work at or below 10%
diesel ? If so, do = you find that you can sustain this successfully
over time ?
Are there any organisations in India (perhaps your = own) which would
presently offer to install complete generation systems using = biomass
as fuel ? And if so, with what technologies, and for what price overall ?

I would also be interested to hear = more about the "conversion kit"
which you talk of for assisting in the = dual fual operation. As a
former = diesel engine combustion system designer, I myself would tend
to suspect that the best = conversion kit might be a spark plug - but I may
well be wrong, and = would be perfectly happy to stand corrected.

 

Hoping to hear from yourself or any = other interested parties on these
issues.

 

Brian Russell.

 

Dr. Brian B. Russell
Chartered Engineer,
Innovation Technologies (Ireland) = Ltd
47 Manse Road, Ballycarry, Co. Antrim
BT38 9HP Northern = Ireland
Tel/Fax (0044) (0) 1960 373379

From campa at hrl.com.au Wed Oct 21 00:01:41 1998
From: campa at hrl.com.au (Campisi, Tony)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: some basic questions
Message-ID: <35C16953AB61D211A81000A0C955FAD4AEA8@mail_mulgrave>

 

Michael,

In response to your queries -

--What are the advantages of pressurised systems? If the syngas is destined
not for combustion in a turbine or other thermal device but rather for
conversion in a chemical process operating at near ambient temperature and
pressure, to these advantages still pertain?

A: Moving to pressure decreases the capital cost of large plant by reducing
reactor size. In your application, in which you want a syngas at
atmospheric pressure, operating a pressurised gasifier may still be economic
- the compressed fuel gas could be passed through an expanding turbine in
order to recover some energy (without combustion) to drop the pressure. On
the down side, there is a capital cost associated with running at pressure
such has compressors, lock hoppers, etc. An economic evaluation would be
required to determine at what size of plant should pressure be considered.
Have you examined the effect of pressure on your syngas process? Do the
reaction rates increase with pressure?

--Most low cost carbonaceous material is wet (from mill sludge, yard waste,
wood, to sub-bituminous coals). Presumably, integrated pre-drying is
important to gasification efficiencies?

A: Evaporation of water requires a lot of energy and generally it is
difficult to recover the latent heat, resulting in decreased process
efficiencies (ie water is exhausted as vapour). Energy balances are
required to determine if it takes more energy to remove the water than can
be obtained from the fuel. If there is too much water remaining in the feed
to the gasifier, the product gas as a poor heating value because the heat
needed for evaporating the water is provided by burning extra fuel inside
the gasifier.

--Aside from the environmental issues of consuming new carbon vs. old
carbon, is there any reason coal, particularly subbituminous or lignite,
couldn't be gasified just as biomass in simple, airblown systems
(pressurised or not)? Perhaps higher temperatures are needed for
thermolysis, resulting in greater NOx or other undesirable gaseous emissions
or toxic residues?

A: There is a lot of work on coal gasification (subbituminous or lignite) in
air-blown systems. Air-blown gasification results in lower gasification
temperatures. Lignites are more reactive than subbituminous coals due to
their higher porosity/surface area AND (often) due to the presence of
naturally occurring inorganics which are ion-exchanged onto the coal and
which catalyse the gasification reactions. Subbituminous coals tend to be
utilised in high-temperature entrained-flow oxygen-blown gasification
systems due to their lower reactivity whilst reactive fuels (lignites) can
also be used in air-blown systems. Perry's Handbook of Chemical Engineering
(most chemical engineers will have a copy) has a section which briefly
describes the various gasification technologies. There are also many review
articles published.

--If syngas is the desired product, shouldn't it be possible to gasify coal
in a manner which is economically competitive with reforming methane?

A: Yes, depending on the relative costs of the fuel and gasification
technology. There are commercial-scale examples of coal gasifiers being
used for syngas production in USA, South Africa, India, etc

--If so, why have major companies and the DOE focused on incredibly complex,
oxygen blown clean coal technologies? Is it related specifically to the use
of coal, which has special chemical properties, or does clean up and
separation of syngas products for specific uses (such as methanol production
or Fischer-Tropsch synthesis) demand this?

A: Developing high-efficiency and CLEAN large-scale power generation
technologies is expensive and has huge risks. Government funding is
generally required to provide the initial driver until commercial acceptance
is obtained.

regards
Tony Campisi

---------------------------------------------------------
Dr Anthony Campisi
Senior Research Scientist
Combustion, Gasification, Ash Fouling, Process Chemistry
HRL Technology Pty Ltd
677 Springvale Road, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia 3170
Telephone: +61 3 9565 9760
Facsimile: +61 3 9565 9777
e-mail: campa@hrl.com.au
WWW: http://www.hrl.com.au
---------------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Schwerin [SMTP:michael.schwerin@internetMCI.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 October 1998 2:18
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: some basic questions
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Oct 21 00:32:08 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: envision future combustion
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810201343190416@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <362D51AE.5AF1B3F8@c2i.net>

skip goebel wrote:

> big words art,
> where is the experience?

..mine? I'm just taxidriver ;-) and a mechanical engineer who's been playing
around with gasifiers for a couple years. Before making the first one, we did
check what other people did, *first*. No point in copying other peoples mistakes,
all experience I've had access to tell us their successes make a better starting
point.

> the attraction of the water to the combustion gasses is due to opposite static
> charges. that is what i wanted to pursue. i know that there is a connection
> there somewhere.
> btw...i am out of the armchair and on the lathe this morning building a
> prototype governor for my engines. it is not all that efficient, but has very
> low drag and needs no seals. that makes it fall into my realm...practicality.
>
> please elaborate on 'maxwells demon'
> skip

..my practical advice is simply look up that exact term in the Micropædia part of
Brittannica.

 

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Oct 21 00:32:14 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Basics - reply to AK
In-Reply-To: <0F1400BKWMENDI@PM05SM.PMM.MCI.NET>
Message-ID: <362D604F.3F7A624C@c2i.net>

Michael Schwerin wrote:
Responding to Arnt Karlsen's reply:

> > --What are the advantages of pressurized systems? If the syngas
is destined
> > not for combustion in a turbine or other thermal device but rather
for
> > conversion in a chemical process operating at near ambient temperature
and
> > pressure, to these advantages still pertain?
>
> ..beats me. Thermochemical gasification seem to produce more syngas
the lower
> the pressure is in the gasifier. The produced syngas will usually
need
> compression if used in some synthesis process. Have you seen Topsoe's
papers on
> their MTBE and gasoline processes?

WE (THE PEOPLE I AM LOOKING TO FINANCE) ALREADY HAVE A CONVERSION PROCESS.
IT OPERATES AT NEAR AMBIENT PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE.
..please don't scream, I hear you ok ;-) .  Operating at near ambient
pressure and temperature, do you here mean 100 kPa and 288 K (=15oC)
?

> > --Most low cost carbonaceous material is wet (from mill sludge,
yard waste,
> > wood, to subbituminous coals).  Presumably, integrated pre-drying
is
> > important to gasification efficiencies?
>
> ..yes. Key point here is, how much, and, can it be utilized somehow?.Most
> important is "financial efficiency", ie: "how much can we make which
way?".

FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY IS MY BUSINESS.  THIS IS WHY I AM CONSIDERING
COAL AS
A FEEDSTOCK.  HARD TO BEAT $4/TON MINEMOUTH PRB COAL (=$0.20/MMBTU)
AS A
CHEAP CARBON SOURCE.  THEORETICALLY, "TIPPING CHARGES" MAKE MSW
A NEGATIVE
COST FEED, BUT I THINK I'M COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT INCONSISTENCY
IN
THE FEED AND HANDLING (SORTING, ETC) COSTS OUTWEIGH THE PRICE ADVANTAGE.
..go for coal as your first primary fuel. As your technology matures, co-fire
MSW, when you can fund it from sales revenues, in most places, such R&D
are tax deductable costs.
> > --Aside from the environmental issues of consuming
new carbon vs. old
> > carbon, is there any reason coal, particularly subbituminous or
lignite,
> > couldn't be gasified just as biomass in simple, airblown systems
> > (pressurized or not)?
>
> ..no. It only takes convincing the funding public that pollution
come and came
> from mismanagement of technology and resources, not gasification
itself.

I AM THE FUNDING PUBLIC (ACTUALLY I REPRESENT PRIVATE EQUITY). PLEASE
CONVINCE ME.
..nope. *You* represent the funding public as a tax payer *only*. As a
private investor representative, *you* will have convince *me*, as a member
of the 3'rd party public, which *knows* just how bad coal is, that *your*
coal-fired way is *good* to me and the remaining 3'rd party public.
Now, for an agreed price, you may want me to evaluate your technology,
or lobby your message thru', in which case you will have to help me find
a way to sell (ie: convince me) your message and technology.
I will consider convincing you *only* if I feel I can use your funding
and expertize to build an industrial business out *my* technology and your
money.
> > Perhaps higher temperatures are needed for
> > thermolysis, resulting in greater NOx or other undesirable gaseous
> > emissions or toxic residues?
>
> ..depends on what you mean by thermolysis, see Tom's culinaric discussion
for
> ideas...

I THOUGHT I WAS USING THE TERM AS TOM INTENDED.  I MEANT TO ASK
A BASIC
QUESTION: TO GASIFY (SUBBITUMINOUS) COAL, DO WE NEED TO OPERATE AT
ELEVATED
TEMPERATURES THAT WILL RESULT IN UNDESIRABLE EMISSIONS OR NASTY RESIDUES?
CERTAINLY, THIS WOULD SEEM TO BE THE HISTORICAL LESSON OF COAL GASIFICATION
IN THIS COUNTRY.
..thermochemical gasification *should* do it just fine, once the classic
flaws are avoided, not knowing your process parameters, I don't know exactly
what you need to do here, but yeah, there is no need to pollute.
> > --If syngas is the desired product, shouldn't
it be possible to gasify coal
> > in a manner which is economically competitive with reforming methane?
>
> ..sure.

OUR CONVERSION PROCESS CAN ACCOMODATE N2 DILUTION OF THE SYNGAS, ALTHOUGH
AT LOWER MASS TRANSFER EFFICIENCIES.  THUS WE CAN USE AIR BLOWN
SYSTEMS,
EITHER IN GASIFICATION OR METHANE REFORMING.  THEREFORE, THE ECONOMIC
COMPETITION TO GASIFICATION IS AUTOTHERMAL REFORMING (CATALYTIC PARTIAL
OXIDATION) OF METHANE.  ATRs ARE ROUTINELY USED AS SECONDARY REFORMERS
IN
THE AMMONIA BUSINESS (WHERE NITROGEN IS OBVIOUSLY A NECESSARY COMPONENT)
AND HAVE VERY LOW CAPITAL COSTS.  FIGURE $1.75/MMBTU FOR THE METHANE
FEED.
..in one of our studies we estimated 2 kgs of MSW could be converted to
.5 - 1 liter of gasoline. Coal is a lot easier to process, go for it.
> > --If so, why have major companies and the DOE
focused on incredibly
> > complex, oxygen blown clean coal technologies?  Is it related
specifically
> > to the use of coal, which has special chemical properties, or does
clean up
> > and separation of syngas products for specific uses (such as methanol
> > production or Fischer-Tropsch synthesis) demand this?
>
> ..traditionally, big and public companies has a way of primarily
producing
> complex bureaucracies and then complex technology, sort of transforming
the
> problem into another complex...

CAN WE REALLY DISMISS THEM SO EASILY?
..I do. Big bureaucracies has a way of becoming "sustainable" by avoiding
cost effective solutions.

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Wed Oct 21 01:21:36 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: africa
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810210532190138@classic.msn.com>

gentlemen,
as we speak, hundreds of people lie dying days after an explosion in a
pipeline containing a refined fuel. while on the bbc and other real news, it
isnt mentioned on our mainstream press. this is ugly beyond imagination. is
it that these people do not count because they are black, do not drive
minivans and are Christian?
i digress to the energy manifesto once again.

this would not have happened with bio fuels (local cellulose)
skip

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Wed Oct 21 01:21:43 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Basics - reply to AK/$$ and cents
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810210532210029@classic.msn.com>

 

..I do. Big bureaucracies has a way of becoming "sustainable" by avoiding cost
effective solutions.
>>>>
nice.

all this about money and efficiency. wouldnt it make more 'cents' to just
give every house in the country 1000 watts of solar cells and a couple of good
batteries and inverter and just blow off all the expensive research
altogether?
i know this is rough on the job security, but really...
skip

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Oct 21 07:05:02 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: envision future combustion
Message-ID: <199810210716_MC2-5D67-E8A6@compuserve.com>

Dear Skip et al:

Glad Skip is trying. However, Science has progressed a long way in this
century and I am amazed at how much can be understood if you keep at it.

Unfortunately, pseudoscience has also progressed and loose ideas like
microionization and magnetic water cleanup sound just as good to the layman
as proven science. So, there are a lot of scams around preying on them.

So, Skip it is not possible to ionize water with distilled gases; align
molecules via lasers; or soften water with magnets - at least not in my
book informed by 50 years of scientific study.

But keep trying.

Your pal,
TOM REED

Message from Skip Goebel

I have a few ideas that merit discussion.
What if these venues were followed in combustion?

Ionization of H2O and mixed with distilled gasses.

Alignment of gas molecules via lasers. This could entail the use of a
integral steam divergent nozzle that has a laser in the center.

Ideal condition where combustion air would be preheated past 500C and
aligned
via laser, mixed just above the bed which would allow distillation from
radiation annd not convection which should be controllable and keep temps
low.

The distilled gasses, now aligned from the laser, can enter a centrifuge
and
now will easily separate from the CO2, free hydrogen, esters and CO, etc...

These gasses, still aligned, would already have the positive charge that
results from combustion, and if the negatively charged, high velocity steam

was injected at say 160 to the fuel streams, we now could have a compound
reaction occur in a small space.

Granted, some bonds would be weak, but this might make for a fuel that
would
readily oxidize.
Note also, that there are gizmo's out there that basically are magnets that

you put on water lines to psuedo soften water (this would take care of the
toxic metal prob) and magnets that go on the fuel line of your car with the

claim that the gasoline oxidizes more readily. This tech should be applied
to
gasifiers.

Of course, I am to practical to play around with all this as I just keep
throwing wood in boilers, but you all have the labs, the money and the free

labor to investigate these avenues. We all know that for the future to
advance, technology is going to have to travel in this direction. I can
only
pray that if all this research is done on the govt. dole, that it is not
stolen and patented by some scumbag megagiant link ADM or BP.
This stuff is too important and I hope that the responsible thing will be
done
and open patents are created out of all this.

Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam
<

 

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Oct 21 07:05:10 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Charged droplets...
Message-ID: <199810210716_MC2-5D67-E8AB@compuserve.com>

Dear Skip et al:

1) Please, when you have specific questions for one person, send to that
one person (address usually in the flak above the message).

2) Skip asked

>ps. how could i make a small experimental charge grid?

First read up on electrostatic precipitators, then modify for your needs.
Requires Kilovolts at small current, so be careful.

My preference is to make a low tar gasifier not requiring an EP.

TOM REED

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Oct 21 07:05:12 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Stirling, now or never??
Message-ID: <199810210716_MC2-5D67-E8A9@compuserve.com>

Someone asked about the STC Stirling generator:

>you must mean 350 kW as in kilowatts? (10 yrs ago I read about a swede who
made a scale model of a WWII tractor with gasifier, where the gasifier
actually
did produce smoke on charcoal...

Nope, only 350 W. Should we be happy that we can generate power at that
small scale or sorry that it won't serve a small town?

TOM REED

 

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Oct 21 07:05:20 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Using corn stalks at a small scale?
Message-ID: <199810210716_MC2-5D67-E8AF@compuserve.com>

Dear Paul et al:

Corn stover and straw are the most plentiful ag residues for energy in the
biomass game. Unfortunately, they have very low bulk density. This can be
overcome in part by bailing, but then it is difficult to pass gasses
through them. Nevertheless there are many successful bail burners out
there.

The best solution for gasification or combustion is to pelletize or cube
the residues. However, the cost is usually prohibitive.

TOM REED

Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>Hi all,

I'm a graduate student at CEES (see below) working in the area of
small-scale biomass-fueled cogeneration in the rural China context, in
particular Jilin Province where corn residues are plentiful. I'm trying
to find out if there has been any success in gasification and combustion
of corn stalks (troublesome little devils that they are) at a scale
corresponding to 50-500 kWe (20% conversion or so).

I've come across "some" degree of success in gasification both by the
Shandong Energy Research Institute (the details of which I need to find)
and in the 1980's by people at Kansas State University, Manhattan
(fluidized bed). Anybody know of others? of cheaper, simpler fixed bed
possibilities?

Also, I haven't found much in the area of corn stalk combustion.

-Paul

>->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->
Paul Henderick
Center for Energy and Environmental Studies (CEES)
Princeton University
The Engineering Quadrangle
P.O. Box CN5263
Princeton, NJ 08544-5263
<

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

 

From costich at pacifier.com Wed Oct 21 08:02:49 1998
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Enlightenment and Efficiency. . .
In-Reply-To: <199810201431.KAA18664@admin.con2.com>
Message-ID: <362DD0FD.6816@pacifier.com>

Onar: Thankyou for your reply. Hope your right in your assesment of
real world flywheel safety. I mentioned Bill Lear... I visited his
skunk works in 1974 in the towne of Stead, Nevada. I missed seeing him
personally but I did get a tour of his R&D tool shop. The bus flywheels
were hydraulically coupled if memory serves me, this may have been a
wrong engineering tack from a crash safety context that electrical
communication we now have overcomes. Still, from what little I know of
power electronics and dielectric creepage and the extreme potentials
necessary for the flywheels "power envelope"-I'm betting its pie in the
sky and research grant boondoggle technology, until the Persians own
most of the gold. Have a great day. Dale
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From michael.schwerin at internetMCI.com Wed Oct 21 08:07:23 1998
From: michael.schwerin at internetMCI.com (Michael Schwerin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: more on basics
Message-ID: <0F16002EBFIUR3@PM01SM.PMM.MCI.NET>

Sorry, Arnt and others, for the decibel level--I only used bold to
highlight new comments after several replies back and forth added clutter.
I will be more mindful of e:mail etiquette in the future.

Perhaps the apparent shrill tone (completely unintended) distorted my
message. There is no hidden agenda here. I am not an advocate of coal, or
for that matter any other carbon source. I am completely neutral as to the
relative social benefits of recycling old or new carbon, as long as it can
be done cleanly in terms of current emissions and residue. (Perhaps this
neutrality itself is offensive to some of you.) I am merely appealing to
your collective experience and wisdom to establish whether modern,
efficient, clean gasification of biomass or coal can be economically
competitive with airblown methane reforming for syngas production feeding a
conversion process operating near ambient pressure and temperature
(35-40oC).

A number of you have already been very helpful in this regard.
Thanks

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

 

From michael.schwerin at internetMCI.com Wed Oct 21 08:21:22 1998
From: michael.schwerin at internetMCI.com (Michael Schwerin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: flywheels
Message-ID: <0F1600LDFG686N@PM03SM.PMM.MCI.NET>

By the way, for a modern parable regarding the promise and disappointments
of today's flywheel technology for automotive use you can look up press
reports on Rosen Motors. Ben Rosen, chairman of Compaq and wildly
successful high tech investor, recently financed (using many millions of
his own money) a concerted effort to commercialize flywheel drive systems.
His brother, Harold or Howard, is an engineer and the genius who invented
the concept of geostationary orbits for telecom (and spy) satellites.
Their concept was to use the flywheel as an energy storage and load
levelling device coupled with a highly efficient micro-turbine powerplant,
constructed from off-the-shelf, mass produced turbocharger components.
Just last year they gave up on flywheels and have shifted their efforts to
developing microturbines for distributed stationary power production.

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

 

From costich at pacifier.com Wed Oct 21 08:43:39 1998
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Basics - reply to AK/$$ and cents
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810210532210029@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <362DDA90.8A7@pacifier.com>

Skip: I always knew I liked the way you think! no one gave me my 1.5 KW
array-we Home Power folks have a decided advantage over these
"gridders". What if they had a war and nobody came? What if they had a
highway-and nobody drove? Dale
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Wed Oct 21 09:14:04 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: envision future combustion
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810211321030353@classic.msn.com>

thanx for the info tom
however,
on using magnets to soften water....
my neighbor has a water softener that uses magnets
it simply does something to the minerals that does not remove them but rather
make them benign or (colloidal??) or something and they do not stick to the
pipes and pans or heater elements. i was thinking that perhaps doing this to
the gasses would make removal of the dangerous toxins easier.
thanx
skip

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

 

From boilrmkr at surfsouth.com Wed Oct 21 09:21:52 1998
From: boilrmkr at surfsouth.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: envision future combustion
In-Reply-To: <199810210716_MC2-5D67-E8A6@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <362DE14F.EF72BF81@surfsouth.com>

Tom Reed wrote:

> it is not possible to ionize water with distilled gases; align
> molecules via lasers; or soften water with magnets - at least not in my
> book informed by 50 years of scientific study.

I have personally reviewed over 30 different patents brought to us for
manufacture which "reinvented" power generation. From lasers to balloon mounted
solar mirrors. Results: We still build gas and oil fired boilers.

We probably sell 100 boilers a year to customers which have implemented
"magnetic water softening" in their boiler rooms.

I probably should send those shysters a donation to help them stay in business.
\;-)

Gene Zebley

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

 

From onar at con2.com Wed Oct 21 09:48:25 1998
From: onar at con2.com (Onar Aam)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Enlightenment and Efficiency. . .
Message-ID: <001f01bdfcfb$33ec7fd0$1601a8c0@onars_machine>

>Onar: Thankyou for your reply. Hope your right in your assesment of
>real world flywheel safety. I mentioned Bill Lear... I visited his
>skunk works in 1974 in the towne of Stead, Nevada.

Flywheels have come a LONG way since 1974. First of all, they are no longer
metallic, as the oldfashioned flywheels were. They are built of hydrocarbon
chains. During a crash they are pulverized (hence leading to an explosion
rather than an astray discos.) Second, modern flywheels are encaged in a
vacuum so that there is no loss in air friction. (This cage also serves as
an explosion entrapment.) Third, the flywheel is not in physical contact
with other materials, but rather elevated by magnetic fields, further
reducing friction. In the future these magnetic fields will likely be
superconducting, thereby eliminating friction entirely. (superconducting
prototypes have already been made.)
Now, the major a-ha discovery came in the seventies: the energy storage
capacity of flywheels is proportional to T/r -- the tensial strength to
density ratio. So what we want is superlight material which is superstrong.
Spiderweb stuff would be an excellent candidate! Now, the best material
known in theory is some kind of bucky-tube. Buckytubes are single-carbon
molecules which can literally be *miles* long. Because they are only one
molecule their tensegral strength is enormous. With buckytubes you can
therefore in theory store more than 4 kWh per kg, which is more than
gasoline! (But that's still some years off)

Onar.

 

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

 

From onar at con2.com Wed Oct 21 09:50:14 1998
From: onar at con2.com (Onar Aam)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: flywheels
Message-ID: <002701bdfcfb$75903da0$1601a8c0@onars_machine>

Just last year they gave up on flywheels and have shifted their efforts to
>developing microturbines for distributed stationary power production.

You should check out Jack Bitterly's company (I think it's called U.S.
Flywheels Inc.) He's gotten amazing results.

Onar.

 

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

 

From rabello at uniserve.com Wed Oct 21 16:52:34 1998
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: What Will the Neighbors Say!!!
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19981021211102.0067b8c4@popserver.uniserve.com>

It's intriguing to read the various points-of-view expressed in this
forum--some exceedingly practical, and others theoretical. I'm often
reminded of the debate between theorists who propose radical increases in
internal combustion efficiency by "vaporizing" the fuel, with those of us
who actually build engines and smile, perhaps a little condescendingly, at
our colleagues.

Putting a gasifier behind my car is an option that I admit to have
considered, although I must explain that I thought about it for less than
three minutes. . . I'm happily married, I'd like to stay that way, and any
suggestion that I drive around with a smoking trailer behind my car would be
met with a less than enthusiastic response from the woman who loves me!
Since I don't want to drive alone, the gasifier option is not viable. . .

Using an engine's water jacket as a preheater and its exhaust as a
boiler IS an intriguing idea, but I wonder how much efficiency would be
picked up versus what is lost in restricting the exhaust system and adding
backpressure heat to the exhaust valves. Perhaps for a stationary
application, this might not be that much of a concern. However, when
building the engine that's in my car last summer, I took pains to increase
its compression ratio (11:1), spec a low-overlap cam (maximum compression
pressure), pocket port the intake and exhaust ports and change the
manifolding, all in the interest of getting fuel in and out faster and
increasing combustion efficiency. (I did such a good job that I've actually
succeeded in leaning out the intake charge a bit too much!)

For those of you interested in water injection, I use a commercial
unit from Edelbrock called "vari-jection", which uses a small microprocessor
to control the volume of water injected for a given RPM and vacuum value.
Since I've increased the compression ratio, the vacuum signal is stronger at
part throttle and the water injection should probably be turned up. (I
notice this because it hardly uses water anymore!)

Currently, I run propane. I'd like to burn hydrogen, but the cost
is prohibitive for the modifications I'd have to make to direct-inject the
fuel (getting rid of that nagging backfire problem!), and the cost for
electrolytic hydrogen is simply outrageous--even here in B.C. where
electricity from the grid costs only .05/kilowatt. My car is simply too
big, too heavy and too inefficient in its use of fuel.

Using less would make the hydrogen option more viable. The remarks
concerning technology and efficiency improvements bear some consideration,
however, if we cut energy use in half but build twice as many cars, we've
done nothing to improve the energy situation, gridlock or air quality.
Until we start living with less, we're not solving anything.

These are my opinions, and like armpits, most of us have more than
one and they usually stink if we raise them!

respectfully,

robert luis rabello
VisionWorks Communications

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

 

From onar at con2.com Wed Oct 21 17:23:52 1998
From: onar at con2.com (Onar Aam)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: What Will the Neighbors Say!!!
Message-ID: <007401bdfd3a$d4f5f020$1601a8c0@onars_machine>

> Using less would make the hydrogen option more viable.

I have to admit that I have absolutely zero sympathy for hydrogen power.
It's one of the most expensive, technologically most challenging and least
inefficient energy medium available. That this is being promoted as
environmental is beyond my comprehension.
Now, if you REALLY want to be environmental (and don't want to wait
twenty years for flywheels, superconducting engines and super-efficient
power plants to come around) then you should probably get the new fuel cell
vehicles that are run on gasoline. Yes, you heard me. On gasoline! Basically
they contain a gasifier on board which gasifies the gasoline into syngas,
which is then used to fuel the fuel cell. These cars use 50% less fuel than
ordinary cars, and they don't have the hazzle associated with hydrogen
storage. Both milage and economy is excellent compared to standard cars, and
they pollute much less. Of course, it's not as good as a flywheel car, but
these hybrids will be around sooner (in 3-4 years).

>Until we start living with less, we're not solving anything.

The real question is: is there really a problem that needs to be solved?
What it boils down to is the preferred ideology, the notion of whether
living is a bad thing or not. In my view living is not a crime.

 

Onar.

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

 

From james at sri.org.au Wed Oct 21 18:08:09 1998
From: james at sri.org.au (James Joyce)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: What Will the Neighbors Say!!!
Message-ID: <19981022081916james@jj_lap.sri.org.au>

Thankyou Onar you have made the point that is lost on so many in the
environmental debate. I'm sure this guilt aspect is what turns many
people off the environmental cause.

I agree living is not something we should be made to feel guilty about;
nevertheless we should take care that we don't live in a fashion that
makes someone else's life more difficult .... however far down the
track.

>
> The real question is: is there really a problem that needs to be
> solved?
> What it boils down to is the preferred ideology, the notion of
> whether
> living is a bad thing or not. In my view living is not a crime.
>
> Onar.
>

James Joyce
Engineer
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay Australia
ph. (07) 4952 7698
intl ph. INTL + 61 7 4952 7600
fax (07) 4952 1734
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From rabello at uniserve.com Wed Oct 21 19:10:19 1998
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Why
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19981021232846.0067d754@popserver.uniserve.com>

Maybe I've been reading the wrong writers and living in some
conjured fantasy. . . Maybe that brown stuff hanging out in the air in my
home town is perfectly normal and I shouldn't worry about it--even if it
makes my eyes sting, turns my lungs black and inspires fits of coughing.
Maybe all those pollution controls on modern vehicles are actually the
myopic meddlings of government officials duped by bad science.
Maybe our petroleum reserves will never run out, or if they do,
it'll be long after I'm dead and technology will come and solve all the
problems we left for our children's children.
Personally, I really enjoy listening to the roar of a well-tuned
V-8! I love the feeling of getting pressed back into my seat as that torque
monster I built inhales liquid hydrocarbon by the liter and belches out what
it couldn't burn! Building engines is fun, and few things are more
satisfying than experiencing the visceral results of that hobby.
But something must be wrong with the picture if we're willing to
send tanks, aircraft and flotillas to far corners of the world in order to
protect our "interests." Something must be wrong if I have to spend an hour
and a half sitting in my car listening to National Public Radio as I drive
forty kilometers each way to work and back. (I can hear the entirety of
"All Things Considered" before reaching home!)
Something is wrong with the math when we start calculating world
energy use at the same level the developed nations in general (and the U.S.
and Canada in particular) are using, and expect our resources to sustain
growth in developing areas. Can the entire world live like we do? Really?
(Why then, hasn't it already happened?)
My distinguished colleagues argue that living isn't wrong, and while
I agree with that in principle, the manner in which we live has a direct
bearing on resource consumption. I've seen enough of the developing world
to understand this in a very personal way.
You may not like hydrogen, but NASA uses it for a good reason: on a
per weight basis, nothing comes close to the energy in hydrogen. Our
problem is that we've developed an infrastructure based on energy volume.
Liquid fuels are convenient, but we pay a price for that convenience, and
every time I have to live through another smoggy day, I think that price is
too high.
You may not like hydrogen, but the bottom line is that hydrogen plus
oxygen equals water vapor. It's the way our biology works, and its
sustainable as long as the thermonuclear powerplant on which all life
depends is still burning! (Your fuel cell, by the way, works on the same
principle. The vaunted Ballard PEM cell uses a catalyst to split methanol
into hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which is then reprocessed into carbon
dioxide. I have built fuel cells with my students also, and their problems
are vexing!) It may be inefficient and "uneconomical", but only because
right now we have the luxury of fossil fuel reserves, and many people argue
that there are a lot of hidden subsidies for petroleum. (I can't speak from
experience here, perhaps some of you are more knowledgable than I)
If there was no energy problem, there'd be no pollution problem. If
there was no energy problem, there'd be no need to kill people in order to
sustain our "way of life." If there was no energy problem, we'd have no
need to discuss anything in this forum, would we not? Gasification is
certainly less convenient than filling up at the pump!
Please do not read invective into my personal remarks--none are
intended. You gentlemen who disagree with me keep my thinking about these
issues in focus and I believe that is healthy.
Blessings to all of you!

respectfully,

robert luis rabello

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

 

From onar at con2.com Wed Oct 21 20:01:46 1998
From: onar at con2.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Onar_=C5m?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: What Will the Neighbors Say!!!
Message-ID: <199810220038.UAA16164@admin.con2.com>

> Thankyou Onar you have made the point that is lost on so many in the
> environmental debate. I'm sure this guilt aspect is what turns many
> people off the environmental cause.

There's a lot more darkness in the world than there is light, so finding
the dark is a lot easier than to focus on the bright. My impression that a
good heap of people who are drawn to the environmental cause, was drawn
there in
the first place because it focuses on darkness and gloom. I'm not saying we
should shut our eyes to the problems of the world, but there is a huge
difference between acknowledging/confronting problems and worshipping them.

 

> I agree living is not something we should be made to feel guilty about;
> nevertheless we should take care that we don't live in a fashion that
> makes someone else's life more difficult .... however far down the
> track.

This is equivalent to not living at all. If you follow your reasoning to
the
utmost consequence you cannot do anything because it will make life more
difficult for someone else. To go to extreme measures in order to avoid a
scenario which possibly maybe is going to a problem to some people
centuries into the future is to take too great a burden on our shoulders.
The
only viable way to conduct our organization of society is to make careful
risk/benefit analyses. We do this everyday: do I go to work today and risk
being
hit by a bus, or do I stay home and risk not being able to pay my bills? Do
we
ban airplanes and vehicles because fatal accidents _can_ happen? Do we
allow
people to walk freely in the street and risk the occurence of violent
street
crimes? Do we allow people to develop new technology and risk that some
lunatic
abuses it? There is risk involved in EVERYTHING we do. We risk hurting
ourselves
and other people. Nevertheless, every single day we do these things over
and over
and over again, because if we didn't we would be considered neurotic. Why
should
this be any different when it comes to the environment? If people were
equally
concerned about being hit by buses as many people are about possible future

warming (which *possibly maybe* is bad) or energy depletion we would not
hesitate
a second to call them angst-ridden neurotics. The, reason, I believe that
people
seem have a lower threshold for angst in these areas is because they are
fundamentally ABSTRACT. Problems in a distant future allows us to
hypothesize, to
use our imagination. And since the future is not here yet, we don't have
any reality
to hold us back and keep our feet on the ground. Without empirical
grounding the
mind is free to fill in the most terrifying details we can think of. Now,
the reason
most of us don't fear crossing the street is because we have a tremendous
amount of
personal experience doing so, loads of empirical data. Quite unconsciously
we do a
risk assessment based on that empirical data, but our mind was not evolved
for
assessing abstract risks and therefore we become irrational in the face of
abstract
future dangers.

 

Onar.

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

 

From onar at con2.com Wed Oct 21 20:45:56 1998
From: onar at con2.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Onar_=C5m?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Why
Message-ID: <199810220122.VAA21082@admin.con2.com>

> Maybe I've been reading the wrong writers and living in some
> conjured fantasy. . .

That's definitely a non-zero possibility.

> Maybe that brown stuff hanging out in the air in my
> home town is perfectly normal and I shouldn't worry about it--even if it
> makes my eyes sting, turns my lungs black and inspires fits of coughing.

Now THAT'S a different matter all together. That has nothing to do with
whether oil or coal is bad. It has to do with incompetence and ignorance.
No coal plants in the world needs to spew out brown stuff. (If that's what
you're referring to). Today there exists excellent cleaning technology. You
can today buy an electrostatic cleaning device for about $100,000 dollars
which can, running on about 100 kW, clean 50,000 cubic meters of gas per
hour
(corresponding to about 70 MWh of syngas) down to a few ppm of particles.
The
same is true for cars and especially diesel buses. In Norway there are
buses in
operation which are so clean that you can hold a white handkerchief over
the
exhaust outlet and floor the gas pedal without producing sooty stains on
it. The
technology is inexpensive and available so there's no excuse for not using
it.

> Maybe all those pollution controls on modern vehicles are actually the
> myopic meddlings of government officials duped by bad science.

Modern cars emit very small amounts of pollutants. A major problem however
is NOISE. This is why I think is the primary reason electrical vehicles
will
and should take over.

> Maybe our petroleum reserves will never run out, or if they do,
> it'll be long after I'm dead and technology will come and solve all the
> problems we left for our children's children.

Now you're talking reason! At the end of the previous century many people
were concerned about the exponential growth of an anthropogenic bi-product:
horse dung from transportation! Scientists projected that within 1970 the
whole earth would be covered by several feet of horse dung. Guess what: IT
DIDN'T HAPPEN! Why not? Because of that car thing you so despise. Today we
face an analogous problem: the expontial growth of CO2, partially the
product
of cars, which is going to cause the end of the world sometimes in the 22nd
century according to various pessimistic projections. I am willing to make
a $100,000
bet with you that within 30 years that potential cataclysm will be looked
upon
in approximately the same way we view the horse dung hysteria of the 19th
century.

> Something must be wrong if I have to spend an hour
> and a half sitting in my car listening to National Public Radio as I
drive
> forty kilometers each way to work and back.

Where do you live? I bet there are ways to cut down on commuting if you
really
wanted to (telecommuting, moving, changing jobs etc.)

> Something is wrong with the math when we start calculating world
> energy use at the same level the developed nations in general (and the
U.S.
> and Canada in particular) are using, and expect our resources to sustain
> growth in developing areas. Can the entire world live like we do?
Really?

Yes, they can -- and probably will.

> (Why then, hasn't it already happened?)

Let me answer that with a question: do you think fusion is possible? If
it's
possible, why aren't the whole world running on fusion yet?

> You may not like hydrogen, but NASA uses it for a good reason: on
a
> per weight basis, nothing comes close to the energy in hydrogen.

That's true, but on a per volume basis it really sucks big time.

> Our
> problem is that we've developed an infrastructure based on energy volume.

Explain why this is a problem.

> Liquid fuels are convenient, but we pay a price for that convenience, and
> every time I have to live through another smoggy day, I think that price
is
> too high.

As I said, that has nothing do with energy consumption volume. That has to
do
with incompetance, ignorance and lack of public space hygiena. It's not a
fundamental problem with energy consumption.

> You may not like hydrogen, but the bottom line is that hydrogen
plus
> oxygen equals water vapor.

And carbon plus oxygen equals CO2, which in the 19th century often was
known
under the nickname "the gas of life" because without it there would be no
life
on earth.

> It's the way our biology works, and its
> sustainable as long as the thermonuclear powerplant on which all life
> depends is still burning!

Excuse me? How exactly were you planning to make hydrogen? Solar energy?
Have you *any* idea of how expensive that is?

> It may be inefficient and "uneconomical", but only because
> right now we have the luxury of fossil fuel reserves, and many people
argue
> that there are a lot of hidden subsidies for petroleum.

Yes, there probably are. I oppose subsidies.

> If there was no energy problem, there'd be no pollution problem.

Yes, in fact: if there was no life there would be no pollution!

> If there was no energy problem, we'd have no
> need to discuss anything in this forum, would we not?

Hold it! *Of course* there is an energy problem. Life is full of problems.
Fortunately we humans are very good problem solvers, and most of us are
not discouraged by challenges. There are loads of problems associated with
energy, but none that I can think of that are fundamentally unsolvable. The
reason *I* am on this list is because I find gasification fun, challenging,
intriguing and exciting, not because it's our last exit before hell.

> Gasification is
> certainly less convenient than filling up at the pump!

Not if the gas is converted into electricity.

Onar.

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

 

From tpreston at hcm.vnn.vn Wed Oct 21 22:21:06 1998
From: tpreston at hcm.vnn.vn (T R Preston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Why
Message-ID: <008c01bdfd64$081cbd20$3a07a2cb@tpreston>

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Onar Åm <onar@con2.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Why

>
>> Something is wrong with the math when we start calculating world
>> energy use at the same level the developed nations in general (and the
>U.S.
>> and Canada in particular) are using, and expect our resources to sustain
>> growth in developing areas. Can the entire world live like we do?
>Really?
>
>Yes, they can -- and probably will.

Onar
Does that mean you believe the rest of the world will one day use cocaine to
the extent it is now used in the so-called "developed" countries, and the
USA in particular? How do you justify the use of USA aid to spray
cocaine-growing areas in Latinamerica when those funds could be used to
develop alternatives to fossil fuel in regions where there is biomass but
people are too poor to develop its efficient use and have to burn it on open
fires?
Gasification may be fun to you but fortunately most of us on this list take
a more serious view and are concerned at why this technologty is so slow to
be applied in countries that need it most. It could be that life is so easy
in the USA and gasoline so cheap that there is little incentive for change.

 

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

 

From onar at con2.com Wed Oct 21 23:13:50 1998
From: onar at con2.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Onar_=C5m?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Why
Message-ID: <199810220350.XAA05907@admin.con2.com>

> Onar
> Does that mean you believe the rest of the world will one day use cocaine
to
> the extent it is now used in the so-called "developed" countries, and the
> USA in particular?

That's an irrational argument. Cocaine and gasoline have very little in
common.

> How do you justify the use of USA aid to spray
> cocaine-growing areas in Latinamerica when those funds could be used to
> develop alternatives to fossil fuel in regions where there is biomass but
> people are too poor to develop its efficient use and have to burn it on
open
> fires?

I wish it was that simple. There is a reason many of these countries are
poor:
they don't have a stable democratic regime. Norway has provided billions in
development aid, but very little has become of it due to military regimes
that
are more interested in using the money for military purposes than for
developing
their country. The only way that works is commerce. Our hard lesson after
30 years
of failed development aid is that development aid is fundamentally
disrespective
of humans, thereby creating vicious cycles of dependencies. If we want to
help
developing countries in a respectful manner we don't aid them, we TRADE
with them,
treat them as partners rather than social clients. Development aid is
fundamentally
de-humanizing and should be banned. Industrialized countries are only now
starting
to realize this and we're seeing the signs of change. Unfortunately
societies are
not changed overnight. It takes decades, even centuries. My prediction: in
Africa
we will over the next thirdy years see the emergence of a strong
South-Africa.
South-Africa will be the leading force in social and economic reform in
surrounding
countries. Brazil is a worse case. If attitudes were different, it could
become an
industrialized country overnight. For instance: did you know that some 30
million
Brazilian children cannot read or write? Why? Because they are forced to
contribute
to the family economy. Sending kids to school is equivalent to starvation
for the
family. Yet, an average child contributes something like $100 worth of
labor a year.
This means that for a mere $100*3 million = $3 billion per year, families
could be
*payed* to send their children to school. The problem is that even though
there is
plenty of money in Brazil, there's so much corruption that billions of
dollars just
"disappear" every year. Had this corrupted money been used for public
education
instead Brazil could be well on its way to becoming an industrialized
country in
just a decade or two. Are American gasoline prices to blame for Brazilian
corruption?
Frankly, I'm not so sure.

 

> It could be that life is so easy
> in the USA and gasoline so cheap that there is little incentive for
change.

I'm not American. I'm Norwegian. Norway has one of the highest gasoline
prices
in the world. (about 4 -- four(!) -- dollars per gallon.)

My apolagies for such a long post. I guess I got carried away. :)

Onar.

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

 

From JBenemann at aol.com Thu Oct 22 00:18:17 1998
From: JBenemann at aol.com (JBenemann@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: follow-up from Madison conversation
Message-ID: <80f2d0b9.362eb38c@aol.com>

Dear Scott:

Thank you for sharing your private e.mail. Finally something interesting.
Actually, what I wanted to know was about the co-firing business. Can you give
me some detail? I may be of some help, as I have friends in this business.

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Thu Oct 22 00:29:07 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Why/maybe
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810220439530960@classic.msn.com>

>>just a decade or two. Are American gasoline prices to blame for Brazilian
corruption?
>>>.
well, i can assure folks that all those bullets and bombs don't come from
the taxpayer (directly), rather they come from the oil companies or at least
the $$ to get them.
>>>
speaking of $$
if someone is in the business of research, it seems to me that it is in
their worst interest to finish the job. (actually produce something that
works). the only analogy that i can equate this statement to is for 30 years
we spent untold amounts of $ to land something on mars. once nasa was told
that the cash was getting cut, all of a sudden, they came up with a cheap,
practical little rover and actually got there! i may be ignorant of all the
facts on this but i do know what i saw...
skip

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

 

From rabello at uniserve.com Thu Oct 22 01:04:14 1998
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Some of us LOVE noise!
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19981022052244.00705558@popserver.uniserve.com>

 

>Now THAT'S a different matter all together. That has nothing to do with
>whether oil or coal is bad. It has to do with incompetence and ignorance.

I beg to differ. Air pollution is caused by the incomplete burning
of hydrocarbons, among other things. We've come a long way in making
internal combustion cleaner, thanks mostly to catalytic converters and
electronic fuel management, but the number of vehicles on the road has
increased. Technology hasn't solved the pollution problem, neither has it
dramatically increased combustion efficiency. Diesel engines in heavy-duty
tractors have dramatically reduced the levels of soot they produce, but we
still can't breathe their exhaust. I recognize a linkage between the use of
hydrocarbons and pollution. Oxygen plus carbon is supposed to yield CO2
plus energy, but in reality, the picture isn't so tidy.

I do not hate cars. I love cars--especially muscle cars! What I
hate is the price we pay. I'm not trying to focus on negativity, I'm
searching for a way that allows me to keep my personal transportation and
minimize its impact. (It's an ethical compromise. It's selfish. . .)
That's why I put an engine in the car instead of buying a new vehicle. (An
awful lot of energy goes into manufacturing a new car. The engine I built
was produced in 1968.) That's why I burn propane and not gasoline, though I
realize they are both petroleum fuels. Dealing effectively with pollution
is why I think hydrogen is the ultimate transportation solution.

It's probably beyond the scope of this forum, but mass production of
free-piston stirlings, further development of wind energy and the use of
off-peak hydroelectricity can bring the cost of hydrogen down to earth, IF
we utilize it as an energy carrier efficiently. A PEM fuel cell coupled to
an electric motor is more efficient than a diesel engine coupled to an
electric motor, and when the additional efficiency is factored in, hydrogen
becomes viable as an energy carrier. It's not a fuel. It's the use of
modern sunlight rather than ancient sunlight.

As an added benefit, the United States (and probably Canada, for
that matter) could become energy self-sufficient if we utilized the
technology we now have. (This is the 1% of total land area you've probably
heard about. . .) We would benefit economically by keeping our energy money
in the domestic market, rather than sending it overseas. I have much to say
about this kind of thing, but I sense that a diatribe is inappropriate and
boring to read.

A volumetric energy system has created expectations in the minds of
consumers, who insist that a vehicle must be able to travel more than 500
kilometers between refuelings. Most commutes are, in fact, under sixty, but
the biggest resistance to electric cars comes from this expectation. As far
as energy densities are concerned, I'm sure you're aware that battery
technology lags far behind hydrides and compressed gas for energy storage.
Electrics represent a sound technology (but certainly not a "heart in your
throat, wow do I LOVE that roar technology!"). The vageries of an
irrational marketplace drive demand for things we like, rather than things
we need. This might not be considered a problem by everyone. If it's just
me, well, that's ok. . .

We can do better. We should do better. I believe we will--not
because I'm an alarmist, but I know enough people who are out there
tinkering with this kind of thing. If other people don't like hydrogen
technology, those of us who do will explore it and when it makes sense for
us, it will happen.

The same is true for gasification. You home power people are
already effecting change. If we can't make it economical on a small scale
first, I don't believe it will ever happen on a large scale--there's too
much momentum for the current state of affairs. Keep pushing the envelope!

respectfully,

robert luis rabello
VisionWorks Communications

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

 

From Bagelhole1 at aol.com Thu Oct 22 02:19:30 1998
From: Bagelhole1 at aol.com (Bagelhole1@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Self-sustainability
Message-ID: <baab9e45.362ed0e2@aol.com>

Looking for feasible parts to complete a model(s) for self-sustainable
neighborhoods, globally to be implemented before the year 2000.Y2K
Problem/Opportunity: a Call to Action
By Tom Osher

Einstein explained that as one approaches the speed of light, time
slows down -- a concept hard to believe but fun to contemplate. Now, as
we approach the year 2000, watch how the time will speed up, much as a
river accelerates as it approaches a huge waterfall.
The 20th century began with the tragedy of the Titanic with its
inadequate contingency plans (i.e., not enough lifeboats). Now, at the
end of the century -- all of humanity, because of the invasive growth of
computers, floats, as it were, together on one giant ark called
Technology. At the end of the river is the year 2000 problem, Y2K, like
a giant iceberg. “ Time is an ocean but it ends at the shore.” B.
Dylan. The people on board are preoccupied with their existence, the
problem is a year and a quarter away and few realize the potential of
its severity. We are about to make the same mistake that occurred with
the Titanic. We have had one century to learn the importance of
adequate, appropriate and inclusive contingency planning when facing
potential disaster -- the sinking of Technology. We must have lifeboats
for everybody.
Therein lies the challenge that faces all of humanity: prepare for the
worst by making all communities autonomously self-sustainable,
neighborhood by neighborhood, worldwide, by the year 2000, or face tidal
waves of panic and the possibility of infrastructure meltdown, martial
law/chaos, world-wide for an indefinite period of time.
Cynics may scoff and say, “Why bother? It’s impossible.” But they
don’t recognize that in the very fact of their existence they face the
impossible every day of their lives. Besides, we may not have
everything in place -- here and everywhere by the year 2000 -- but the
more we do, the less reason for panic, the smoother the transition, the
less possibility of martial law/chaos.
This inevitable event is of a singular nature historically; it is one
of a kind. We cannot expect aid from the usual disaster aid sources
(FEMA, Red Cross, etc.): the problem will be too widespread and ongoing,
and these organizations will be undermined as well.
It is a once in a millennium opportunity to transform society,
non-violently. We need to create task forces of volunteers and groups
to start realizing the many areas of contingency implementation. We
need to have large neighborhood meetings, where people can input their
knowledge of sources, resources, ideas and means for each of the
different areas of infrastructure: food, water, waste, transport,
communications, health and safety, electricity, gas, fuel, etc.
Information and solutions need to be shared on the Internet. The
government needs to be audited, to know their readiness and their
contingencies, and petitioned for land-use permission and for funds for
labor and supplies.
Individuals and groups need to e-mail bagelhole1@aol.com and we will e-
mail you a packet with more info and articles gleaned from the
Internet to help convince you of the truth of these statements and the
seriousness of this report. You can also call me at 415-824-4214. Just
leave your name and number.

*Although the year 2000 problem (date-referencing computers and embedded
microchips that can only go up to the year 1999 and are unable to
process 2000) sounds simple, countless computers will malfunction as
they encounter dates in the year 2000. But the prevalence of computers
in our lives means that if and when these computers fail, problems will
range from mere inconveniences to life-threatening consequences. Both
the public and the private sector are working on the problem, but
collectively they cannot eliminate every year 2000 bug. While the Y2K
issue does not necessarily represent Armageddon, the threat to trade,
transportation, health care, financial institutions, telecommunication,
power sources and government functions is very real.

About the author:

Tom Osher has lived in San Francisco since 1967, has been a grass roots
organizer and activist for many years, especially working with Food Not
Bombs since 1988, is the father of two grown children. He currently
lives in Bayview-Hunters Pt., where he will be making his home and
garden a model for self-sustainability. This will include vertical
horticulture, electricity-generating devices, pirate radio for the
purpose of communicating locally when and if there are no
telecommunications, compost-creating toilets, etc.


Check these out.

www.Year2000.com
www.Y2K.com
www.co-intelligence.org

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

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Thu Oct 22 02:34:24 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Self-sustainability
In-Reply-To: <baab9e45.362ed0e2@aol.com>
Message-ID: <199810220646.XAA13099@mail.easystreet.com>

At 02:29 AM 10/22/98 -0400, Bagelhole1@aol.com wrote:
>Looking for feasible parts to complete a model(s) for self-sustainable
>neighborhoods, globally to be implemented before the year 2000.Y2K

> Tom Osher has lived in San Francisco since 1967, has been a grass roots
> organizer and activist for many years, especially working with Food Not
> Bombs since 1988, is the father of two grown children.

Another Granola joins the list without having the decency to figure out
what the topic is. At least there's a virtue in deadlines (Y2K). What's
"vertical horticulture" ? Plants that do yoga?

Tom, if you can accomplish all your stated goals by adopting an insane
addiction to pyromania, then you're in good company. Otherwise, don't pound
the tent stakes in too deeply or put bricks under the school bus. The
latter should be powered by producer gas, or else you better look for
another neighborhood.

Tom Miles

 

 

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

 

From onar at con2.com Thu Oct 22 07:51:01 1998
From: onar at con2.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Onar_=C5m?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Some of us LOVE noise!
Message-ID: <199810221228.IAA20317@admin.con2.com>

> I recognize a linkage between the use of
> hydrocarbons and pollution. Oxygen plus carbon is supposed to yield CO2
> plus energy, but in reality, the picture isn't so tidy.

Stationary ICs running on a constant rpm are very tidy. The problem is when
they're made mobile. The IC is probably a fundamentally limited technology
when it comes to mobile energetics. Electrical vehicles don't suffer from
this problem. They don't have incomplete combustion. SO it IS possible to
have a CLEAN carbon based transportation system: stationary generators and
electrical vehicles.

> I do not hate cars. I love cars--especially muscle cars! What I
> hate is the price we pay. I'm not trying to focus on negativity, I'm
> searching for a way that allows me to keep my personal transportation and
> minimize its impact. (It's an ethical compromise. It's selfish. . .)
> That's why I put an engine in the car instead of buying a new vehicle.
(An
> awful lot of energy goes into manufacturing a new car.

A lot of which is electricity. If we improve the efficiency of power plants
then
this dominos through all of society, including less energy in making a car.

> Dealing effectively with pollution
> is why I think hydrogen is the ultimate transportation solution.

You only think so because you haven't discovered flywheels yet. :-)

> A PEM fuel cell coupled to
> an electric motor is more efficient than a diesel engine coupled to an
> electric motor, and when the additional efficiency is factored in,
hydrogen
> becomes viable as an energy carrier.

With a stationary solid oxide fuel cell combined power plant coupled with
flywheels
as the energy carrier you can get a net efficiency over 60%. (On wind power
the
net efficiency soars to over 80%) This is about *twice* as energy efficient
as when
hydrogen is used as an energy carrier.

> As an added benefit, the United States (and probably Canada, for
> that matter) could become energy self-sufficient if we utilized the
> technology we now have.

Having observed American isolationism for years I'm not sure self-suffiency
is a good
thing. One of the few things that keeps America from *completely* shutting
itself from
the world is the fact that it is not self-sufficient.

> We would benefit economically by keeping our energy money
> in the domestic market, rather than sending it overseas.

That's not true, but I *do* sympathize with the 1% idea however.

> A volumetric energy system has created expectations in the minds
of
> consumers, who insist that a vehicle must be able to travel more than 500
> kilometers between refuelings. Most commutes are, in fact, under sixty,
but
> the biggest resistance to electric cars comes from this expectation.

This reminds me of the kind of rational argument was made for cell phones
with
batteries that only lasted 18 hours standby. The argument was that on
average
most people don't spend more than a a few minutes on the cell phones every
day
and therefore 18 hours should suffice. Well, I've owned one of those things
and
I never use it anymore because I keep running out of battery. Not every day
--
that's for sure -- but often enough to really annoy me. The same is true
with
electrical vehicles. It's not really running out of power that is the
problem,
but the long recharge times, the sluggish behavior of the car when the
batteries
become dull and the fact that you can't accellerate properly with them.
They
require a level of effort and uncomfort that very few people are willing to
submit
to today. HOWEVER, this is a battery problem, not fundamentally a problem
with
electrical vehicles.

As far
>> as energy densities are concerned, I'm sure you're aware that battery
> technology lags far behind hydrides and compressed gas for energy
storage.

That's not true. Flywheels have evolved dramatically in the last decade or
so.

> Electrics represent a sound technology (but certainly not a "heart in
your
> throat, wow do I LOVE that roar technology!").

Well, here's the nice thing about flywheels. They allow such massive and
sustained energy bursts that you could peel the rubber off your tires as
you accellerate all the way to 70 mph. They give you all the oomph you
desire. And unlike traditional EVs you have a range of 4-500 miles per
charge and the flywheels can be recharged in 20 minutes.

 

Onar.

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

 

From costich at pacifier.com Thu Oct 22 09:01:52 1998
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: flywheels
In-Reply-To: <002701bdfcfb$75903da0$1601a8c0@onars_machine>
Message-ID: <362F3056.175F@pacifier.com>

Onar: I'm hungry for info on mechanical/potential storage. I believe
that a person could devise a series of gear-boxes (industrial size) and
use a cable over pully pick point that lifts a mass during the day and
unwinds during the night. You've probably seen the wind-up emergency
radios--I believe your message is a true and appropriate path for us to
follow-Its boils down to cost effective hardware. Keep us posted Dale
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Thu Oct 22 09:58:00 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Self-sustainability
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810221408370223@classic.msn.com>

Mr. Osher- check out www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/6362

Mr. Reed- sorry to have seemed to have changed your forum into a social
engineering thinktank! :o

I will try to stick to tech gassification issues from now on!
Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam

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

 

From boilrmkr at surfsouth.com Thu Oct 22 10:55:08 1998
From: boilrmkr at surfsouth.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A nerd joke to lighten the day.
Message-ID: <362F486D.B51EB59D@surfsouth.com>

> A truck driver is hauling a tractor-trailer load of
> computers. He stops for a beer and as he approaches the bar
> he sees a big sign on the door saying: "NERDS NOT ALLOWED -
> ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK". He goes in and sits down. The
> bartender comes over to him, sniffs, says he smells kind of
> nerdy, and asks him what he does for a living. The truck
> driver says he drives a truck, and the smell is just from the
> computers he is hauling. The bartender says OK, truck drivers
> are not nerds, and serves him a beer. As he is sipping his
> beer, a skinny guy walks in with tape around his glasses, a
> pocket protector holding twelve kinds of pens and pencils,
> and a belt at least a foot too long. The bartender, without
> saying a word, pulls out a shotgun and blows the guy away.
> The truck driver asks him why he did that. The bartender
> says not to worry, "The nerds are over-populating the Silicon
> Valley, and are in season now. You don't even need a
> license." So the truck driver finishes his beer, gets back in
> his truck, and heads back onto the freeway. Suddenly, he
> veers to avoid an accident and the load shifts. The back
> door breaks open and computers spill out all over the
> freeway. He jumps out and sees a crowd already forming,
> grabbing up the computers. They are all engineers,
> accountants, and programmers wearing the nerdiest clothes he
> has ever seen. He can't let them steal his whole load. So
> remembering what happened in the bar, he pulls out his gun
> and starts blasting away, Killing several of them instantly.
> A highway patrol officer comes zooming up and jumps out of
> the car screaming at him to stop. The truck driver says,
> "What's wrong? I thought nerds were in season."
> "Well, sure," says the patrolman. "But you can't bait 'em."

 

 

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Thu Oct 22 11:03:35 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: africa
Message-ID: <199810221114_MC2-5D8F-5B51@compuserve.com>

Dear Skip:

I saw the announcement of the tragedy on my local news. It also mentioned
that they were all lined up to steal gasoline from the pipeline. That
pipeline is part of an orderly process that permits the world to operate.
So, my regrets were tempered by their stealing. Do you drive a car? Do
you use that gasoline? In that case you are equally guilty with the rest
of us for not having developed viable alternatives before you were born.

Please, let's keep this forum for gasification of biomass, a positive
action which could benefit all people and post our politics and prejudices
other places.

Yours, TOM REED

Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>
gentlemen,
as we speak, hundreds of people lie dying days after an explosion in a
pipeline containing a refined fuel. while on the bbc and other real news,
it
isnt mentioned on our mainstream press. this is ugly beyond imagination.
is
it that these people do not count because they are black, do not drive
minivans and are Christian?
i digress to the energy manifesto once again.

this would not have happened with bio fuels (local cellulose)
skip

<

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Oct 22 12:03:00 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Guilt
Message-ID: <f4b32a5a.362f591d@aol.com>

Dear Tom,
Your comment about guilt and the stealing of gasoline from a pipeline has
nothing to do with not developing alternative fuels. Man was also thrown out
of the garden of eden, now being born with original sin, and all of the
inherited failures of our predecessors.
However, any blame rests with the stealing of anything valuable, regardless
of whether or not it is a fuel. If antigravitron pellets were valuable, they
would be stolen also. Our energy problems are political, not technical.

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

 

From iti at connect-2.co.uk Thu Oct 22 15:25:53 1998
From: iti at connect-2.co.uk (ITI)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers & Associated Power Units, etc.
Message-ID: <01bdfddc$889c0280$LocalHost@fpgcsxhi>

 

Dear Mr. Karlsen,

(and other interested parties)

Many thanks for your reply to my recent inquiries placed on the gasification
list archive.

The letter addressed to Mr. Singh was certainly not a private one. My own
background is that I am a mechanical engineer with some specific experience
in the design of diesel engine combustion systems (especially two-stroke
indirect injection systems). I have only recently become interested in
gasification and the dual fuel application of diesel engines; and I am
delighted to receive any relevant information from anyone with whom that
basic interest is shared.

"it depends what you want..." is your answer to my long list of queries
concerning gasifiier CHP plants. In fact, my objectives on this topic are
extremely widespread. I would for instance be very interested to establish
a small CHP plant at our family home in Co. Antrim, where some farmland is
attached and we have a ready supply of assorted timber. In this case, the
maximum power requirement could be a low as 15 kW.

As a professional engineer, I would also like to be in a position to advise
a wide range of local businesspeople on the appropriate power plant for
their various needs. For example, a local farmer has already established a
100 kWe biomass power plant, but he has only been able to generate 90 kW
maximum due to excessive exhaust gas temperatures. He is working at 10%
diesel, and I suspect that the diesel injection timing is not effectively
controlling the combustion process. Indeed, I would have thought that a
compression ratio of 13.5:1 would still be on the high side in this
situation. Surely the gas is still bound to ignite much too early in the
cycle, causing very high stresses, excessive temperatures and lower
efficiency overall ?

Have you any experience of running diesels at such high gas percentages ?
Might it not be possible to drop the compression ratio still further and
adapt the cylinder head for SI operation ?
The unit must consume less then 10% fossil fuel to comply with the
requirements of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation.

Another case concerns an MDF manufacturer who is presently generating 150
kg/hr of fine waste material and who will soon be generating 300 kg/hr. At
present, a proportion of the waste is incinerated for heat to supply hot air

to his factory. I strongly suspect that a biomass-fuelled generating plant
of perhaps 300-400 kWe could be commercially available to him at a
reasonable capital cost to allow him to establish CHP (cogeneration). I am
not at all sure though what power unit would be most appropriate at this
scale of operation ( dual fuel diesel, spark ignition, gas turbine (direct
combustion), gas turbine (indirect heating), etc...)

Are you aware of any studies which have been conducted into the comparative
thermal efficiencies of various prime movers of various sizes (up to 500
kWe) running on production gas ? I would be particularly interested to
source more information concerning the specific power outputs (for example,
in terms of kg fuel/ kWh of electrical output).

Once again, many thanks for your earlier comments.

Yours,

Brian Russell.

Brian Russell.
Innovation Technologies (Ireland) Ltd,
Co. Antrim,
N. Ireland.

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

 

From antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br Thu Oct 22 17:55:58 1998
From: antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br (Antonio G. P. Hilst)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Why
In-Reply-To: <199810220350.XAA05907@admin.con2.com>
Message-ID: <362FA047.EB9C6E28@merconet.com.br>

 

Onar Åm wrote:

> I wish it was that simple. There is a reason many of these countries are
> poor:
> they don't have a stable democratic regime. Norway has provided billions in
> development aid, but very little has become of it due to military regimes
> that
> Don't your government officers know about whom they are dealing with? One
> would hardly accept this.

> ...countries. Brazil is a worse case. If attitudes were different, it could
> become an
> industrialized country overnight.

For information only Brazil is the 8th GNP country and the 4th car
manufacturer.

> For instance: did you know that some 30
> million
> Brazilian children cannot read or write? Why? Because they are forced to
> contribute
> to the family economy. Sending kids to school is equivalent to starvation
> for the family.

This is due to the low Brazilian percapita income which results from the low
international prices paid for our goods, due to overtaxes on our orange juice,
steel, sugar, etc. Do you know that Brazilian alcohol can not be exported to
USA?

> of money in Brazil, there's so much corruption that billions of
> dollars just
> "disappear" every year. Had this corrupted money been used for public
> education
> instead Brazil could be well on its way to becoming an industrialized
> country in
> just a decade or two. Are American gasoline prices to blame for Brazilian
> corruption?
> Frankly, I'm not so sure.
>
> You could very well elaborate on the G7 corruption - some clues:

the Lockeed affair in Japan (See sthe book Bazar of Arms),
Nixon's Chief of Deparment of Justice fired charged of bribary,
South Korea's president inprosoned due to a mere US$ 600,000,000.00 taken from
the counttry and given to its party. By the way he was pardoned in little t
ime,
the various Japanese prime ministers that lost their chair on corruption
charges; various in a row!

Onar, I know we have corruption but do not make it a special issue, or at least
consider that we may trying to apply the lessons learned from the 1st world.
We are not inventing it or even championig on it. We are merely newcomers on
this field, believe me.

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

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

 

From onar at con2.com Thu Oct 22 18:33:22 1998
From: onar at con2.com (Onar Aam)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Why
Message-ID: <004201bdfe0d$b7706bb0$1601a8c0@onars_machine>

>> ...countries. Brazil is a worse case. If attitudes were different, it
could
>> become an
>> industrialized country overnight.
>
>For information only Brazil is the 8th GNP country and the 4th car
>manufacturer.

It's also a third world country. It doesn't matter that 10% of the country
is very rich when more than 50% lives on next to nothing.

>This is due to the low Brazilian percapita income which results from the
low
>international prices paid for our goods, due to overtaxes on our orange
juice,
>steel, sugar, etc. Do you know that Brazilian alcohol can not be exported
to
>USA?

I didn't know that, and I'm sure that there are many unfair trading
arrangements, but Brazil's fundamental problem is still internal, not
external.

>Onar, I know we have corruption but do not make it a special issue, or at
least
>consider that we may trying to apply the lessons learned from the 1st
world.

I didn't imply in any way that Brazil was somehow unique with respect to
corrpution. I only meant to imply that the corruption tends to strongly
hault sound economical and social development in Brazil. (as it does in for
instance Russia).

Onar.

 

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

 

From michael.schwerin at internetMCI.com Thu Oct 22 18:42:50 1998
From: michael.schwerin at internetMCI.com (Michael Schwerin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: What happened to gasification?
Message-ID: <0F19000GV3LP3G@PM04SM.PMM.MCI.NET>

political polemics belong somewhere else

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Thu Oct 22 20:08:08 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: africa
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810230018560476@classic.msn.com>

saw the announcement of the tragedy on my local news. It also mentioned
that they were all lined up to steal gasoline from the pipeline. That
pipeline is part of an orderly process that permits the world to operate.
So, my regrets were tempered by their stealing. Do you drive a car? Do
you use that gasoline? In that case you are equally guilty with the rest
of us for not having developed viable alternatives before you were born.
>>>>
better read the full story mr. reed. whole villiages got it too. and i drive
electrics, and a diesel that sometimes uses used deep fat fryer oil and gets
55 mpg. and yes, i am guilty and feel bad for it and dont want to make
excuses or worse, deny the prob.
>>
Please, let's keep this forum for gasification of biomass, a positive
action which could benefit all people and post our politics and prejudices
other places.
>>>>>>
you are right. this has gone too far and i will refrain from any thing that
is not tech data. sorry
skip goebel
sensible steam

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Thu Oct 22 20:08:41 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers & Associated Power Units, etc.
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810230019030695@classic.msn.com>

controlling the combustion process. Indeed, I would have thought that a
compression ratio of 13.5:1 would still be on the high side in this
situation. Surely the gas is still bound to ignite much too early in the
cycle, causing very high stresses, excessive temperatures and lower
efficiency overall ?
>>>
dear mr. russell
is the problem a detonation one, and if so, wouldn't egr or even steam
injection fix that?

skip goebel
sensible steam

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

 

From Bagelhole1 at aol.com Thu Oct 22 23:08:21 1998
From: Bagelhole1 at aol.com (Bagelhole1@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Guilt
Message-ID: <df5d680b.362ff42d@aol.com>

Sorry, but that was someone else who said those things. My thing is to help
create a model of feasible self-sustainability, by neigborhood, globally
before the year 2000. As a prudent and responsible contingency for the worst-
case scenerio of the y2k problem.
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From greensue at hotmail.com Fri Oct 23 05:38:12 1998
From: greensue at hotmail.com (Susanne Machler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <19981023094927.9846.qmail@hotmail.com>

 

 

Dale
I got an excited call from Mike yesterday to say your pics had arrived.
We were so heartened to see the very familiar rustic setup, that seems
to characterize homesteaders around the world! It was cool to see the
dish, and enlightening to see your rig. We were still trying to figure
out how it works, we thought some drawstring arrangement to bring your
used fan protector cage in the focus??? :) Do you use actuators at all
to move the dish? Or is it the object in the focal point that you move?
We pored over the pics for about half an hour. Pics are really woth a
thousand words. Thanks a million. I guess we can now start to talk
technical. Mike is listening in too.

Regarding your request to sell your lamps..
We are all ears!! We usually enter agreements regarding products (lamps
in this case) on the basis that a sample be sent to us for testing, and
subsequent orders are then transacted by us. We are now trying to
register for some incentives to get these renewable items easier through
the customs. Any shipments sent to us must be clearly marked "Solar
Equipment, Zero Rated!!" in clear bold lettering on the packaging.
Remember we have many persons passing through the homestead=showcase, so
they see the products, and LOVE to see the product in action!! That is
the best way to sell, in our experience!! Once you sell the idea nad
they see that they arent getting a cat in the bag, then, things are in a
good way for the sale to be transacted.

Ready to tech-talk!
Thanks again.
Sue and in the

PS..
Dale what do you think of Tom Reeds books on Lafontaines gasifiers? Do
you think I could buid one from the drwings he gives?

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

 

From greensue at hotmail.com Fri Oct 23 05:42:25 1998
From: greensue at hotmail.com (Susanne Machler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <19981023095340.15456.qmail@hotmail.com>

Sorry, missed again, the folwing was not intended for the list, as you
could imagine.

Apologies,
sue,

>>>
Dale
I got an excited call from Mike yesterday to say your pics had arrived.
We were so heartened to see the very familiar rustic setup, that seems
to characterize homesteaders around the world! It was cool to see the
dish, and enlightening to see your rig. etc etc.

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Oct 23 08:35:48 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Off the subject material
Message-ID: <199810230847_MC2-5DAE-F1DD@compuserve.com>

Dear Gasification list:

I went to my E-mail this AM hoping to learn something new about
gasification - instead I read through a gross of pages about pollution,
hydrogen, global warming, commuting, pulleys, life philosophy,
Armegedon,....

We all have side interests and it is tempting to discuss them here on the
gasification network. I would like to request that we limit the side
discussions here at gasification and instead put them on BIOENERGY where we
have had major threads not dealing with gasification (stoves, biogas,
ethanol). (Tom Miles: Is this OK with you?) I subscribe to BIOENERGY as
well and will see them there, but not get them tangled up with
GASIFICATION.

It is my belief that gasification has the potential to solve many of the
problems mentioned - but not if we dilute it with all the other discussion.
Armchair theorists won't move us toward the solution. Get a pair of
pliers.

Yours truly, TOM REED - MODERATOR OF
GASIFICATION

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Oct 23 10:00:05 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Permissable Compression ratios
Message-ID: <199810231011_MC2-5DA6-DD69@compuserve.com>

Dear Skip et al:

While there are many disadvantages to the low energy content of producer
gas, one advantage is its high octane. It can be compressed 18/1 and still
not pre-ignite, which is why you need to use either a spark plug or a
diesel spray for lighting.

TOM REED

>controlling the combustion process. Indeed, I would have thought that a
compression ratio of 13.5:1 would still be on the high side in this
situation. Surely the gas is still bound to ignite much too early in the
cycle, causing very high stresses, excessive temperatures and lower
efficiency overall ?
>>>
dear mr. russell
is the problem a detonation one, and if so, wouldn't egr or even steam
injection fix that?

skip goebel
sensible steam
<

 

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Oct 23 10:00:07 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers & Associated Power Units, etc.
Message-ID: <199810231011_MC2-5DA6-DD6E@compuserve.com>

Dear Gasification:

If you MUST run producer gas in diesel mode, rather than spark mode, the
diesel requirement can be reduced to 5% of total by installing smaller
injectors. The problem is that if you have 100% operation injectors, the
spray is too poopy to ignite producer gas at 5%. (All this from Mike
Graboski experience with Cooper Bessemer 500 kW engine.)

TOM REED

 

Dear Mr. Karlsen,

(and other interested parties)

Many thanks for your reply to my recent inquiries placed on the
gasification
list archive.

The letter addressed to Mr. Singh was certainly not a private one. My own
background is that I am a mechanical engineer with some specific experience
in the design of diesel engine combustion systems (especially two-stroke
indirect injection systems). I have only recently become interested in
gasification and the dual fuel application of diesel engines; and I am
delighted to receive any relevant information from anyone with whom that
basic interest is shared.

"it depends what you want..." is your answer to my long list of queries
concerning gasifiier CHP plants. In fact, my objectives on this topic are
extremely widespread. I would for instance be very interested to
establish
a small CHP plant at our family home in Co. Antrim, where some farmland is
attached and we have a ready supply of assorted timber. In this case, the
maximum power requirement could be a low as 15 kW.

As a professional engineer, I would also like to be in a position to advise
a wide range of local businesspeople on the appropriate power plant for
their various needs. For example, a local farmer has already established
a
100 kWe biomass power plant, but he has only been able to generate 90 kW
maximum due to excessive exhaust gas temperatures. He is working at 10%
diesel, and I suspect that the diesel injection timing is not effectively
controlling the combustion process. Indeed, I would have thought that a
compression ratio of 13.5:1 would still be on the high side in this
situation. Surely the gas is still bound to ignite much too early in the
cycle, causing very high stresses, excessive temperatures and lower
efficiency overall ?

Have you any experience of running diesels at such high gas percentages ?
Might it not be possible to drop the compression ratio still further and
adapt the cylinder head for SI operation ?
The unit must consume less then 10% fossil fuel to comply with the
requirements of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation.

Another case concerns an MDF manufacturer who is presently generating 150
kg/hr of fine waste material and who will soon be generating 300 kg/hr.
At
present, a proportion of the waste is incinerated for heat to supply hot
air

to his factory. I strongly suspect that a biomass-fuelled generating
plant
of perhaps 300-400 kWe could be commercially available to him at a
reasonable capital cost to allow him to establish CHP (cogeneration). I
am
not at all sure though what power unit would be most appropriate at this
scale of operation ( dual fuel diesel, spark ignition, gas turbine (direct
combustion), gas turbine (indirect heating), etc...)

Are you aware of any studies which have been conducted into the comparative
thermal efficiencies of various prime movers of various sizes (up to 500
kWe) running on production gas ? I would be particularly interested to
source more information concerning the specific power outputs (for example,
in terms of kg fuel/ kWh of electrical output).

Once again, many thanks for your earlier comments.

Yours,

Brian Russell.

Brian Russell.
Innovation Technologies (Ireland) Ltd,
Co. Antrim,
N. Ireland.

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

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

 

From costich at pacifier.com Fri Oct 23 10:17:38 1998
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
In-Reply-To: <19981023094927.9846.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <3630939C.4946@pacifier.com>

Sue and Mike: The crutch has a thru-bolt that is re-positionable the
wire basket (fanshroud) holds the object to be heated, the part of the
crutch(that would fit under ones arm pit) has counterweights. The
"back-scatter" reflector is exteriorily insulated with alumina-silicate
blanket-which reminds me I must protect this Kaowool from the pouring
rains. The y axis is lifted by the cables that attach to the highest
projecting steel flatbar of steel. The cable simply winds and unwinds
off a drum that runs off a 90 degree permanent magnet dc gearmotor
@12VDC. The dish is heavy when down (that is when we inspect the
charred food! When it gets past a certain pivot point it is very light
either way the "gimble" keeps the food level during this y axis
movement. The x axis is not as complex it just pans right or left upon
the steel post the dish is perched on (hold it this sounds fishy). I
found a huge ball bearing race-from a large excavator that the post is
welded to. Hope it is now crystal clear. I just point my dish slightly
ahead of the sun and pass thru the "sweet spot" then about a dozen eggs
are hard boiled. I am not automatic tracking yet. With the other calls
of life I will run x and y with momentary toggles that actuate reversing
solenoids probably forever. Lafontains gasifiers I do not have info on.
Mine is a downdraft. I usually only tell folks what I know for a
fact-that is based on what I've built and actually done. I'll give you
my lowest price on my Goldstar light which is 35 plus whatever ship is.
You deal them at 49 plus ship on your end. I give a lifetime warranty I
will repair or replace as long as I live (iff) if and only if you ship
it to me and pay return frieght. you must buy your own bulbs. I build 2
transistor Royer oscillator type they produce near perfect sine wave @
18KHZ and this is what the bulb likes. Dale
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Fri Oct 23 10:42:21 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Off the subject material
In-Reply-To: <199810230847_MC2-5DAE-F1DD@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <199810231454.HAA16515@mail.easystreet.com>

Tom,

I would hope that the 250+ subscribers to GASIFICATION can show some
respect and consideration for each other as we draft thoughtful messages
about gasification in practical and research applications.

BIOENERGY is the list for more general topics. There too policy issues
should be limited to those themes that have a clear impact on bioenergy.
Broad philosophical statements belong on other lists or in private exchanges.

Normally about 5% of any list's subscribers are the most active
participants. That does not mean that they become the exclusive "owners" of
the forum.

The list administrators spend 5 to 6 hours per week at their tasks. We
administer these lists as volunteers for our collective benefit not because
we want to read hundreds of silly email messages. Controversy is welcome.
But let's stay on the topic of gasification.

Tom Miles

 

At 08:46 AM 10/23/98 -0400, Tom Reed wrote:
>We all have side interests and it is tempting to discuss them here on the
>gasification network. I would like to request that we limit the side
>discussions here at gasification and instead put them on BIOENERGY where
we >have had major threads not dealing with gasification (stoves, biogas,
>ethanol). (Tom Miles: Is this OK with you?) I subscribe to BIOENERGY as
>well and will see them there, but not get them tangled up with
>GASIFICATION.

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

 

From iti at connect-2.co.uk Fri Oct 23 12:02:46 1998
From: iti at connect-2.co.uk (ITI)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers & Associated Power Units, etc.
Message-ID: <01bdfe96$6fb93480$LocalHost@fpgcsxhi>

>dear mr. russell
> is the problem a detonation one, and if so, wouldn't egr or even steam
>injection fix that?
>>
>skip goebel
>sensible steam

Dear Skip,

Many thanks for your reply. I am sure that you are right about the EGR and
steam as possible methods of reducing the problem. Having read some other
contributions on the archive (not least from Graeme Williams) I am
nonetheless wondering if any diesel engine running on just 10% diesel will
still give problems even after such adjustments. Unfortunately, I am not
myself in a position to conduct any tests just at present. I would
therefore be interested to know if this European target of 10% diesel has
been trialled anywhere else around the world.

Best wishes,

Brian Russell.

 

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

 

From iti at connect-2.co.uk Fri Oct 23 12:22:23 1998
From: iti at connect-2.co.uk (ITI)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers & Associated Power Units, etc.
Message-ID: <01bdfea1$edbcb900$LocalHost@fpgcsxhi>

Dear Tom,

Many thanks indeed for your comments re diesel injectors for CI engines
running on high percentages of producer gas. I suspect that you could
well have offered the key to the problem. I would certainly be delighted
to be able to tell you so if a conversion proves successful in this case.

I am also interested to note your comments re compression ratios. I would
never have guessed that the octane rating for producer gas was anywhere near
so high. This suggests that reduction of standard diesel compression
ratios may not in fact be necessary at all for dual fuel operation.

I will aim to keep you posted of developments here in Ireland in this
regard.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Russell.

 

>Dear Gasification:
>
>If you MUST run producer gas in diesel mode, rather than spark mode, the
>diesel requirement can be reduced to 5% of total by installing smaller
>injectors. The problem is that if you have 100% operation injectors, the
>spray is too poopy to ignite producer gas at 5%. (All this from Mike
>Graboski experience with Cooper Bessemer 500 kW engine.)
>
>TOM REED

 

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

 

From Robbcpc at aol.com Fri Oct 23 12:38:43 1998
From: Robbcpc at aol.com (Robbcpc@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers & Associated Power Units, etc.
Message-ID: <99e6f5e2.3630b3b0@aol.com>

Waytogo, Tom.

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Oct 23 14:33:53 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:Diesel Cycle engine opn
Message-ID: <a6cb6013.3630cea9@aol.com>

Many years ago Hamilton Standard did an extensive report for the DOE on
Diesel engine operation and other engine operation of producer gas which was
formulated from bottled components on spark ignited and diesel cycle engines.
The diesel engine operation was sort of a tail end event and the only reported
comments were that it did not knock or cause any excessive vibration in the
engine. The primary focus of the report was fuel cells as I recall.
Unfortuntately for the number of moves our company has made and the time, I do
not have a copy of this report.
Pre-detonation is a concern with natural gas in diesel engines because of the
compression over spark ignited engines which have a lower compression ratio.
Natural gas is limited to about 9.5:1 compression ratio.
However, producer gas has a much higher tolerance for compression. In fact, I
have been advised that it is theoretically possible to raise the compression
ratio on a producer gas engine to exceed the natural gas rating of the same
engine with some trade off with noise, vibration and lifetime of the engine.
Diesel engines modified for natural gas such as Cummins are best suited for
this application.
Hydrogen contained in producer gas has a very limited compression tolerance
but the CO will sustain a very high compression ratio and moderates the
combustion rate. CO2 will also slow the combustion process and delay ignition.
What is interesting is that producer gas is better than natural or synthesis
gas for a variety of reasons to the extent that some facilities such may not
be able to be permitted on natural or synthesis gas but could be on producer
gas.

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Fri Oct 23 15:20:45 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers & Associated Power Units, etc.
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810231931130494@classic.msn.com>

ok, we don't have a detonation prob. we have a good ignition prob.
since there is methane available, cant this be easily converted to acetyline
off to the side and reintroduced? in the right mixture it will autoignite and
not detonate with all those other benign gasses around?
am i off track here?
skip

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Fri Oct 23 15:23:39 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers & Associated Power Units, etc.
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810231931150150@classic.msn.com>

mr russell
is it that the gas has a high octane rating or is it slow to detonate because
of the benign gasses like CO2 are in the way. if so, perhaps simple scrubbing
of the gasses would help w/autoignition. I know that my vw diesel will burn
bean oil if i leave the glow plugs on.
skip

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

 

From rabello at uniserve.com Fri Oct 23 19:22:51 1998
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Off-subject, Granola, etc.
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19981023233352.0068104c@popserver.uniserve.com>

My sincerest apologies for allowing remarks to digress from the
topic of discussion in this forum! (Some of you know that I normally send
off-topic remarks to your personal e-mail accounts. I should have continued
to do so, and I recommend this idea to other, equally opinionated people!)

A topical question that's been lingering in my mind for some time. .
. In the "Handbook of Downdraft Gasifiers" is a description of a
"stratified downdraft gasifier". It appears that this device consists of a
tube with a fire grate on the bottom and an open top.

How are the combustible gases drawn off? What prevents combustion
of the all the feedstock material? I must be missing something!

robert luis rabello
VisionWorks Communications

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Sat Oct 24 02:05:18 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Permissable Compression ratios
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810240615180498@classic.msn.com>

Tom,
I appreciate you saving me from 'chasing rabbits' with some of my ideas such
as lasers to line up the gasses. However, two things come to mind that I have
seen.
1. An anti submarine laser uses what is known as a 'Green Laser' to sorta bore
a hole through the water and the high power laser goes down through the middle
of that. How it works, I don't know ....but it does.
2. Particle beam cannons use a laser to line up gas molecules when shot
through the air...they fire through the middle of the laser again.

so what I want to know is if a laser can line up water, can it line up steam
or perhaps another bi polar molecule? if so, the implications are enormouse.
>From easier scrubbing, to smaller catalysts, and even sending the gas or steam
through a divergent nozzle with integral laser would make for very high
velocity and a low co efficient of drag in pipes, etc...
skip

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

 

From CharlesFederle at webtv.net Sat Oct 24 12:12:50 1998
From: CharlesFederle at webtv.net (Charles S Federle)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Commercial Gasification Operations
Message-ID: <24564-3631FF3A-1541@mailtod-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net>

Charles S. Federle 1440 Cardington Road, Kettering, Ohio
45409 offers the following equations for use to gasify carbon.
Carbon mixed with common salt mixed with calcium oxide and
heated to 1,700 degrees F., results in sodium gas, carbon monoxide gas,
and calcium chloride solid lumps.
Carbon mixed with some aluminium powder in powdered
aluminium oxide and heated white hot, results in lumps of aluminium
carbide. Aluminium carbide reacts with water to make methane and
aluminium hydroxide. Aluminium hydroxide mixed with some aluminium and
some powdered carbon, makes aluminium carbide.
Molten manganese reacts with carbon to make manganese
tricarbide. Manganese tricarbide reacts with water to make mostly
hydrogen, some methane, and some ethane.
One part carbon in six parts calcium sulfate. when heated
to 900 C, makes powdered calcium sulfide and carbon monoxide gas. 900
C. steam passing through calcium sulfide makes calcium sulfate and
hydrogen mixed with steam.
Help in selection, design, purchase, construction, and
operational aspects of those equations are available to those who
qualify.
Qualifers agree to keep all carbon dioxide resulting from those
reactions, out of the air.
Oxygen gas, or compounds of oxygen, must be used as a
souece of oxygen. Air is not acceptable. The products of combustion
must not be discarded.
People who want to gasify municipal solid waste should
send email to charlesfederle@webtv.net

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Sat Oct 24 21:35:04 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: LASER ALIGNMENT OF BIPOLAR MOLECULE GASES
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810250144560929@classic.msn.com>

Tom
One more laser question:
Is radiation (heat) the same energy(s) as photons. If so, then when aligned
by laser, wouldn't this affect the heat transfer and absorbsion properties of
gasses with bi-polar molecules. What I am looking for is a way to enhance
separation of gasses, plus maybe enhance the distillation of the solids via
the convection gasses from the ember bed.
It seems to me that to advance the science, we must find non-mechanical means
to do this(which is a shame as I prefer mechanical means). Also, would a
catalyst be enhanced by this?
Skip

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

 

From greensue at hotmail.com Sun Oct 25 01:08:24 1998
From: greensue at hotmail.com (Susanne Machler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ye olde zeolites
Message-ID: <19981025051908.3710.qmail@hotmail.com>

Hi again,
I realise that both groups might have a similar problem, namely the
filtration of gases. We need cooling, refridgeration on the homestead. A
few months ago, I was following a thread on using the thermal behaviour
of zeolites as an alternative adsorbent material.
It is a known fact that zeolites can be bought and easily manufactured,
with various atomis structures, and meshes, making effectively from my
laywomans uunderstanding, a perfect filter. Zeolites are used
extensively as filters for bad smells etc. Why is it I havent heard of
any enterprising persons, trying some more research here?
The stove, biogas, gasification, syngas, and other folks might find
these filters at atomic levels most useful. Think of a multistage filter
"straining" off the various gases at different levels....

Is this an idea, or is it my perfect world mind working on me ?

Say you heard it right here from me, the homesteader!! :)

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Oct 25 07:15:22 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Off-subject, Granola, etc.
Message-ID: <199810250726_MC2-5DEF-663D@compuserve.com>

Dear robert luis rabello:

(DO YOU USE SMALL LETTERS OUT OF MODESTY?)

YOU ASKED...

A topical question that's been lingering in my mind for some time.
.
. In the "Handbook of Downdraft Gasifiers" is a description of a
"stratified downdraft gasifier". It appears that this device consists of a
tube with a fire grate on the bottom and an open top.

How are the combustible gases drawn off? What prevents combustion
of the all the feedstock material? I must be missing something!

AS IS THE CASE WITH CONVENTIONAL "DOWNDRAFT" GASIFIERS AN ENGINE OR BLOWER
IS SUCKING AIR, THEN GAS, DOWN THROUGH THE FUEL. IN THIS CASE THE FORCED
DRAFT IS IN OPPOSITION TO THE NATURAL DRAFT OF GRAVITY. THE FEEDSTOCK IS
ONLY PARTLY CONSUMED TO MAKE GAS BECAUSE THERE IS MUCH MORE FEEDSTOCK THAN
AIR.

WE HAVE ALSO, MORE RECENTLY (1985), DEVELOPED THE INVERTED DOWNDRAFT
GASIFIER (ALSO CALLED UPSIDE-DOWNDRAFT, CHARCOAL PRODUCING, ....) IN WHICH
AIR ENTERS AT THE BOTTOM AND MOVES UP THROUGH THE MASS. IN THIS CASE THE
NATURAL DRAFT OF GRAVITY IS SUFFICIENT FOR SLOW GASIFICATION - OR YOU CAN
USE FORCED DRAFT FROM THE BOTTOM AS WELL.

WE HAVE USED THE INVERTED DOWNDRAFT IN NATURAL CONVECTION COOKING STOVES
FOR TEN YEARS NOW. (SEE CREST - STOVE NETWORK).

I HOPE THIS CLARIFIES YOUR QUESTION.

YOURS TRULY, TOM REED

robert luis rabello
VisionWorks Communications
<

ps. THERE HAS BEEN A COMPLAINT (tom miles?) THAT all capitals IS
EQUIVALENT TO SHOUTING. I DON'T LIKE IT EITHER, BUT THE VARIOUS > AND >>
AND >>> CAN MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHO IS TALKING. I hope
that soon Email will permit different colors for the different speakers.
SO FOR NOW I CONSIDER ALL CAPS AS THE LESSER OF MANY EVILS.

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Sun Oct 25 13:59:12 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: rotory gassifier
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810251910020391@classic.msn.com>

while digging through a very old book, i saw what appeared to be a tumbling
type of coal distiller. i think i will apply an improved version of that to
the following:

Here in the Ozarks, woodchips are everywhere and I have a rather large pile
like everyone else (get em free from the tree trimmers, etc...)
I am going to take a pipe of say 12" dia., line it with 'cerablanket' and then
line that with expanded metal. One end will be sealed, but will have several
small holes in the circumference at the sealed end. One half of the way up
the pipe I will cut a 4" square hole. The whole thing will sit at a 10 degree
angle and slowly rotate. A hopper will be fixed over the part of the pipe
where the square hole is this is where the chips will enter. Air can be
admitted through the small holes at the end and hopefully the ash can exit. I
hope admit only enough air for primary combustion and distill the rest. While
I wont be able to get rid of the moisture, I am sure I will get a good enough
grade of gas to add secondary air and maintain autoignition. If so., I can
make a boiler of the monotube design. This is similar to a boiler I showed
in Jan. 97 issue of BackwoodsHome magazine.
Any body else worked with rotory gassifiers? Where can I improve this?
Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Oct 25 20:01:56 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers & Associated Power Units, etc.
Message-ID: <199810252012_MC2-5DFA-B79D@compuserve.com>

Dear group:

(Don't forget to sey your clocks back 1 hr).

Skip asked
>ok, we don't have a detonation prob. we have a good ignition prob.
since there is methane available, cant this be easily converted to
acetyline
off to the side and reintroduced?

Most acetylene is made industrially by converting methane (20%) in
pyrolytic or electric arc processes. Used to be made from calcium carbide
by adding water. I have a carbide lamp that burns 4 hours on one charge
and gives much better light than most flashlights.

If Skip has an extra $100 M I would be happy to build him an acetylene
plant, but "easily converted to acetylene?" Sorry. A little knowledge can
be very dangerous.

in the right mixture it will autoignite and
not detonate with all those other benign gasses around?
am i off track here?

You sure are. Acetylene is one of the most unstable, explosive gases
around. So will autodetonate with the touch of a feather when compressed.
Stay away from compressed acetylene.

Your pal, TOM
REED
skip
<

 

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Oct 25 20:01:55 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers & Associated Power Units, etc.
Message-ID: <199810252012_MC2-5DFA-B79C@compuserve.com>

Dear Gasification:

Skip asked.....

is it that the gas has a high octane rating or is it slow to detonate
because
of the benign gasses like CO2 are in the way. if so, perhaps simple
scrubbing
of the gasses would help w/autoignition. I know that my vw diesel will
burn
bean oil if i leave the glow plugs on.
skip

Skip: It will burn bean oil (Cetane = 60) but it won't burn producer gas.
You are correct that H2O and CO2 reduce the Cetane and increase the Octane.
However, removing them would triple the cost.

So use (or convert to) spark ignition on producer gas whenever possible to
avoid needing "pilot diesel (5% with small injectors or 20% with regular
injectors) and keep the compression ratio between 12 and 15 for high
efficiency when possible.

This is the current state of my advice, but we need more rigorous
information on producer gas for modern engines.

Yours, TOM REED

 

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Oct 25 20:01:58 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers & Associated Power Units, etc.
Message-ID: <199810252012_MC2-5DFA-B7A0@compuserve.com>

Dear Robb and Art:

Robb got me a sack of coal. I crushed it to -1 inch size (what a drag)
and loaded our 5 inch magazine with 500 g coal and 100 g peanut pellets.
Put starter chips on top. Started it up. NICE CLEAN FLAME for 55 minutes,
then nice blue flame from coke gasification. WOW! MADE MY DAY and could
make your fortunes (and enough work to keep you busy the rest of your
lives.)

Today I am making samples of wood chips containing 0, 10, 20, 25, and 30%
moisture for testing. Art, I have a $10 bet with Alex English that I can
use wood with 25% Moisture in the stove. Wish me luck.

We have a tiger by the tail here.

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Oct 25 20:02:00 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Alligning molecules
Message-ID: <199810252012_MC2-5DFA-B7A3@compuserve.com>

Dear Skip and others:

Please write only to me when asking about things not related to
gasification. I know it's a pain, since the return address here is
"Gasification" and you have to look up my address separately, but life's a
bitch and then you die.

I believe that you are talking about the ability of high power lasers to
vaporize water and heat air which then creates a path for another laser to
pass through. All star war stuff and does NOT imply lining up molecules.
Sorry about that.

TOM

I appreciate you saving me from 'chasing rabbits' with some of my ideas
such
as lasers to line up the gasses. However, two things come to mind that I
have
seen.
1. An anti submarine laser uses what is known as a 'Green Laser' to sorta
bore
a hole through the water and the high power laser goes down through the
middle
of that. How it works, I don't know ....but it does.
2. Particle beam cannons use a laser to line up gas molecules when shot
through the air...they fire through the middle of the laser again.

so what I want to know is if a laser can line up water, can it line up
steam
or perhaps another bi polar molecule? if so, the implications are
enormouse.
>From easier scrubbing, to smaller catalysts, and even sending the gas or
steam
through a divergent nozzle with integral laser would make for very high
velocity and a low co efficient of drag in pipes, etc...
skip
<

 

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Oct 25 20:03:14 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas/Electric/Biomass cooking efficiency
Message-ID: <199810252012_MC2-5DFA-B7AD@compuserve.com>

All:

Since all Humans cook, the world energy consumption and practices for
cooking are of international importance.

In my recent measurement of electric stove efficiency (~65%) I commented
that after power generation and transmission losses are taken into account
this is probably less than 20% efficient. DIRECT use of the natural gas
gives 30-50% efficiency, as does our wood gas stove.

Someone should get a grant (World Bank) to make this comparison. We spend
too much time measuring in our own little field and not enough cross
checking.

TOM REED

Message text written by Dick Glick
>
Hello Harry and All --

To add fire to the discussion and as an example of a step toward
conservation, I suggest the Laws of Thermodynamics would point to favoring
the direct use of natural gas rather than its use for power generation by
the electrical industry. You might want to examine the former application
rather than the latter in your next analysis.

The test case is before us, however, when we consider what energy
consumption in California would be if the energy derived from gas use there
were to be replaced by electricity generated by that gas.

Best, Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Harry W. Parker" wrote:

<

 

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Oct 25 20:04:07 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers & Associated Power Units, etc.
Message-ID: <199810252012_MC2-5DFA-B7A1@compuserve.com>

Dear Russell:

Let me re-iterate Tom Reed's rule for octane:

"The Octane of a fuel is approximately the maximum compression ratio that
can be used without preignition X TEN" (or the max compression ratio =
octane/10)

Since it is necessary to use pilot diesel for producer gas-diesel, the
"octane" on this scale must be >150. I doubt if anyone has ever measured
a labortory "research octane" or "motor octane", so I use my "Reed octane"
until I can find a better one.

Since octane is a measure of the resistance to pre-ignition, it is not
surprising that producer gas (5 MJ/nm3) is harder to light than methane
(>25 MJ/nm3).

Yours, TOM REED

 

Many thanks indeed for your comments re diesel injectors for CI engines
running on high percentages of producer gas. I suspect that you could
well have offered the key to the problem. I would certainly be delighted
to be able to tell you so if a conversion proves successful in this case.

I am also interested to note your comments re compression ratios. I would
never have guessed that the octane rating for producer gas was anywhere
near
so high. This suggests that reduction of standard diesel compression
ratios may not in fact be necessary at all for dual fuel operation.

I will aim to keep you posted of developments here in Ireland in this
regard.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Russell.
<

 

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Mon Oct 26 08:51:29 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gas efficiency?
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810261401380066@classic.msn.com>

>>>
In my recent measurement of electric stove efficiency (~65%) I commented
that after power generation and transmission losses are taken into account
this is probably less than 20% efficient. DIRECT use of the natural gas
gives 30-50% efficiency, as does our wood gas stove.
>>>
I think the point is being missed. It is not the efficiency of the gas, but
rather the total consumption of wood. If wood is to be considered a waste
product and material handling of it dismissed, then the same logic should be
applied to using natural gas which is already in the ground and ready to be
piped.
Skip
Sensible Steam

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Mon Oct 26 08:51:49 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Laser gas scrubbing and acetelyne
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810261401400503@classic.msn.com>

Tom,
Lasers do a lot more than vaporize and burn. The green laser used in water
is very low power. That I know. What I don't know is if that same tech. can
be used to align bi-polar molecules. Perhaps one of your colleagues from a
university who works with lasers could post for us on this.
Also, acetelyne is not costly! We made it in highschool by passing methane
through a very hot piece of glass. Part of that experiment was to show how
safe it was as it won't burn without the presence of oxygen. The reason I
asked about it being used in engines is because I read about it being used in
engines in WW2. So, naturally, I got out my torch and fed it to my Lincoln
gas powered arc welder. The engine did idle but I couldn't controll it past
that. Try it!

Also, concerning the use of wood gas in ic engines, most small diesels use a
'pre-combustion chamber' while the larger ones are all direct injection. I
think that this has a lot to do with the success of using diesel as a
preigniter charge. I wish I had a vw engine to give you for you to experiment
with.
WARNING: In the diesel field, you will get two very strong and differing
opinions on direct injection vs. precombustion.
Good luck on the bet Tom. Sounds like your success with the coal is just like
what happens every day in a downdraft grate boiler. I will try to send you a
pic of one made 90 years ago.
Thanx
Skip

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

 

From boilrmkr at surfsouth.com Mon Oct 26 10:14:23 1998
From: boilrmkr at surfsouth.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers & Associated Power Units, etc.
In-Reply-To: <199810252012_MC2-5DFA-B79D@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <363493B7.2DF1AE82@surfsouth.com>

Tom Reed wrote:

> Most acetylene is made industrially by converting methane (20%) in
> pyrolytic or electric arc processes. Used to be made from calcium carbide
> by adding water. I have a carbide lamp that burns 4 hours on one charge
> and gives much better light than most flashlights.

I've pictures of acetylene pots that we used in Bolivia to supply our cutting
torches (pretty spooky). Our biggest problem was each charge was only good for
about 15-20 minutes. We had to do some stress relieving (1000 F for one hour)
and had to have them truck in cylinders.

The rougher it is, the better we like it.

Gene Zebley

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

 

From antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br Mon Oct 26 17:23:14 1998
From: antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br (Antonio G. P. Hilst)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers & Associated Power Units, etc.
In-Reply-To: <199810252012_MC2-5DFA-B79D@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <3634F80B.73B162C@merconet.com.br>

 

Gene Zebley wrote:

> Tom Reed wrote:
>
> > Most acetylene is made industrially by converting methane (20%) in
> > pyrolytic or electric arc processes. Used to be made from calcium carbide
> > by adding water. I have a carbide lamp that burns 4 hours on one charge
> > and gives much better light than most flashlights.
>
> I've pictures of acetylene pots that we used in Bolivia to supply our cutting
> torches (pretty spooky). Our biggest problem was each charge was only good for
> about 15-20 minutes. We had to do some stress relieving (1000 F for one hour)
> and had to have them truck in cylinders.
>
> The rougher it is, the better we like it.
>
> Gene Zebley
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

Dear Fellows,

The classical acetylene storage medium is sawdust soaked with acetone which is a
very good acetylene solvent. You can dissolve 500 volumes (as I recall) of acetyle
per unit volume of the carrier at medium pressure. I'm sure you'll find details in
the "fifties" technical litterature.

Antonio.

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Mon Oct 26 20:29:15 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: more on basics
In-Reply-To: <0F16002EBFIUR3@PM01SM.PMM.MCI.NET>
Message-ID: <363521AF.3A6A6F69@c2i.net>

Michael Schwerin wrote:
<snip>
Perhaps the apparent shrill tone (completely unintended)
distorted my
message.  There is no hidden agenda here.  I am not an advocate
of coal, or
..I am. ;-)
for that matter any other carbon source.  I
am completely neutral as to the
relative social benefits of recycling old or new carbon, as long as
it can
be done cleanly in terms of current emissions and residue.  (Perhaps
this
neutrality itself is offensive to some of you.)  I am merely appealing
to
your collective experience and wisdom to establish whether modern,
efficient, clean gasification of biomass or coal can be economically
competitive with airblown methane reforming for syngas production feeding
a
conversion process operating near ambient pressure and temperature
(35-40oC).
..a basic question: Does your prospective clients technology produce syngas
(ie: H2+CO) at 35-40oC ???

From arnt at c2i.net Mon Oct 26 20:29:22 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Stirling, now or never??
In-Reply-To: <199810210716_MC2-5D67-E8A9@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <36351F86.1DA5C6F7@c2i.net>

Tom Reed wrote:

> Someone asked about the STC Stirling generator:
>
> >you must mean 350 kW as in kilowatts? (10 yrs ago I read about a swede who
> made a scale model of a WWII tractor with gasifier, where the gasifier
> actually
> did produce smoke on charcoal...
>
> Nope, only 350 W. Should we be happy that we can generate power at that
> small scale or sorry that it won't serve a small town?

..gee, can working gasifiers be made that small? Briggs& Stratton grass mower
engines will output about a kilowatt on wood gas, but we had dump the bulk of
the gas into the flare. So generation of 350 W is no problem.
But you might want to do it cost effectively: Rule of thumb:
A 10 HP (gasoline rated) engine driving a 5 kW generator should match the gas
production of a small (70 mm throat) wood gas gasifier on a continous basis.
See Gengas.

 

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Mon Oct 26 20:29:18 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Basics - reply to AK/$$ and cents
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810210532210029@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <3635237F.B78E5172@c2i.net>

Dale Costich wrote:

> Skip: I always knew I liked the way you think! no one gave me my 1.5 KW
> array-we Home Power folks have a decided advantage over these
> "gridders". What if they had a war and nobody came? What if they had a
> highway-and nobody drove? Dale

..why this row over "home power's" and "gridder's"? Unite the advantages;
set up your 15kW home power plant, hook it to the grid and sell those 13.5
kW you don't need to the gridder's...

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Mon Oct 26 22:07:09 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ye olde zeolites
In-Reply-To: <19981025051908.3710.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <36352D9E.66CD80B7@c2i.net>

Susanne Machler wrote:

> Hi again,
> I realise that both groups might have a similar problem, namely the
> filtration of gases. We need cooling, refridgeration on the homestead. A
> few months ago, I was following a thread on using the thermal behaviour
> of zeolites as an alternative adsorbent material.
> It is a known fact that zeolites can be bought and easily manufactured,
> with various atomis structures, and meshes, making effectively from my
> laywomans uunderstanding, a perfect filter. Zeolites are used
> extensively as filters for bad smells etc. Why is it I havent heard of
> any enterprising persons, trying some more research here?
> The stove, biogas, gasification, syngas, and other folks might find
> these filters at atomic levels most useful. Think of a multistage filter
> "straining" off the various gases at different levels....
>
> Is this an idea, or is it my perfect world mind working on me ?

..you might want to look up "membrane separation" in your favorite search
engine, here, you should find references to means and methods of separating
fluids (gases and liquids) from solids and each other, by forcing the
smaller molecule fluids thru' the *membranes*, retaining the larger
molecule fluids and solids. If memory serves, Topsoe in Denmark sell plants
using zeolite membranes that can produce gasoline from (heated and
pressurized) syngas.

/Arnt

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Tue Oct 27 01:07:34 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ye olde zeolites
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810270618410907@classic.msn.com>

molecule fluids and solids. If memory serves, Topsoe in Denmark sell plants
using zeolite membranes that can produce gasoline from (heated and
pressurized) syngas.
<>>>
Arnt, could you please post what these membranes are made of?

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Tue Oct 27 01:08:15 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Basics - reply to AK/$$ and cents
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810270618400485@classic.msn.com>

..why this row over "home power's" and "gridder's"? Unite the advantages;
set up your 15kW home power plant, hook it to the grid and sell those 13.5
kW you don't need to the gridder's...
>>>>>
not cost effective. that is an important factor to those of us who do not
thrive from the public pork trough (aka:institutions). not being rude, just
factual. the only way gassification will succeed in the real world is if it
is weaned from the subsidy racket. i have noticed several inputs on this
forum from gasifiers on the free market. that is great but they all seem to
be foriegn.......
skip

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

 

From greensue at hotmail.com Tue Oct 27 02:31:55 1998
From: greensue at hotmail.com (Susanne Machler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ye olde zeolites
Message-ID: <19981027074311.17589.qmail@hotmail.com>

Tah for the pointer...
Sue

 

 

 

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 03:19:10 +0100
From: Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net>
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Ye olde zeolites
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org

Susanne Machler wrote:

> Hi again,
> I realise that both groups might have a similar problem, namely the
> filtration of gases. We need cooling, refridgeration on the homestead.
A
> few months ago, I was following a thread on using the thermal
behaviour
> of zeolites as an alternative adsorbent material.
> It is a known fact that zeolites can be bought and easily
manufactured,
> with various atomis structures, and meshes, making effectively from my
> laywomans uunderstanding, a perfect filter. Zeolites are used
> extensively as filters for bad smells etc. Why is it I havent heard of
> any enterprising persons, trying some more research here?
> The stove, biogas, gasification, syngas, and other folks might find
> these filters at atomic levels most useful. Think of a multistage
filter
> "straining" off the various gases at different levels....
>
> Is this an idea, or is it my perfect world mind working on me ?

..you might want to look up "membrane separation" in your favorite
search
engine, here, you should find references to means and methods of
separating
fluids (gases and liquids) from solids and each other, by forcing the
smaller molecule fluids thru' the *membranes*, retaining the larger
molecule fluids and solids. If memory serves, Topsoe in Denmark sell
plants
using zeolite membranes that can produce gasoline from (heated and
pressurized) syngas.

/Arnt

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

 

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

 

From j.andries at wbmt.tudelft.nl Tue Oct 27 04:33:10 1998
From: j.andries at wbmt.tudelft.nl (jans andries)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 3 PhD positions available at the Delft univ of Technology
Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19981027104406.007a3510@130.161.17.188>

The section thermal power engineering of the Delft University of Technology
in The Netherlands is active in the field of biomass gasification and
is operating a 1.5 MWth pressurized process development unit consisting of
a bubbling fluidized bed gasifier, a high temperature ceramic filter and a
gas turbine combustor.
We are trying to find 3 PhD students for the following research projects:
advanced gas turbine processes, gasifier - gasturbine integration and high
temperature fuel cells.
More information can be obtained from j.andries@wbmt.tudelft.nl
jans andries
section thermal power engineering
delft university of technology
mekelweg 2
2628 CD Delft
the netherlands
tel +31-15-2785410 fax: +31-15-2782460
J.ANDRIES@WBMT.TUDELFT.NL

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

 

From iti at connect-2.co.uk Tue Oct 27 07:28:05 1998
From: iti at connect-2.co.uk (ITI)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: High Compressibility of Producer Gas
Message-ID: <01be01a6$075a2620$LocalHost@fpgcsxhi>

 

Dear Tom (et al)

I have been thinking further about your comments concerning the high
pre-ignition resistance of producer gas.

This, coupled with your suggested theoretical limit of 18:1 compression
ratio, would
lead me to suppose that a dual fuel diesel could in fact be quite heavily
supercharged or turbocharged without any particularly adverse effects on the
engine. Is this correct; or does this take the logic too far ?
Does the answer depend on the raw fuel stock used and the consequent
percentage hydrogen ?
Is the main problem one of health and safety (as a result of potential
producer gas leakage ) ?

Your comments also lead me to wonder if the true problem with CI dual fuel
operation is not in fact early ignition, nor even detonation (assuming low
H2) but rather SLOW FLAME SPEED.
In such a case, the fuel would continue to burn more than normal past TDC,
resulting in a lower-than-expected mechanical output and excessive exhaust
gas temperatures - perhaps even if the injection were timed somewhat early.
If this is indeed the case, then supercharging with additional air could
perhaps improve the performance of the engine beyond the mass percentage
increase ratio.

Did Mike Graboski supercharge or turbocharge his Cooper Bessemer engine ?
Were any of his research results ever published ?

 

With thanks again for your responses to date,

Yours sincerely,

Brian Russell.

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

 

From K.K.Prasad at phys.tue.nl Tue Oct 27 08:05:41 1998
From: K.K.Prasad at phys.tue.nl (K. K. Prasad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: High Compressibility of Producer Gas
Message-ID: <199810271317.OAA18295@silicon.tue.nl>

From: "ITI" <iti@connect-2.co.uk>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Subject: GAS-L: High Compressibility of Producer Gas
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:33:41 -0000
Reply-to: gasification@crest.org

Dear Tom (et al)

I have been thinking further about your comments concerning the high
pre-ignition resistance of producer gas.

This, coupled with your suggested theoretical limit of 18:1 compression
ratio, would
lead me to suppose that a dual fuel diesel could in fact be quite heavily
supercharged or turbocharged without any particularly adverse effects on the
engine. Is this correct; or does this take the logic too far ?
Does the answer depend on the raw fuel stock used and the consequent
percentage hydrogen ?
Is the main problem one of health and safety (as a result of potential
producer gas leakage ) ?

I AGREE TURBOCHARGING. SAFETY QUESTION IN SMALL INSTALLATIONS MIGHT
BE A CAUSE FOR WORRY.

Your comments also lead me to wonder if the true problem with CI dual fuel
operation is not in fact early ignition, nor even detonation (assuming low
H2) but rather SLOW FLAME SPEED.

I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE. BUT ALAS THERE HAS BEEN
VIRTUALLY NO WORK IN THIS AREA. MAYBE IT IS CONSIDERED TOO
OLD_FASHIONED.

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

 

From rbaileyj at prmenergy.com Tue Oct 27 08:14:56 1998
From: rbaileyj at prmenergy.com (Ronald W. Bailey, Sr.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Basics - reply to AK/$$ and cents
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810270618400485@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <3635CB9E.1BC3A8A0@prmenergy.com>

Skip:
Click here for the real world
of gasification.
Ron Bailey

From DMcilveenw at aol.com Tue Oct 27 09:19:40 1998
From: DMcilveenw at aol.com (DMcilveenw@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Basics - reply to AK/$$ and cents
Message-ID: <c9b38f5d.3635d903@aol.com>

In a message dated 10/27/98 6:21:32AM, you write:

<< i have noticed several inputs on this
forum from gasifiers on the free market. that is great but they all seem to
be foriegn.......
skip >>

Foreign? You are on the Internet. Nowhere is foreign in cyberspace!

David McIlveen-Wright,
NICERT / Energy Research Centre,
University of Ulster,
Coleraine,
N. Ireland,
Europe,
Etc.

(Where are you from? Is it important to know?)
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Oct 27 09:20:28 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Commercial Gasification Operations
In-Reply-To: <24564-3631FF3A-1541@mailtod-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <36354134.FFE9ED9A@c2i.net>

..and lumping *all* those reactions together, you get?

Charles S Federle wrote:

> Charles S. Federle 1440 Cardington Road, Kettering, Ohio
> 45409 offers the following equations for use to gasify carbon.
> Carbon mixed with common salt mixed with calcium oxide and
> heated to 1,700 degrees F., results in sodium gas, carbon monoxide gas,
> and calcium chloride solid lumps.
> Carbon mixed with some aluminium powder in powdered
> aluminium oxide and heated white hot, results in lumps of aluminium
> carbide. Aluminium carbide reacts with water to make methane and
> aluminium hydroxide. Aluminium hydroxide mixed with some aluminium and
> some powdered carbon, makes aluminium carbide.
> Molten manganese reacts with carbon to make manganese
> tricarbide. Manganese tricarbide reacts with water to make mostly
> hydrogen, some methane, and some ethane.
> One part carbon in six parts calcium sulfate. when heated
> to 900 C, makes powdered calcium sulfide and carbon monoxide gas. 900
> C. steam passing through calcium sulfide makes calcium sulfate and
> hydrogen mixed with steam.
> Help in selection, design, purchase, construction, and
> operational aspects of those equations are available to those who
> qualify.
> Qualifers agree to keep all carbon dioxide resulting from those
> reactions, out of the air.

..why make it *unavailable* to the biosphaere?

> Oxygen gas, or compounds of oxygen, must be used as a
> souece of oxygen. Air is not acceptable.

..why not? Oxygen plants are *expensive*...

> The products of combustion
> must not be discarded.

..agreed.

> People who want to gasify municipal solid waste should
> send email to charlesfederle@webtv.net

/Arnt

 

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Oct 27 09:20:30 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Laser gas scrubbing and acetelyne
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810261401400503@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <363547E3.B6EA9BEA@c2i.net>

Skip,

..you might want to look up "membrane separation", as a reasonable alternative to
"laser gas scrubbing". See my post to Sue here on the list.
skip goebel wrote:
<snip>

> Also, concerning the use of wood gas in ic engines, most small diesels use a
> 'pre-combustion chamber' while the larger ones are all direct injection.

..these lend themselves useable to a stratified charge/ lean burn scheme:feed
pressurized gas (or gas+air mix) into the pre-combustion chamber to produce a rich
charge, which in turn will "flame" the lean main cylinder charge.
<snip>

> Good luck on the bet Tom. Sounds like your success with the coal is just like
> what happens every day in a downdraft grate boiler. I will try to send you a
> pic of one made 90 years ago.

..will you post this to the list?

/Arnt

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Oct 27 09:20:43 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gasifiers & Associated Power Units, etc.
In-Reply-To: <01bdfddc$889c0280$LocalHost@fpgcsxhi>
Message-ID: <36353C7C.6AF86FC3@c2i.net>

ITI wrote:

> "it depends what you want..." is your answer to my long list of queries
> concerning gasifiier CHP plants. In fact, my objectives on this topic are
> extremely widespread. I would for instance be very interested to establish
> a small CHP plant at our family home in Co. Antrim, where some farmland is
> attached and we have a ready supply of assorted timber. In this case, the
> maximum power requirement could be a low as 15 kW.

..deal. :-)

> As a professional engineer, I would also like to be in a position to advise
> a wide range of local businesspeople on the appropriate power plant for
> their various needs. For example, a local farmer has already established a
> 100 kWe biomass power plant, but he has only been able to generate 90 kW
> maximum due to excessive exhaust gas temperatures. He is working at 10%
> diesel, and I suspect that the diesel injection timing is not effectively

..I suspect, the gas is burning to slow, for this application.This may sound
wild, but water injection might cure it. I need more data.

> controlling the combustion process. Indeed, I would have thought that a
> compression ratio of 13.5:1 would still be on the high side in this
> situation. Surely the gas is still bound to ignite much too early in the
> cycle, causing very high stresses, excessive temperatures and lower
> efficiency overall ?

..no. (I *am* assuming SI/Otto operation.) I've learned 13.5 is ideal for
syngas.

> Have you any experience of running diesels at such high gas percentages ?

..personally, sorry, no. I build on litterature stating pilot fuel usage down to
5%. I am also aware of modification schemes used during WWII, using SI, and
semi-diesel glow heads and exhaust gas recycling, eliminating the diesel oil
pilot fuel requirement.

> Might it not be possible to drop the compression ratio still further and
> adapt the cylinder head for SI operation ?

..sure. I'd delay inlet valve closure, timing it to produce a low effective c/r
at idle and high ditto at working rpm's, taking advantage of the gas inertia to
supercharge. Also, turbocharging is nice, target effective c/r remains 13.5. On
a 10 c/r engine, simply boost manifold pressure by 35% over ambient.

> The unit must consume less then 10% fossil fuel to comply with the
> requirements of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation.
>
> Another case concerns an MDF manufacturer who is presently generating 150
> kg/hr of fine waste material and who will soon be generating 300 kg/hr. At
> present, a proportion of the waste is incinerated for heat to supply hot air

..gasify, gasify! 300kg/h x 3.5kWh/kg is in my book, around 300 kW of
electricity and 600 kW of heat, plus losses. Make a deal?

> to his factory. I strongly suspect that a biomass-fuelled generating plant
> of perhaps 300-400 kWe could be commercially available to him at a
> reasonable capital cost to allow him to establish CHP (cogeneration). I am
> not at all sure though what power unit would be most appropriate at this
> scale of operation ( dual fuel diesel, spark ignition, gas turbine (direct
> combustion), gas turbine (indirect heating), etc...)

..go for gasification feeding a SI engine, easiest and cheapest way. But why
stop at 500 kWe? Plants becomes more profitable as they grow beyond a MW. By all
means, do start in a small scale, where errors are manageable.

> Are you aware of any studies which have been conducted into the comparative
> thermal efficiencies of various prime movers of various sizes (up to 500
> kWe) running on production gas ? I would be particularly interested to
> source more information concerning the specific power outputs (for example,
> in terms of kg fuel/ kWh of electrical output).

..look up http://www.juniper.co.uk/pyroflyr.htm. Look up
http://142.17.170.5/Arnt/index.html for a *rough* study of my own.

 

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

 

From kjohnson at cert.ucr.edu Tue Oct 27 10:43:00 1998
From: kjohnson at cert.ucr.edu (Kent Johnson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Postdoc in Gasification
Message-ID: <3635ECEA.77A251A0@cert.ucr.edu>

Postdoctoral Researcher - Renewable Energy

CE-CERT solicits applications for a postdoctoral researcher to work in
our Renewable Fuels and Energy Group
<http://www.cert.ucr.edu/ref/index.html> beginning in the summer/fall of
1999. Research will involve pyrolitic and biological processes for
conversion of biomass to liquid and gaseous transportation fuels.
Support will be provided by U.S. and international contracts and
fellowships. Please send resume, list of publications, and references to
Joseph M. Norbeck, CE-CERT 022, University of California, Riverside, CA
92521-0434.

 

--
University of California, Riverside
College of Engineering
Center for Environmental Research and Technology
Riverside, CA 92521

Kent Johnson
Phone (909) 781-5786
Fax (909) 781-5790
kjohnson@cert.ucr.edu

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Oct 27 11:44:33 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Basics - reply to AK/$$ and cents
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810270618400485@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <3635FA03.C1776FA4@c2i.net>

skip goebel wrote:

> ..why this row over "home power's" and "gridder's"? Unite the advantages;
> set up your 15kW home power plant, hook it to the grid and sell those 13.5
> kW you don't need to the gridder's...
> >>>>>
> not cost effective. that is an important factor to those of us who do not
> thrive from the public pork trough (aka:institutions). not being rude, just
> factual. the only way gassification will succeed in the real world is if it
> is weaned from the subsidy racket. i have noticed several inputs on this
> forum from gasifiers on the free market. that is great but they all seem to
> be foriegn.......

..15 kW is as *small* as you'd go. Grass mower engines I consider a gimmickthat
just prove gasification based (home) power is practical, but these engines
are to small for practical gasifiers, so gas must be fed to several or flared.
For the US do-it-yourself'ers, used V-8's would *be* cost effective...

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Oct 27 11:44:43 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ye olde zeolites
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810270618410907@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <3635F6AE.FF5FD8D2@c2i.net>

skip goebel wrote:

> molecule fluids and solids. If memory serves, Topsoe in Denmark sell plants
> using zeolite membranes that can produce gasoline from (heated and
> pressurized) syngas.
> <>>>
> Arnt, could you please post what these membranes are made of?

..sorry, I goofed; Topsøe's 3 stage MTG (Methane To Gasoline)
process used a zeolite *catalyst* known as HZSM-5.
Fossil natural gas is turned into syngas at 15-20 bars, syngas is
then compressed to 30-60 bars and synthesized into oxygenate,
then pressure is bled to the 15-20 bars gasoline synthesis stage.
Source: Paper at Topsøe Seminar on Synthesis Gas Technologies,
October 1986, by Haldor Topsøe A/S

..for further reading on membrane separation, I recommend
"Basic principles of Membrane Technology" by Marcel Mulder,
ISBN 0-7923-0979-0

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

 

From michael.schwerin at internetMCI.com Tue Oct 27 12:03:08 1998
From: michael.schwerin at internetMCI.com (Michael Schwerin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ye olde zeolites
Message-ID: <0F1H0053XX4090@PM05SM.PMM.CW.NET>

I think you will find that this is the technology used at Methanex'
(formerly Fletcher-Challenge's; originally, Mobil's) Motunui, New Zealand
gas-to-gasoline facility. Despite the strong local market for gasoline,
Methanex rarely runs the full conversion, but rather routes the oxygenate
(raw methanol) to a purifier for production of fuel grade methanol.

----------
> From: Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Ye olde zeolites
> Date: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 11:37 AM
>
> skip goebel wrote:
>
> > molecule fluids and solids. If memory serves, Topsoe in Denmark sell
plants
> > using zeolite membranes that can produce gasoline from (heated and
> > pressurized) syngas.
> > <>>>
> > Arnt, could you please post what these membranes are made of?
>
> ..sorry, I goofed; Topsøe's 3 stage MTG (Methane To Gasoline)
> process used a zeolite *catalyst* known as HZSM-5.
> Fossil natural gas is turned into syngas at 15-20 bars, syngas is
> then compressed to 30-60 bars and synthesized into oxygenate,
> then pressure is bled to the 15-20 bars gasoline synthesis stage.
> Source: Paper at Topsøe Seminar on Synthesis Gas Technologies,
> October 1986, by Haldor Topsøe A/S
>
> ..for further reading on membrane separation, I recommend
> "Basic principles of Membrane Technology" by Marcel Mulder,
> ISBN 0-7923-0979-0
>
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Tue Oct 27 12:06:46 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ye olde zeolites
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810271717190139@classic.msn.com>

.sorry, I goofed; Topsøe's 3 stage MTG (Methane To Gasoline)
process used a zeolite *catalyst* known as HZSM-5.
Fossil natural gas is turned into syngas at 15-20 bars, syngas is
then compressed to 30-60 bars and synthesized into oxygenate,
then pressure is bled to the 15-20 bars gasoline synthesis stage.
Source: Paper at Topsøe Seminar on Synthesis Gas Technologies,
October 1986, by Haldor Topsøe A/S
>>>>
thanx for the info Arnt, I have one more question. How do they oxygenate and
at what temp without a delta positive reaction and if so, what keeps it from
just burning on and on?
skip

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

 

From dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu Tue Oct 27 12:42:17 1998
From: dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: USMC Project
Message-ID: <4106288187B3D111A09A000083A82DF01E655C@undeerc.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

 

 
Hello,  I was the on site engineer at Camp Lejuene.  Sounds like you all
have definite opinions about our experience.  I invite questions and
criticism, and would like to know who has operating systems at 1MWe scale.

Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
Energy and Environmental Research Center
PO Box 9018 Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018
ph. (701)777-5120 fax (701)777-5181
<mailto:dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu> dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Tue Oct 27 18:38:45 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: USMC Project
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810272350000336@classic.msn.com>

Mr. Schmidt,
Could you please post the Lejuene system's total fuel input and actual net
output?
Also, was the system run 24 hours a day all year long?
What was the $$/watt total construction cost and do you have a material
handling cost?
Thanx
Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Tue Oct 27 18:38:53 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Laser gas scrubbing and acetelyne
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810272349580461@classic.msn.com>

Arnt,
sorry i cannot post objects. i am on msn and they suc...
on using diesel as the preignition charge in precombustion chambers, most do
not use a stratified charge. further, the use of a bosch type injector lends
itself to multifuel use.
stratified charges in small engines are usually for gasoline types.
also, what is the cost analysis of using kerosine or napatha instead of
diesel?
how do modern powerplants avoid the destruction of ic engines due to the
corrosivenes of the gas? i know in the old days, they had extra oil on the
cylinder walls and didnt mind the oil consumption.
one last one: how hard is it to turn these esters into a oil?
skip

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

 

From CharlesFederle at webtv.net Tue Oct 27 19:19:45 1998
From: CharlesFederle at webtv.net (Charles S Federle)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Postdoc in Gasification
Message-ID: <23262-363665E9-795@mailtod-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net>

Dear Mr. Norbeck:
More research on the production of fuels and energy from
biomass is not needed. What is needed is a recognition of the necessity
to cease adding carbon dioxide to the earths atmosphere at rates greater
than withdrawal of the CO2.
Extraction of coal, oil, and gas from the earth will cease
some year. Expecting to use large organisms, like trees, as a source
of energy, is an overly optomistic guess. Redwood trees do not grow fast
enough to meet the need, nor do melaleuca trees grow fast enough,
because the larger the organism, the slower it grows.
Micro-organisms convert CO2 into biomass at tremendously
fast rates. Micro-organisms convert biomass into lipids which are
suitable for motor fuel. It is the process of tossing CO2 to the sky
that must be stopped! CO2 is a valuable a source of carbon that is
being neglected by universities and our government.
Sunlight on micro-organism is a good enough source of
energy to reduce CO2 to carbon compounds. Those carbon compounds. called
biomass will produce high temperature heat if changed to carbon, and
burned in a furnace. The heat producing furnace should not have a
chimney. All the CO2 should be sent to the cultures. The damage done
to our world, by processes which waste CO2, will continue until it
becomes fashionable to burn the same group of carbon atoms multiple
times.

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

 

From bywateri at convertech.co.nz Tue Oct 27 20:38:04 1998
From: bywateri at convertech.co.nz (Ian Bywater)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Trees as Biomass
Message-ID: <v01540b12b25c357203d5@[202.37.189.18]>

Charles Federle says: Expecting to use large organisms, like trees, as a source
of energy, is an overly optomistic guess (sic). Redwood trees do not grow fast
enough to meet the need, nor do melaleuca trees grow fast enough, because
the larger the organism, the slower it grows.

I hope Charles is the only one on this lisst who thinks biomass=trees!

Ian Bywater, B.Sc.(Eng), C.Eng, MIEE, MIPENZ
General Manager
Convertech Ltd
P O Box 13-776
Christchurch
New Zealand

"Convertech - The gateway to the new carbohydrate economy"

Phone:+64-33-79-33-01
Fax: +64-33-79-33-03
email: bywateri@convertech.co.nz
web sites: http://www.southpower.co.nz/conver.htm
http://www.caddet-re.org/html/198art1.htm

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Tue Oct 27 22:36:29 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Postdoc in Gasification
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810280347400232@classic.msn.com>

Mr. Federle has a very valid point. I am surprised BP or someone like that
hasn't done this and made it illeagal for everyone else to do.

Is it that avenues such as this pose a threat to the grant pork barrel?
Surely, this gassification posesses enough brain power to develop along these
lines.

Throw my hat in the ring Mr. Federle. Can you produce some specs on what you
have and what you need?

Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam
www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/6362

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Oct 28 00:22:55 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ye olde zeolites
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810271717190139@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <3636A6AB.C6CE2AD9@c2i.net>

skip goebel wrote:
.sorry, I goofed; Topsøe's 3 stage MTG (Methane
To Gasoline)
process used a zeolite *catalyst* known as HZSM-5.
Fossil natural gas is turned into syngas at 15-20 bars, syngas is
then compressed to 30-60 bars and synthesized into oxygenate,
..read up on "oxygenate synthesis", short version, is syngas is *compressedand
heated* inside a pressurized process vessel to produce oxygenates...
..I do not know temp. numbers, guess is around 300 to 600oC
then pressure is bled to the 15-20 bars gasoline
synthesis stage.
Source: Paper at Topsøe Seminar on Synthesis Gas Technologies,
October 1986, by Haldor Topsøe A/S
>>>>
thanx for the info Arnt, I have one more question.  How do they
oxygenate and
at what temp without a delta positive reaction and if so, what keeps
it from
just burning on and on?
skip

 

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Oct 28 00:22:57 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Laser gas scrubbing and acetelyne
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL01.199810272349580461@classic.msn.com>
Message-ID: <3636ABA6.19B26F9C@c2i.net>

skip goebel wrote:
on using diesel as the preignition charge in precombustion
chambers, most do
not use a stratified charge.  further, the use of a bosch type
injector lends
itself to multifuel use.
..I proposed using *pressurized (syn)gas* in the precombustion camber.
Ulstein, Jenbacher and Wärtsila call this scheme "Lean Burn".
stratified charges in small engines are usually for
gasoline types.
also, what is the cost analysis of using kerosine or napatha instead
of
diesel?
..does anyone know this?
how do modern powerplants avoid the destruction of
ic engines due to the
corrosivenes of the gas?
..by feeding ash-n-tar free syn- or wood gas to the engine.
i know in the old days, they had extra oil on the
cylinder walls and didnt mind the oil consumption.
one last one:  how hard is it to turn these esters into a oil?
..look up Tom Reed's page on McDiesel ;-) 

From tpreston at hcm.vnn.vn Wed Oct 28 00:33:19 1998
From: tpreston at hcm.vnn.vn (T R Preston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Trees as Biomass
Message-ID: <000001be0235$c9910800$9b74a7ca@tpreston>

As I indicated in an earlier message, sugar cane is probably the fastest
growing source of biomass, half of which is food (the sugar) and the other
half can be gasified. The problem is that where sugar cane grows there is
little development work on gasification other than in India (Professor
Mukunda and others), Australia (?) and in Brazil (but I think only with
wood). Are there others? With collaboration from one of your list members I
hope we can start something in Colombia. We will keep you posted. Pre- and
post-harvest burning of sugar cane around the world is a an important source
of pollution both gaseous as CO2 and as carbon particles. There is pressure
everywhere to stop the burning. This is our opportunity.

Regards

Reg Preston
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Bywater <bywateri@convertech.co.nz>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 8:52 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Trees as Biomass

>Charles Federle says: Expecting to use large organisms, like trees, as a
source
>of energy, is an overly optomistic guess (sic). Redwood trees do not grow
fast
>enough to meet the need, nor do melaleuca trees grow fast enough, because
>the larger the organism, the slower it grows.
>
>I hope Charles is the only one on this lisst who thinks biomass=trees!
>
>
>Ian Bywater, B.Sc.(Eng), C.Eng, MIEE, MIPENZ
>General Manager
>Convertech Ltd
>P O Box 13-776
>Christchurch
>New Zealand
>
>"Convertech - The gateway to the new carbohydrate economy"
>
>Phone:+64-33-79-33-01
>Fax: +64-33-79-33-03
>email: bywateri@convertech.co.nz
>web sites: http://www.southpower.co.nz/conver.htm
> http://www.caddet-re.org/html/198art1.htm
>
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

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

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Oct 28 01:40:13 1998
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: USMC Project
Message-ID: <eaa86686.3636bee1@aol.com>

Dear Mr Schmidt, others,

Welcome to the gasification list. Thanks for offering your time to respond to
questions about the Camp Lejeune project. I am particularly interested in
that system since I hope to construct a system with similar throughput.

The first question I have is regarding the seemingly large diameter of the
gasifier. The web site indicates a "2.1 meter (7 foot) diameter, down-draft,
fixed bed gasifier which operates under a slight vacuum and has a deep char
bed below the pyrolysis zone." I assume the Lejeune gasifier has no Imbert-
style "throat" (please correct me if I am wrong). The gas production rate
quoted is 0.497 sm3/s (1,789.2 sm3/h). A 2.1 meter diameter equates to a
3.4636 m2 cross-sectional area, which yields a gas generation rate of only 517
sm3 per square meter of cross-sectional area per hour (517 sm3/m2-h). This
is, of course, assuming my math is correct. :-)

The Imbert-style gasifier has a specific gas generation rate at the throat of
9000 nm3 of gas per square meter of cross-sectional area per hour (9000
nm3/m2-h), (Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine Systems, pg. 35,
Thomas B. Reed and Agua Das). Therefore the difference in producer gas
velocity between the two systems is nearly a factor of 18. Even when measured
at the larger diameter at air entry level (above the throat), the typical
Imbert-style gasifier has a generation rate of 2,300 nm3/m2-h, still a factor
of 4.4 greater than the Lejeune gasifier.

What were the reasons for selecting such a seemingly large diameter gasifier?
Do you consider the actual velocity of the gas through the fuel in the Lejeune
gasifier a significant factor in determining either the quality or quantity of
gas generated? Fuel drying and sizing aside, what other factors do you
consider to be of major importance in the Lejeune gasifier in producing high
Btu, low tar gas?

I have a few other questions as well, but I'll hold off on them for now.

Thanks for taking the time to help clarify these issues.
Vernon Harris
VHarris001@aol.com

In a message dated 10/27/98 12:56:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu writes:

> Subj: GAS-L: USMC Project
> Date: 10/27/98 12:56:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
> From: dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
> Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
</A>
> To: gasification@crest.org ('gasification@crest.org')
>
>  
>
>  
> Hello,  I was the on site engineer at Camp Lejuene.  Sounds like you all
> have definite opinions about our experience.  I invite questions and
> criticism, and would like to know who has operating systems at 1MWe scale.
>  
> Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
> Energy and Environmental Research Center
> PO Box 9018 Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018
> ph. (701)777-5120 fax (701)777-5181
> <mailto:dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu> dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu
>  

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

 

From dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu Wed Oct 28 08:17:33 1998
From: dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: USMC Project
Message-ID: <4106288187B3D111A09A000083A82DF01E6560@undeerc.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

 

I am particularly interested in that system since I hope to construct a
system with similar throughput.
(If you are planning on spending private $$ please consider the EERC Grand
Forks, ND as a source of matching funds)

I assume the Lejeune gasifier has no Imbert-style "throat"
(Correct)

What were the reasons for selecting such a seemingly large diameter
gasifier?
(Please understand that this project was more about getting as system up and
producing electricity than it was about gasification research. Many
questions were looked at, but we relied on a fixed price subcontract and the
subcontractor's experience with two previous commercial systems. The 2 main
reasons were residence time and previous success at this size. Residence
time was to allow cracking of tars. I do understand that very little tar
reduction occurs under 1600°F, however I would like to experiment with bed
depth to find out what effect it really has. Ancillary reasons include heat
capacitance of the bed; This allows stable temperature control and easy
restarts after shutdown; greater ability to handle larger fuel sizes. We
used wood chips straight from a tub grinder some particles 8 inches long.

Do you consider the actual velocity of the gas through the fuel in the
Lejeune
gasifier a significant factor in determining either the quality or quantity
of
gas generated?
(I don't know, and would like to find out from testing. From a practical
standpoint it gets very hard to control solids flow through the reactor.
What is your experience with Imbert style units? The result can be channels
and bridges that cause poor gas quality.

Fuel drying and sizing aside, what other factors do you
consider to be of major importance in the Lejeune gasifier in producing high
Btu, low tar gas?
(We found that the most significant factor was the maintainence of a fuel
cap above the combustion zone. If the combustion zone was allowed to burn
through the fuel it would immediately reduce the HHV. We never had a chance
to do a tar production study.)

I have a few other questions as well, but I'll hold off on them for now.

Thanks for taking the time to help clarify these issues.
Vernon Harris
VHarris001@aol.com

In a message dated 10/27/98 12:56:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu writes:

> Subj: GAS-L: USMC Project
> Date: 10/27/98 12:56:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
> From: dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
> Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
> Reply-to: <A
HREF="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
</A>
> To: gasification@crest.org ('gasification@crest.org')
>
>  
>
>  
> Hello,  I was the on site engineer at Camp Lejuene.  Sounds like you all
> have definite opinions about our experience.  I invite questions and
> criticism, and would like to know who has operating systems at 1MWe
scale.
>  
> Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
> Energy and Environmental Research Center
> PO Box 9018 Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018
> ph. (701)777-5120 fax (701)777-5181
> <mailto:dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu> dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu
>  

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

 

From dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu Wed Oct 28 08:27:31 1998
From: dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: USMC Project
Message-ID: <4106288187B3D111A09A000083A82DF01E6561@undeerc.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

 

 

Mr. Schmidt,
Could you please post the Lejuene system's total fuel input and actual
net
output?

Input 1800 lbs/hr @10% moisture 14.4MBtu/hr
Output 350KWe 1.2MBtu/hr
Eff. 8.3%

Keep in mind we had a turbocharged engine that was not getting any
turbo-boost and an unused diesel engine genset.
We could realistically achieve 800KW and 19% eff.

Also, was the system run 24 hours a day all year long?
Longest continuous run was 45 hours.
Total hours = 360.

What was the $$/watt total construction cost and do you have a material
handling cost?
I will answer this question if you tell me who you are and what are your
interests.

Thanx
Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Oct 28 08:46:32 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Commercial Gasification Operations
Message-ID: <199810280857_MC2-5E51-69F8@compuserve.com>

Dear Gasification:

someone said....

..why not? Oxygen plants are *expensive*...
<
So are electricity plants, but we all use and benefit from them. In bulk
oxygen costs less than $50/ton (cheaper than wood and one kg O2 gasifiers 4
kg wood).

I used to work for Linde in the 1950s and learned a lot about oxygen. I'm
still waiting for the world to catch up. Paper plants are now switching
form chlorine to oxygen as bleach and many other uses. So wake up to the
facts of oxygen.

TOM REED

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Oct 28 08:46:35 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: High Compressibility of Producer Gas
Message-ID: <199810280857_MC2-5E51-69FA@compuserve.com>

Dear Prasad:

Thanks for your comments. There are some things that I know, others that I
only suspect. Glad to have them confirmed here in this free for all
discussion of important technical issues.

Where have you been??? Lurking?

TOM

>Dear Tom (et al)

I have been thinking further about your comments concerning the high
pre-ignition resistance of producer gas.

This, coupled with your suggested theoretical limit of 18:1 compression
ratio, would
lead me to suppose that a dual fuel diesel could in fact be quite heavily
supercharged or turbocharged without any particularly adverse effects on
the
engine. Is this correct; or does this take the logic too far ?
Does the answer depend on the raw fuel stock used and the consequent
percentage hydrogen ?
Is the main problem one of health and safety (as a result of potential
producer gas leakage ) ?

I AGREE TURBOCHARGING. SAFETY QUESTION IN SMALL INSTALLATIONS MIGHT
BE A CAUSE FOR WORRY.

Your comments also lead me to wonder if the true problem with CI dual fuel
operation is not in fact early ignition, nor even detonation (assuming low
H2) but rather SLOW FLAME SPEED.

I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE. BUT ALAS THERE HAS BEEN
VIRTUALLY NO WORK IN THIS AREA. MAYBE IT IS CONSIDERED TOO
OLD_FASHIONED.

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

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Oct 28 08:46:50 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Stirling, now or never??
Message-ID: <199810280857_MC2-5E51-69FD@compuserve.com>

Dear Arnt Karlson et al:

You said..
>..gee, can working gasifiers be made that small? Briggs& Stratton grass
mower

Visit the STOVES node of CREST. They are making gasifiers in the 2-3
kWthermal range. Could supply stirlings.

Tom Reed

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Oct 28 08:47:50 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: USMC Project
Message-ID: <199810280857_MC2-5E51-69E4@compuserve.com>

Dear Darren:

I was nominally a consultant on the Camp Lejuene project, but only supplied
their library. I knew a great deal about MeChem and other antecedants, but
they went ahead on their own to rediscover the world of gasification.
Nice to make contact with the engineer rather than the bureaucrats. There
are no REAL (turnkey) operating 1 MW systems in the world, though there are
many projects like yours. I am currently working on a 25 kW turnkey
system.

In the 1975-1990 perio there were hundreds of gasification projects that
failed; no power projects that made it to commercial. When any gasification
fails it hurts all the others. If I can be of help with specific problems,
please let me know, and let me know the current status of your project.

I am currently finishing a "Survey of Biomass Gasifiction" for the National
Renewable Energy Lab, NREL. If your project would like to be listed,
please fill in the attached questionairre.

Onward, TOM REED -
MODERATOR

Hello,  I was the on site engineer at Camp Lejuene.  Sounds like you all
have definite opinions about our experience.  I invite questions and
criticism, and would like to know who has operating systems at 1MWe scale.

Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
Energy and Environmental Research Center
PO Box 9018 Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018
ph. (701)777-5120 fax (701)777-5181
<mailto:dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu> dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu
<

Thomas B. Reed: The Biomass Energy Foundation
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
303 278 0558V; 303 278 0560F
E-mail: reedtb@compuserve.com

~~~~

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

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

ORGANIZATION: (Name of company/organization)

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

CONTACT: (Name of person to contact)

COUNTRY:

PHONE/FAX: (including country code)

ADDRESS:

E-MAIL:

WWW PAGE:

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

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

SIZES: (Indicate built or planned)

UNITS BUILT: (or under construction)

YEARS IN OPERATION:

PROBABLE COST: ($/kWh or typical)

COMMENTS: (Brag a little)
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Oct 28 13:03:39 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: USMC Project
Message-ID: <6d1f4240.3637410e@aol.com>

Gasification list, Camp LeJeune Project:
The production of high levels of oils, tars, results from the low reaction
and gas velocity from the bed as I indicated in an earlier commentary. This
results in other problems such as failing to reduce the char to ash, a very
low conversion of carbon and less power than would be generated in a gasifier
such as the Imbert downdraft. This may result in the lowered power seen in the
engine from the overall rating.
My experience with high tar loading gasifier operation is thatthe gas
cleaning train handling becomes very complex and difficult. In our process we
recycle the cleaned tars and oils into the reactor where they are reduced to
ash and improved gas quality and conversion efficiency. Water based cleaning
produces an operational nightmare with pump fouling, pipe clogging and the
other problems which make it difficult. Having to dispose of the water/tar/oil
as a matrix will be difficult due to the nature of the compounds. Several of
these issues are not addressed in the information I have received. Disposal
of these wastes could very well stop the project. I am not sure what the char
is used for, but it has limited use.
Much of the work which we already done addresses these problems and was
available to the EPA and the other agencies involved. It would have made a
great deal of sense to implement our technology and bypass the evolutionary
process which appears to be the current program.
Of course, we are interested in any response to these comments.
Sincerely,

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

 

From dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu Wed Oct 28 14:18:58 1998
From: dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: USMC Project
Message-ID: <4106288187B3D111A09A000083A82DF01E6566@undeerc.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

What happened to your updraft inverted gasifier? Are you now using an
Imbert style? How did things go with the Canadian effort? Have you
published any papers on your work?

-----Original Message-----
From: LINVENT@aol.com [mailto:LINVENT@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 10:07 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re: USMC Project

Gasification list, Camp LeJeune Project:
The production of high levels of oils, tars, results from the low
reaction
and gas velocity from the bed as I indicated in an earlier commentary. This
results in other problems such as failing to reduce the char to ash, a
very
low conversion of carbon and less power than would be generated in a
gasifier
such as the Imbert downdraft. This may result in the lowered power seen in
the
engine from the overall rating.
My experience with high tar loading gasifier operation is thatthe
gas
cleaning train handling becomes very complex and difficult. In our process
we
recycle the cleaned tars and oils into the reactor where they are reduced to
ash and improved gas quality and conversion efficiency. Water based
cleaning
produces an operational nightmare with pump fouling, pipe clogging and the
other problems which make it difficult. Having to dispose of the
water/tar/oil
as a matrix will be difficult due to the nature of the compounds. Several
of
these issues are not addressed in the information I have received. Disposal
of these wastes could very well stop the project. I am not sure what the
char
is used for, but it has limited use.
Much of the work which we already done addresses these problems and
was
available to the EPA and the other agencies involved. It would have made a
great deal of sense to implement our technology and bypass the evolutionary
process which appears to be the current program.
Of course, we are interested in any response to these comments.
Sincerely,

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

 

From james at sri.org.au Wed Oct 28 17:13:52 1998
From: james at sri.org.au (James Joyce)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Commercial Gasification Operations
Message-ID: <19981029082531james@jj_lap.sri.org.au>

Pure oxygen is expensive (although getting cheaper thanks to non-
cryogenic processes) but low purity oxygen (less than 95% O2) or oxygen
enriched air (greater than 28% O2) are much cheaper, thanks to pressure
swing adsorption techniques and membrane technologies.

This is really all you need for gasification ... especially if you just
need to improve your gas heating value just above that necessary for
stable gas turbine combustion.

James Joyce
Engineer
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay Australia

> Dear Gasification:
>
> someone said....
>
> ..why not? Oxygen plants are *expensive*...
> <
> So are electricity plants, but we all use and benefit from them. In
> bulk
> oxygen costs less than $50/ton (cheaper than wood and one kg O2
> gasifiers 4
> kg wood).
>
> I used to work for Linde in the 1950s and learned a lot about
> oxygen. I'm
> still waiting for the world to catch up. Paper plants are now
> switching
> form chlorine to oxygen as bleach and many other uses. So wake up
> to the
> facts of oxygen.
>
> TOM REED
>
>
> Thomas B. Reed: The Biomass Energy Foundation
> 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> 303 278 0558V; 303 278 0560F
> E-mail: reedtb@compuserve.com
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

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

 

From bywateri at convertech.co.nz Wed Oct 28 20:44:43 1998
From: bywateri at convertech.co.nz (Ian Bywater)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: USMC Project
Message-ID: <v01540b04b25d416835fb@[202.37.189.18]>

Tom Taylor says:

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

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

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Wed Oct 28 23:36:31 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: USMC Project
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810290447280348@classic.msn.com>

Dear Tom, and others....
I ask a simple question. With all the material handling, etc.. that goes
with gasification, what are it's advantages over direct combustion (even with
secondary air) that has always been used in ordinary boilers?

Steam can be made as efficient as the pocket book will allow, and good firebox
design can allow for good combustion of even the crappiest of fuels. I
understand that studying combustion is important, but are we reinventing the
wheel here or do we enjoy playing with fire?
(not to mention earn a living)

Skip

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Oct 29 00:35:39 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: micro-gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <3637292C.348F@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <363800A9.2FECFFC9@c2i.net>

Dale Costich wrote:

> Arnt: please see http://members.tripod.com/~costich and under
> gasification find my operating system. 5 years now. I've run more than
> 100 hours and am still learning. I do batch approach here for my
> residence. I light the charcoal from the previous run operate 1 hour or
> less during which time I fill a 1000cuft ag-bag PVC silage bag with wood
> gas-it can be consumed up to a month later for cooking and heating
> purposes. I'm living proof small is do-able. Sincerely, Dale Costich

..Dale, I saw your website on your energy systems,
any pics of your gas bag system? How quick do you fill that bag?
Also like some details on your gasifier subsystems.

Tom Reed wrote:

> >..gee, can working gasifiers be made that small? Briggs& Stratton grass
> mower
>
> Visit the STOVES node of CREST. They are making gasifiers in the 2-3
> kWthermal range. Could supply stirlings.

..hum, that got me thinking, about the right size for a model airplane
engine,and flying one on charcoal gas *would* be a first time ever event...
..a swede *did fly* a full scale airplane on charcoal gas back in -43...

..now Skip asks a valid and simple question. The main advantage I see,
is gasification produce pretty clean gas out of pretty dirty fuels, and that

this gas is easily, cleanly and cheaply combustible not only in good boiler
fireboxes, but also in stirlings, fuel cells, internal combustion engines
and
cooking stoves. Co-generation is simple, and for an auto size investment,
an auto size amount of electric power and heat, can be had, or sold, to
produce a modest living...

/Arnt

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

 

From james at sri.org.au Thu Oct 29 01:56:23 1998
From: james at sri.org.au (James Joyce)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: USMC Project
Message-ID: <19981029170757james@jj_lap.sri.org.au>

> Dear Tom, and others....
> I ask a simple question. With all the material handling, etc..
> that goes with gasification, what are it's advantages over direct
> combustion (even with secondary air) that has always been used in
> ordinary boilers?
.....
>
> Skip
>

Gasification, when used in an integrated combined cycle; ie. gas
supplying a gas turbine and gas turbine exhaust heat driving a
conventional steam cycle, is capable of an efficiency of 45% (net
electricity out vs. fuel lower heating value in). This compares to 35%
for the usual Rankine (steam) cycle used by most power stations. There
are arguments about pressurised fluidised bed combustors and ruggedised
turbines or indirect fired turbine cycles ... but I won't go into that
any further unless asked.

So that's the advantage at large scales (>50 MWe). In addition the
gasifier product gas can be used to make other products (such as
methanol, hydrogen etc.) and may one day be able to provide fuel for
fuel cells (and raise the efficency up to around 60%).

As far as the small scale (<50 MWe) is concerned, gasifiers allow one
to seperate ash material from the combustion stage (albeit with varying
degrees of success). In many circumstances this is a big benefit to the
combustion device, resulting in lower particulates loadings and
emissions. One example of this advantage is boilers with superheaters
... these often run into strife when biomass is directly fired, due to
a combination of corrosion and erosion that can be traced back to the
inorganics in the biomass, which can be kept away if a gasification
stage is used.

As for much smaller applications driving engines or small low pressure
boilers the advantages seem questionable .... unless one would prefer
to run a small engine rather than provide the condensing facilities for
a steam cycle .... but this is not my field.

Does that help ?

James Joyce
Engineer
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay Australia
ph. (07) 4952 7698
intl ph. INTL + 61 7 4952 7600
fax (07) 4952 1734
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From iti at connect-2.co.uk Thu Oct 29 06:05:38 1998
From: iti at connect-2.co.uk (ITI)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal vs. Direct Combustion.
Message-ID: <01be0321$82558780$LocalHost@fpgcsxhi>

Dear Skip and others,

Concerning your "simple question"...

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

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

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

Capital Cost.

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

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

Thermal Efficiency.

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

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

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

Maintenance Costs.

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

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

Fuel Versatility.

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

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

With all best wishes,

Brian Russell.

 

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

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

 

From K.K.Prasad at phys.tue.nl Thu Oct 29 07:46:26 1998
From: K.K.Prasad at phys.tue.nl (K. K. Prasad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal vs. Direct Combustion.
Message-ID: <199810291258.NAA13380@silicon.tue.nl>

To Brian Russell and others

Dear Skip and others,

Concerning your "simple question"...

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

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

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

Capital Cost.

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

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

THE PRICE SOUNDS RIGHT, AT LEAST AT THE MOMENT.

Thermal Efficiency.

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

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

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

YOUR EFFICIENCY NUMBERS SOUND RIGHT, PARTICULARLY SMALL PLANTS CANNOT
BE EXPECTED TO HAVE CONDENSERS, LET ALONE AIR/WATER PREHEATERS.

Maintenance Costs.

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

FOR SMALL UNITS STEAM PRESSURES CANNOT BE ALL THAT HIGH - HOWEVER
HIGHER THAN FOR GASIFIER SYSTEMS.

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

I DOUBT WHETHER BOILERS OPERATING WITH BIOMASS CAN DO WITHOUT
EXTENSIVE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE.

Fuel Versatility.

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

I AM NOT SURE> COMBUSTION CHAMBER DESIGNS CANNOT BE UNIVERSAL.
BIOMASS PROPERTIES CAN VARY SIGNIFICANTLY. I WILL GIVE AN EXTREME
CASE - RICE HUSK AND WOOD SURELY CANNOT BE BURNT IN THE SAME BOILER
FURNACE SINCE THE ASH CONTENTS OF THE TWO ARE A FACTOR OF TEN OR MORE
APART.

In small letters I would like to add that (a) I am retired and (b)
not a consultant to either gasifier or engine manufacturers. Am
trying to occupy myself usefully so that my brain can keep
functioning. If this is offensive to some people in the list, please
let me know. I shall unsubscribe to the list.

 

Prasad

With all best wishes,

Brian Russell.

 

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

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

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Thu Oct 29 08:00:39 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal vs. Direct Combustion.
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810291311300361@classic.msn.com>

Mr. Russell,
Thank you for the straightforward answer. This should make a permanant post
for sure.

One point that always seems to be left out is the TOTAL overall material
handling cost and efficiency. It is a signifigant factor to consider when
getting, transporting, hogging, etc. the fuel and this usually shows up in the
stockholder's pocket book.
I have heard of a Swedish boiler that consumes whole trees! Bet that one is
by a serious private investor (aka:no subsidies)

Following that logic, again I must digress to the 'Energy Manifesto'. Diesel
is great and a favorite of mine. BUT, how much energy does it take to make
diesel? And how much energy does it take to burn all those baby Arabs, make a
navy to steal it, make a tanker to transport it, and ultimately refine and
transport to source?

When Looking at it from that prospective, I think that the 10MW and under
plants might make good sense. I also think that matching fuel supply is
important too. A plant should run 24 hrs a day 365 days a year instead of 3
weeks a year. Just my opinion...

Thanx
Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Thu Oct 29 08:01:02 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: USMC Project/thanx
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810291311260330@classic.msn.com>

>>>
Gasification, when used in an integrated combined cycle; ie. gas
supplying a gas turbine and gas turbine exhaust heat driving a
conventional steam cycle, is capable of an efficiency of 45% (net
electricity out vs. fuel lower heating value in). This compares to 35%
for the usual Rankine (steam) cycle used by most power stations. There
are arguments about pressurised fluidised bed combustors and ruggedised
turbines or indirect fired turbine cycles ... but I won't go into that
any further unless asked.
>>>>>
Mr. Joyce,
Thank you for the excellent answer...and I hope that it will make a good post
for all to see and archive.
Now, on these efficiencies, I ask: with a 'free' fuel, is 10% difference
relevant? Concerning material handling in relation to efficiency, is it
practical to operate a high efficiency plant if you have to transport your
wood hundreds of miles?
Also, does these theoretical efficiencies include the absolute overal
material handling energy cost?
Thanx, and hope it makes a good post for all.

Skip
Sensible Steam

BTW...where have you found a modern steam plant that only is 35%?

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

 

From arcate at email.msn.com Thu Oct 29 14:32:27 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass PFBC vs. Gasification
Message-ID: <002a01be0374$3a9e5fe0$0100007f@localhost>

Dear James Joyce:

James, from your message: There are arguments about pressurized fluidized
bed combustors and ruggedised turbines or indirect fired turbine cycles ...
but I won't go into that any further unless asked.

Please, I would appreciate your comments on biomass PFBC cycles vs direct
heated pressurized gasification to a low Btu fuel gas for gas turbine
combined cycles. Forgive me for asking you and then telling you what I
think, but here goes:

I have read that advanced PFBC systems for coal are projected to have
efficiencies ~ 45%. Are the concerns about alkali metals in the PFBC flue
gas the same as for gasification? Does the PFBC avoid "problems" with oils
& tars that sometimes apply to handling gasifier fuel gas? Is the PFBC more
fuel flexible? e.g., could the PFBC steam cycle (which makes most of the
power, 80%?) handle a variety of biomass fuels, waste materials, RFD, etc.,
where as a gasification system may have limited fuel flexibility.

How about construction costs? operating costs? and reliability?. e.g.,
there have been some recent advances in steam turbines, e.g, the Single
Cylinder Tohiba for 100 to 250 MW units. How about the reliability of the
high efficiency combustion turbines? some are having performance problems
running on natural gas. Does the PFBC combustion turbine have any
advantages?, e.g., the lower efficiency of a "ruggedised unit" would have
less impact on power production because the C/T is smaller than a
gasification unit C/T with the same total power plant output.

Thank you James,

aloha,

Jim Arcate

PS
--------------------------
As you may know, I worked on the "construction" of the Hawaii Biomass
Gasifier Facility the difficulties in handling bagasse and feeding a
pressurized gasifier led me to my proposal to convert biomass to charcoal
and use charcoal as a feedstock for a PFBC. The first step in development
of this concept would be to co-fire charcoal with coal in conventional coal
power plants. See my web site at www.techtp.com
--------------------------

 

 

 

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

 

From CharlesFederle at webtv.net Thu Oct 29 21:26:01 1998
From: CharlesFederle at webtv.net (Charles S Federle)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Trees as Biomass
Message-ID: <4941-36392681-7235@mailtod-141.iap.bryant.webtv.net>

Mountain sides in India are representative of the problems
created by using biomass as fuel. People cut down the plants on the
hillside, leaving bare ground. Rain soaked the soil, causing mud to
slide into the valley. When fuel burns in air,
eighty perecnt of the gases are nitrogen, which is a fire extinguisher.
Twenty percent of the gases are carbon dioxide, and the CO2 should be
collected, made into biomass, then made into carbon. Selecting air as
a source of oxygen to gasify biomass is a double mistake. Nitrogen is
not useful in gasification of biomass. Biomass is half carbon and half
water. Water is not useful in gasification.
Biomass converts carbon dioxide into carbon compounds and
oxygen. Carbon compounds such as glucose and cellulose, become carbon
when heated without oxygen. Then when oxygen combines with carbon, heat
is again evolved.
That process can furnish enough heat to eliminate the
need to cut trees and plants for use as fuel. There is no need to
pollute the air, or mine coal. Oxygen without nitrogen can easily be
made from di-hydrogen oxide, Thus gasification of carbon to carbon
dioxide should be followed by capture and use of CO2, instead of tossing
CO2 to the sky.

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Oct 29 21:28:48 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal vs. Direct Combustion.
Message-ID: <e36dc1ef.36392705@aol.com>

Mr. Russell,
The operation of boilers vs. IC engines parameters which you describe are
very much correct. The major problem has been the gas cleaning which limits
the usefulness in this mode for long term utility type operations which is the
economic hump.
The cleaning aspect is precisely the point which we have addressed and have
operated both diesel and SI engines on producer gas. The nature of gasifiers
lends them to a wide variety of feeds and with negative valued feedstocks, the
economics become extraordinary. Getting adequately cleaned gas has taken some
unusual steps, however, they come out in the end as an economic and
thermodynamic benefit.
With a 85% gasifier conversion to energy (cold, clean gas), and 33% overall
conversion efficiency without thermal recovery of the jacket heat and the
exhaust gas, the overall minimum efficiency of 28% warrants serious
application. If another 15% is recovered from exhaust and jacket heat, this
moves up quite well.
Many of the issues which are communicated about in gasification field only
need the proper perspective and a little imagination to implement.
I will be sending you our latest information.

Sincerely,

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Oct 29 21:39:31 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: USMC Project
Message-ID: <23603774.36392905@aol.com>

To: Bywater
Tom Taylor responds:
No, the gasifier design or operation needs to be carefully addressed. The
USMC system is not operated as a gasifier, but a pyrolyzer with air instead of
external heat source. This leads to the heavy tars, oils, and other
properties which cause problems. It would be the same as running Imbert at
1/20th it's output and having to clean the output pipe every 10 miles of
operation. Without the heat, the conversion of these components into usable
gas creates more problems.
The same bed could probably be operated at much higher output and conversion
efficency with less gas cleaning problems.

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Oct 29 21:59:02 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Status of Thg's gasification work
Message-ID: <b7e2837d.36392d9c@aol.com>

In response to the question as to the use of an Imbert type gasifier, we do
not use this design as it has serious limitations on types of materials usable
and such fuels as MSW would foul significantly and would not survive scale up.
Our design accomplishes the same effect as the Imbert, is an "inverted
downdraft" as Dr. Reed likes to call it and has been through several stages of
evolution.
The Canadian effort is a platypus, soemthing designed by a committee.
Without going into excessive dirty laundry, the unit we quoted on the contract
was based upon an IC engine which weighed 9000 lobs, was with an integrated
control system, radiator, and would fit on a trailer with the gasification
system also. When we received the final drawings on the engine, it was 30%
larger, had a separate radiator which had to be put sideways on the trailer
for cross-draft and weighed 19,000 lbs. After redesign, 6 weeks of changing
the wiring to comply with class 1 explosion proofing, then undoing,
instrumenting it beyond any reasonable amount, etc. etc, Ontario Hydro was
audited by the IAEC and had to shut down several reactors and lacked the
resources or "will" to complete the system.
We are currently building a 300 series system which is based upon external
heat to produce the gasification reaction and as such, will produce nearly a
"syngas" for production of synthetic fuels, such as diesel, DME from MSW,
tires, biomass and other wastes. This unit uses the "Sandia" reactor which was
operated at Sandia National Laboratories for several years as a close coupled
thermal source and is being modified to operate with either air fired,
producer gas or external heat for medium btu gasification. It can be changed
from one to another with the flip of a switch. It should be operating by the
end of November and is moving along quite well with many of the major
components in place. We have worked with contractors in the past with dismal
results and costs and are hiring and managing our own workers with much better
success.
The project is co-funded by Western Regional Biomass Program (WRBEP), a DOE
group.
Let me know if there are applications which you may be looking at an under
certain circumstances, we have financing available for energy projects through
a build own operate energy performance group.
By the way, I appreciate the opportunity to update parties interested.
Sincerely,

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Oct 29 22:25:09 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal vs. Direct Combustion.
In-Reply-To: <01be0321$82558780$LocalHost@fpgcsxhi>
Message-ID: <36392CAB.C1E9E706@c2i.net>

ITI wrote:

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

..*combine* the two, use "Internal" in the engine, use waste gasifier heat, gas
coolant heat, engine jacket water heat, and exhaust heat for "Direct Combustion"
applications. A stirling runs fine on steam heat, too.

> In my own mind there are four main sub-issues :
>
> 1. capital cost.
> 2. Thermal efficiency.
> 3. maintenance costs.
> 4. fuel versatility.
>
> Capital Cost.
>
> On the first point, I had been led to believe that a prime benefit of
> gasification was to permit the use of lower-cost power units (such as
> standard diesel engines). I am no longer sure however if this is valid:
> partly because of the alterations which are required to standard engines to
> allow than to run efficiently and reliably; and partly after reading you own
> mail of some weeks ago concerning prices for 2nd hand boiler units.

..if you have an new standard diesel engine, simply pipe gas to its air inlet
and use diesel oil for pilot ignition. On reassembly after maintenance, add head
shims to reduce C/R to the ideal for your application and fit spark ignition. Do
not be surprised to find it profitable to tear down and modify the new engine...
;-)

..try used Japanese, or V-8 auto engines: in the vehicle, they are started cold,
2 times every day. Each of these cold starts cause an engine wear equivalent of
a 300-800 km ride, depending primarily on the cold engines pre-start
temperature. This wear is normal. When the auto is junked after 10 to 20 years
on the road, the odometer typically reads 150 000 to 500 000 kms. In Japan,
motorist are required by law, to junk and replace the engine as it passes 50 000
kms.

..preheated, the cold start wear will be reduced , let's conservatively say, to
proportionally to the reduced heat up time, the preheated engine's heat flow
balance needs to reach the running engine's heat flow balance, multiplied to the
reduced heat up time, due to preheating. This means an auto engine can be
expected to run 15 000 to 50 000 hours, in the vehicle. Left running
continously, the same engine receive a bonus lifetime of 3 to 8 hours, every
day, ultimately 11 000 to 58 000 hours of total bonus life. New ones cost a few
thousand bucks, used ones a few hundred. Adding all this together, I submit,
even opens the run-and-throw-autoengine scheme, as a viable one...

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

..this sounds excessive. Ok, I quoted a 1200 US$/ kWe for a 3 MWe co-generation
plant, but I did allow for a complete failure of our own gasifiers and
replacement with another design. Plan was our gasifiers would be prequalified
enough for a reasonable insurance premium.

> Thermal Efficiency.
>
> Standard theory suggests (in my experience) that small steam cycle plants
> are unlikely to deliver more than 5% thermal efficiency in terms of
> electrical output - as compared with (say) 25% for a small diesel engine.

..the best WWII gasifiers quote 92% wood to gas conversion, current MWe class
generator set suppliers quote 40-42% electric *plus* 40-50% heat...anyone? ;-)

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

..here rules "total fuel handling costs". Bad MSW *can* be un-economical despite
receipt of high tip fees...

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

..balance high pressure steam risk against high toxic CO gas in producer gas.
Clean the gas so the biggest particle size is 1/3 of the oil film thickness, and
filter the oil.

..here, "total life cycle cost" should rule...
<snip>

> Fuel Versatility.
>
> This is one issue where I would have thought that an external combustion
> power-plant would win hands-down - and especially in a country like Ireland
> where there is no one enormous reserve of biomass waiting to be harnessed

..what about MSW in Ireland? Liquids like crude and diesel oil *can also* be
gasified if emergency back-up fuel is a consideration. We use an internal fuel
feed hopper tar flare to toast the fuel. Recycling heat will of course further
improve this.

> for gasification units. External combustion must also greatly reduce the
> pre-processing costs (i.e. chipping and drying).
> This aspect of the problem would draw me strongly towards direct combustion
> if other issues above could be answered convincingly.
>
> Do Gene Zebley and Arnt Karlsen have any opinions on this ?

..enjoy a wee collection of links on:..the market:http://www.bp.com/bpstats/

..3'rd parties:
http://mail.jtp.com/pbank/
http://www.cogen.ait.ac.th/
http://www.sp.dk/~cbt/
http://www.juniper.co.uk/pyroflyr.htm

..2'nd parties:
http://www.cogeneration.com/
http://www.energy.rochester.edu/dh/
http://www.energy.rochester.edu/cogen/
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jonflrty/

..prime mover vendors:
http://www.wartsila-nsd.com/index2.htm
http://www.jenbacher.com/
http://www.ulstein.com/Pro.nsf/WWW3/General+Categories

..small scale:
http://powerlink.co.nz/~graeme/dougspictures.html
http://powerlink.co.nz/~graeme/fluid.html
http://www.jademountain.com/index.html

..the lighter side of gas use...
http://macwww.db.erau.edu/www_virtual_lib/aviation/airship.html
http://spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/zf/htmls/introduction.htm

..and humane powered transportation...
http://www.trampofoil.se/
http://www.dcss.org/speedsl/
http://www.ihpva.org/

..and...ah...uhm...
http://TheEpicenter.com/ ..with msie link!!! ;-D

/Arnt

 

 

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

 

From materic at worldnet.net Fri Oct 30 00:51:46 1998
From: materic at worldnet.net (MATERIC)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CHARCOAL MAKING KILN
Message-ID: <199810300551.AAA09363@solstice.crest.org>

Dear Sir,
I am interested to buy commercial charcoal making device ( kiln or retort).
I kindly ask you to send me informations about such equipment:
- types
- technical caracteristics
- efficiency
- prices
- references, etc.
Expecting your soon answer with the name of person for further contacts, I
thank you very much with my
best regards,
L. Materic
Fax: ++ 33 1 43 33 10 67

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

 

From Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz Fri Oct 30 02:37:27 1998
From: Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz (Anne and Dean Corson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Nitrogen
Message-ID: <36396EDD.3B51@xtra.co.nz>

Hi All - In all the literature I have read their seems to be little
information as to where the nitrogen content in biomas goes when
subjected to pyrolysis, thermolysis, destructive distillation etc etc… .
Now don’t tell me it is insignificant, when considering all biomas, some
grasses around here can get nitrogen values as high as 4.8% ( 4.8 g/100g
of DM). What would happen to that nitrogen under pyrolysis conditions?,
Also what happens to that nitrogen under gasification conditions?.

Thank

Dean

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

 

From rosilene at fem.unicamp.br Fri Oct 30 07:49:30 1998
From: rosilene at fem.unicamp.br (Rosilene Nascimento)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Nitrogen
In-Reply-To: <36396EDD.3B51@xtra.co.nz>
Message-ID: <3639C730.EE817671@fem.unicamp.br>

Dear Corson and All

I'm investigating about nitrogen as a biomass compound in gasification
processes.
This nitrogen will react with the others compounds in the reactor
environmental (pyrolisis, combustion or gasification). In a gasifier system,
the N-gases produced could produce NOx (NO, or NO2) or N2O by combustion
conditions if it will feed a gas turbin. There are a lot of comments about
NOx effects in the troposphere, as acid rain, photochemical smog, and
others. About N2O, you can find some comments as a greenhouse gas. If you
want more information, you can find at Jukka Leppälahti's Thesis ("Reaction
of fuel bound nitrogen in gasification processes"-Finland) or at Jiachun
Zhou's Thesis ("Fuel-bound nitrogen evolution during biomass
gasification"-Hawaii, USA).

There are some publishes about NOx and N2O effects that you could know a
little more, for example:
*IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change) technical papers
*MUZIO, L.J., QUARTUCY, G.C. Implementing NOx control: research to
application. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, Oxford, v.23, n.3,
p.233-266, 1997.
*HAYHURST, A.N., LAWRENCE, A.D. Emissions of nitrous oxide from combustion
sources. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, Cambridge, v.18, n.6, p.
529-552, 1992.

Of course, all the effects of the nitrogen from EACH biomass gasifier
system based in it energy production is difficult (or impossible) to isolate
from the others effects of the atmosphere environmental. Then, I think its
evaluation is something subjective. By the way, there are a common sence
about reducing the NOx and N2O production.

Yours sincerely
Rosilene Nascimento - Doctor Degree Student
Energy Department of Mechanical Engineer
UNICAMP - Brazil

 

Anne and Dean Corson wrote:

> Hi All - In all the literature I have read their seems to be little
> information as to where the nitrogen content in biomas goes when
> subjected to pyrolysis, thermolysis, destructive distillation etc etc… .
> Now don’t tell me it is insignificant, when considering all biomas, some
> grasses around here can get nitrogen values as high as 4.8% ( 4.8 g/100g
> of DM). What would happen to that nitrogen under pyrolysis conditions?,
> Also what happens to that nitrogen under gasification conditions?.
>
> Thank
>
> Dean
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Oct 30 08:32:35 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: USMC Project
Message-ID: <199810300843_MC2-5DD6-5D3D@compuserve.com>

FROM TOM REED, Moderator or GASIFICATION

Dear Gasification, Stoves and Bioenergy:

I got the following question today.

"What happened to your updraft inverted gasifier? Are you now using an
Imbert style? How did things go with the Canadian effort? Have you
published any papers on your work?"

No signature, and sent from "Gasification".

This makes it difficult to reply. I appreciate keeping our messages short,
but too short overburdens the reader. So...

1) Please ALWAYS sign your message, PREFERABLY at the TOP.

2) If you are writing to ONE person, please address ONLY to that one
person.

3) Smile : ) and have a nice day.

Yours truly, ......................

 

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Oct 30 09:40:32 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: USMC Project
Message-ID: <281d3299.3639d28a@aol.com>

Tom Reed,
I responded to the inquiry about the Imbert gasifier and other items because
it appeared the inquirer knew about the Canadian contract we had for the
mobile gasifier.

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Fri Oct 30 10:31:55 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: FW: Nondeliverable mail
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810301542360660@classic.msn.com>

Ok, enough of political theory. Let's talk dollars and cents.
Now, if all you so called 'phd's' were in the same room you could make a very
convincing argument why the bumble bee couldn't fly.

So, I present two systems that are fueled by biomass or 'wood' by any other
name and they run not on an experimental basis but actually on a 24/7 for the
last 11 or more years. and , at a profit. No sir, no subsidies or pink hands
professors here, but dirty fingernailed engineers here. The only break was in

buying turbo generators salvage from navy ships.
#1 the 8 MW plant in Terra Bella, CA
#2 the 1MW plant in Harrison, AR
All I know is that I have been there and the help has told me that the
paycheck has never bounced! Yes, they are large sawmills, but the point is
they work. Perhaps, this is a good starting point? I am sure that
improvements could be made and that is where the fine 'experts' in this forum
come in.
Not raggin' here but I must say that folks can go on forever on
''theory" (as long as the grant money flows) and maybe it is time to lend
credibility to the science by going with something that works. I know that
biomass IS the future, but, despite the present American President's stance,
image is not everything and substance is.

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

Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam

--UPIMSRGSMTP10bCCTYsc8wkC6KWl7vjlL4ZYO?F--

 

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

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Fri Oct 30 10:35:26 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Nitrogen
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810301542380551@classic.msn.com>

I'm investigating about nitrogen as a biomass compound in gasification
processes.
This nitrogen will react with the others compounds in the reactor
environmental (pyrolisis, combustion or gasification). In a gasifier system,
the N-gases produced could produce NOx (NO, or NO2) or N2O by combustion
>>>>>
Wouldn't the oxidizing of the nitrogen rob a lot of energy (net) from the
process?
Also, isn't is easier to separate the N via catalyst?
skip

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

 

From paisley at BATTELLE.ORG Fri Oct 30 11:11:38 1998
From: paisley at BATTELLE.ORG (Paisley, Mark A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Nitrogen
Message-ID: <11C72E011E30D111B13D00A0C98439DF80AF5B@ns-bco-mse5.im.battelle.org>

Skip,

In a gasifier, the nitrogen typically becomes ammonia (NH3) not the oxidized
forms you mentioned. Separation of the N by catalysis, due to the low
concentrations is difficult to accomplish.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: skip goebel [SMTP:146942@classic.msn.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 10:23 AM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: RE: GAS-L: Nitrogen
>
> I'm investigating about nitrogen as a biomass compound in gasification
> processes.
> This nitrogen will react with the others compounds in the reactor
> environmental (pyrolisis, combustion or gasification). In a gasifier
> system,
> the N-gases produced could produce NOx (NO, or NO2) or N2O by combustion
> >>>>>
> Wouldn't the oxidizing of the nitrogen rob a lot of energy (net) from the
> process?
> Also, isn't is easier to separate the N via catalyst?
> skip
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From gsnedecor at dow.com Fri Oct 30 13:19:10 1998
From: gsnedecor at dow.com (Snedecor Jr, Gayle (TG))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Nitrogen
Message-ID: <024599855CCAD11184280000F8BDCA871A2021@TXNTE21>

According to my thermodynamic calculations, a vast majority of nitrogen,
either free or organically bound, exits a gasifier as N2. A small
amount (<1% can exit as ammonia, and as HCN)

Gayle Snedecor
(speaking for myself only)
> ----------
> From: Paisley, Mark A[SMTP:paisley@BATTELLE.ORG]
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 10:23 AM
> To: 'gasification@crest.org'
> Subject: RE: GAS-L: Nitrogen
>
> Skip,
>
> In a gasifier, the nitrogen typically becomes ammonia (NH3) not the
> oxidized
> forms you mentioned. Separation of the N by catalysis, due to the low
> concentrations is difficult to accomplish.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: skip goebel [SMTP:146942@classic.msn.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 10:23 AM
> > To: gasification@crest.org
> > Subject: RE: GAS-L: Nitrogen
> >
> > I'm investigating about nitrogen as a biomass compound in
> gasification
> > processes.
> > This nitrogen will react with the others compounds in the reactor
> > environmental (pyrolisis, combustion or gasification). In a gasifier
> > system,
> > the N-gases produced could produce NOx (NO, or NO2) or N2O by
> combustion
> > >>>>>
> > Wouldn't the oxidizing of the nitrogen rob a lot of energy (net)
> from the
> > process?
> > Also, isn't is easier to separate the N via catalyst?
> > skip
> >
> > Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> > http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From woolsey at netins.net Fri Oct 30 13:51:05 1998
From: woolsey at netins.net (Ed Woolsey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: NPR on Climate Change NOW
Message-ID: <007001be0439$3f854c60$bf168ea7@woolsey.netins.net>

NPR Science Friday is discussing Climate Change. 1PM CST
ed

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

 

From rosilene at fem.unicamp.br Fri Oct 30 14:29:06 1998
From: rosilene at fem.unicamp.br (Rosilene Nascimento)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification: nitrogen as NH3?
In-Reply-To: <11C72E011E30D111B13D00A0C98439DF80AF5B@ns-bco-mse5.im.battelle.org>
Message-ID: <363A24A5.EC5619EF@fem.unicamp.br>

Dear Paisley

OK. But...
Generaly a gasifier system is used to produce energy. If eletric energy, you
could need a turbin. There are some research about using gas turbin, then the
produced gas by gasification will be combusted. Thus, de NH3 (for example) will
be oxidized to NOx or N2O form.

Yours sincerely,
Rosilene Nascimento - Doctor Degree Student
Energy Department of Mechanical Engineer
UNICAMP - Brazil

Paisley, Mark A wrote:

> Skip,
>
> In a gasifier, the nitrogen typically becomes ammonia (NH3) not the oxidized
> forms you mentioned. Separation of the N by catalysis, due to the low
> concentrations is difficult to accomplish.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: skip goebel [SMTP:146942@classic.msn.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 10:23 AM
> > To: gasification@crest.org
> > Subject: RE: GAS-L: Nitrogen
> >
> > I'm investigating about nitrogen as a biomass compound in gasification
> > processes.
> > This nitrogen will react with the others compounds in the reactor
> > environmental (pyrolisis, combustion or gasification). In a gasifier
> > system,
> > the N-gases produced could produce NOx (NO, or NO2) or N2O by combustion
> > >>>>>
> > Wouldn't the oxidizing of the nitrogen rob a lot of energy (net) from the
> > process?
> > Also, isn't is easier to separate the N via catalyst?
> > skip
> >
> > Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> > http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

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

 

From jiachun at hawaii.edu Fri Oct 30 16:53:34 1998
From: jiachun at hawaii.edu (Jiachun Zhou)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Nitrogen
In-Reply-To: <024599855CCAD11184280000F8BDCA871A2021@TXNTE21>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981030120200.25449A-100000@uhunix1>

Not really. The experimental results (including those we did) indicate
high NH3 concentration in biomass gasification gas.

Jiachun Zhou (Frank)
Hawaii

On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Snedecor Jr, Gayle (TG) wrote:

> According to my thermodynamic calculations, a vast majority of nitrogen,
> either free or organically bound, exits a gasifier as N2. A small
> amount (<1% can exit as ammonia, and as HCN)
>
>
> Gayle Snedecor
> (speaking for myself only)
> > ----------
> > From: Paisley, Mark A[SMTP:paisley@BATTELLE.ORG]
> > Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 10:23 AM
> > To: 'gasification@crest.org'
> > Subject: RE: GAS-L: Nitrogen
> >
> > Skip,
> >
> > In a gasifier, the nitrogen typically becomes ammonia (NH3) not the
> > oxidized
> > forms you mentioned. Separation of the N by catalysis, due to the low
> > concentrations is difficult to accomplish.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: skip goebel [SMTP:146942@classic.msn.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 10:23 AM
> > > To: gasification@crest.org
> > > Subject: RE: GAS-L: Nitrogen
> > >
> > > I'm investigating about nitrogen as a biomass compound in
> > gasification
> > > processes.
> > > This nitrogen will react with the others compounds in the reactor
> > > environmental (pyrolisis, combustion or gasification). In a gasifier
> > > system,
> > > the N-gases produced could produce NOx (NO, or NO2) or N2O by
> > combustion
> > > >>>>>
> > > Wouldn't the oxidizing of the nitrogen rob a lot of energy (net)
> > from the
> > > process?
> > > Also, isn't is easier to separate the N via catalyst?
> > > skip
> > >
> > > Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> > > http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> > Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> > http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> >
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

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

 

From DAVID.DALTON at cpmx.saic.com Fri Oct 30 19:19:40 1998
From: DAVID.DALTON at cpmx.saic.com (David Dalton)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Nitrogen
Message-ID: <n1302357428.71424@cpqm.saic.com>

What is your definition of high NH3 concentration? Can you tell me what
percentage of the nitrogen in the feed was converted to N2 and what
percentage was converted to NH3? Since thermoequilibriums are dependent on
temperature, can you also tell me what temperature the gasifier was run at?

David Dalton
SAIC
208-528-2113
------------------------------
Date: 10/30/98 2:11 PM
To: Dalton, David
From: gasification@crest.ORG

Not really. The experimental results (including those we did) indicate
high NH3 concentration in biomass gasification gas.

Jiachun Zhou (Frank)
Hawaii

On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Snedecor Jr, Gayle (TG) wrote:

> According to my thermodynamic calculations, a vast majority of nitrogen,
> either free or organically bound, exits a gasifier as N2. A small
> amount (<1% can exit as ammonia, and as HCN)
>
>
> Gayle Snedecor
> (speaking for myself only)
> > ----------
> > From: Paisley, Mark A[SMTP:paisley@BATTELLE.ORG]
> > Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 10:23 AM
> > To: 'gasification@crest.org'
> > Subject: RE: GAS-L: Nitrogen
> >
> > Skip,
> >
> > In a gasifier, the nitrogen typically becomes ammonia (NH3) not the
> > oxidized
> > forms you mentioned. Separation of the N by catalysis, due to the low
> > concentrations is difficult to accomplish.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: skip goebel [SMTP:146942@classic.msn.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 10:23 AM
> > > To: gasification@crest.org
> > > Subject: RE: GAS-L: Nitrogen
> > >
> > > I'm investigating about nitrogen as a biomass compound in
> > gasification
> > > processes.
> > > This nitrogen will react with the others compounds in the reactor
> > > environmental (pyrolisis, combustion or gasification). In a gasifier
> > > system,
> > > the N-gases produced could produce NOx (NO, or NO2) or N2O by
> > combustion
> > > >>>>>
> > > Wouldn't the oxidizing of the nitrogen rob a lot of energy (net)
> > from the
> > > process?
> > > Also, isn't is easier to separate the N via catalyst?
> > > skip
> > >
> > > Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> > > http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> > Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> > http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> >
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

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

------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by cpqm.saic.com with ADMIN;30 Oct 1998 14:10:18 -0800
Return-Path: <owner-gasification@crest.org>
Received: from entry.west.saic.com by cpmx.mail.saic.com; Fri, 30 Oct 1998
14:08:02 -0800
Received: from mx.west.saic.com ([198.151.12.22]) by entry.west.saic.com
via smtpd (for cpmx.saic.com [139.121.95.10]) with SMTP; 30 Oct
1998 22:07:53 UT
Received: from solstice.crest.org ([209.67.217.1])
by mx.west.saic.com (PMDF V5.1-12 #27479)
with ESMTP id <0F1N0054QUT3G9@mx.west.saic.com>; Fri,
30 Oct 1998 14:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by solstice.crest.org
(8.8.7/8.8.7)
with SMTP id QAA19374; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:54:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: by solstice.crest.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri,
30 Oct 1998 16:53:43 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by solstice.crest.org (8.8.7/8.8.7)
id QAA19286 for gasification-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:53:34 -0500
(EST)
Received: from relay1.Hawaii.Edu (root@relay1.hawaii.edu [128.171.3.53])
by solstice.crest.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA19282 for
<gasification@crest.org>; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:53:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [128.171.44.6] ([128.171.44.6]) by relay1.Hawaii.Edu with
SMTP
id <149378(6)>; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:05:23 -1000
Received: from localhost by uhunix4.its.Hawaii.Edu with SMTP id <135692(2)
>; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:05:37 -1000
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:05:31 -1000
From: Jiachun Zhou <jiachun@hawaii.edu>
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Nitrogen
In-reply-to: <024599855CCAD11184280000F8BDCA871A2021@TXNTE21>
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.ORG
X-Sender: jiachun@uhunix1
To: "'gasification@crest.org'" <gasification@crest.ORG>
Reply-to: gasification@crest.ORG
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981030120200.25449A-100000@uhunix1>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

 

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

 

From jiachun at hawaii.edu Fri Oct 30 22:34:41 1998
From: jiachun at hawaii.edu (Jiachun Zhou)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Nitrogen
In-Reply-To: <n1302357428.71424@cpqm.saic.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981030173929.11975A-100000@uhunix1>

NH3 concentration: 18000 ppmv at 800C, ER=0.25, Leucaena (2.5% N)
gasification; about 40% of biomass-N into NH3.

Jiachun Zhou (Frank)
Hawaii

On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, David Dalton wrote:

> What is your definition of high NH3 concentration? Can you tell me what
> percentage of the nitrogen in the feed was converted to N2 and what
> percentage was converted to NH3? Since thermoequilibriums are dependent on
> temperature, can you also tell me what temperature the gasifier was run at?
>
> David Dalton
> SAIC
> 208-528-2113
> ------------------------------
> Date: 10/30/98 2:11 PM
> To: Dalton, David
> From: gasification@crest.ORG
>
> Not really. The experimental results (including those we did) indicate
> high NH3 concentration in biomass gasification gas.
>
> Jiachun Zhou (Frank)
> Hawaii
>
>
> On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Snedecor Jr, Gayle (TG) wrote:
>
> > According to my thermodynamic calculations, a vast majority of nitrogen,
> > either free or organically bound, exits a gasifier as N2. A small
> > amount (<1% can exit as ammonia, and as HCN)
> >
> >
> > Gayle Snedecor
> > (speaking for myself only)
> > > ----------
> > > From: Paisley, Mark A[SMTP:paisley@BATTELLE.ORG]
> > > Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 10:23 AM
> > > To: 'gasification@crest.org'
> > > Subject: RE: GAS-L: Nitrogen
> > >
> > > Skip,
> > >
> > > In a gasifier, the nitrogen typically becomes ammonia (NH3) not the
> > > oxidized
> > > forms you mentioned. Separation of the N by catalysis, due to the low
> > > concentrations is difficult to accomplish.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: skip goebel [SMTP:146942@classic.msn.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 10:23 AM
> > > > To: gasification@crest.org
> > > > Subject: RE: GAS-L: Nitrogen
> > > >
> > > > I'm investigating about nitrogen as a biomass compound in
> > > gasification
> > > > processes.
> > > > This nitrogen will react with the others compounds in the reactor
> > > > environmental (pyrolisis, combustion or gasification). In a gasifier
> > > > system,
> > > > the N-gases produced could produce NOx (NO, or NO2) or N2O by
> > > combustion
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > Wouldn't the oxidizing of the nitrogen rob a lot of energy (net)
> > > from the
> > > > process?
> > > > Also, isn't is easier to separate the N via catalyst?
> > > > skip
> > > >
> > > > Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> > > > http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> > > Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> > > http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> > >
> > Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> > http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> >
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
> ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
> Received: by cpqm.saic.com with ADMIN;30 Oct 1998 14:10:18 -0800
> Return-Path: <owner-gasification@crest.org>
> Received: from entry.west.saic.com by cpmx.mail.saic.com; Fri, 30 Oct 1998
> 14:08:02 -0800
> Received: from mx.west.saic.com ([198.151.12.22]) by entry.west.saic.com
> via smtpd (for cpmx.saic.com [139.121.95.10]) with SMTP; 30 Oct
> 1998 22:07:53 UT
> Received: from solstice.crest.org ([209.67.217.1])
> by mx.west.saic.com (PMDF V5.1-12 #27479)
> with ESMTP id <0F1N0054QUT3G9@mx.west.saic.com>; Fri,
> 30 Oct 1998 14:08:00 -0800 (PST)
> Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by solstice.crest.org
> (8.8.7/8.8.7)
> with SMTP id QAA19374; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:54:45 -0500 (EST)
> Received: by solstice.crest.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri,
> 30 Oct 1998 16:53:43 -0500
> Received: (from majordom@localhost) by solstice.crest.org (8.8.7/8.8.7)
> id QAA19286 for gasification-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:53:34 -0500
> (EST)
> Received: from relay1.Hawaii.Edu (root@relay1.hawaii.edu [128.171.3.53])
> by solstice.crest.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA19282 for
> <gasification@crest.org>; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:53:32 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from [128.171.44.6] ([128.171.44.6]) by relay1.Hawaii.Edu with
> SMTP
> id <149378(6)>; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:05:23 -1000
> Received: from localhost by uhunix4.its.Hawaii.Edu with SMTP id <135692(2)
> >; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:05:37 -1000
> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:05:31 -1000
> From: Jiachun Zhou <jiachun@hawaii.edu>
> Subject: RE: GAS-L: Nitrogen
> In-reply-to: <024599855CCAD11184280000F8BDCA871A2021@TXNTE21>
> Sender: owner-gasification@crest.ORG
> X-Sender: jiachun@uhunix1
> To: "'gasification@crest.org'" <gasification@crest.ORG>
> Reply-to: gasification@crest.ORG
> Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981030120200.25449A-100000@uhunix1>
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Precedence: bulk
>
>
>
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

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

 

From boilrmkr at surfsouth.com Fri Oct 30 22:40:04 1998
From: boilrmkr at surfsouth.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal vs. Direct Combustion.
In-Reply-To: <01be0321$82558780$LocalHost@fpgcsxhi>
Message-ID: <363A88A7.38D88C48@surfsouth.com>

ITI wrote:

> Dear Skip and others,
> Concerning your "simple question"...
> I am interested to note the wide variey of opinions which have been
> expressed in response to your fundamental query concerning internal vs.
> direct combustion, and especially when looking a power plants of under 1 MW
> electrical capacity.
>
> In my own mind there are four main sub-issues :
>
> 1. capital cost.
> 2. Thermal efficiency.
> 3. maintenance costs.
> 4. fuel versatility.

Some additions:5. Fuel Costs (shipping, processing, storage)?
6. Operating costs (electrical consumption, labor, chemicals, etc.)?

> Capital Cost.
>
> On the first point, I had been led to believe that a prime benefit of
> gasification was to permit the use of lower-cost power units (such as
> standard diesel engines). I am no longer sure however if this is valid:
> partly because of the alterations which are required to standard engines to
> allow than to run efficiently and reliably; and partly after reading you own
> mail of some weeks ago concerning prices for 2nd hand boiler units.
>
> I have, for example, been quoted around £ 1,000stg / kWe for a turn-key CHP
> plant with IC power unit. Would turn-key steam compete with this at say 250
> kW ? Could other IC operators offer better value for a reliable and
> well-tested CHP power plant design ?

I'll retrieve and post some numbers (approx.) recently quoted to those that
request them. mailto:hboiler@surfsouth.com

> Thermal Efficiency.
>
> Standard theory suggests (in my experience) that small steam cycle plants
> are unlikely to deliver more than 5% thermal efficiency in terms of
> electrical output - as compared with (say) 25% for a small diesel engine.
> I am fully aware that this is over-simplistic, since there are bound to be
> additional energy losses in the various stages of gasification.
> Nonetheless, I suspect that one could probably anticipate around 2-3 times
> the electrical output from dry biomass when operating with an IC engine as
> opposed to a boiler.
> Set against this, if the fuel is free, then efficiency may not greatly
> matter.
> Please do challenge my assumptions on this if you believe them to be wrong.

If I manufactured "utility" plants, my current efficiencies would put me out of
business. Fuel costs (disposal and/or purchase) are the tip of the justification
iceberg. I'll let the turbine experts put in their two cents on their
efficiencies. Our systems are currently producing the following thermal
conversion efficiencies (wood waste in - steam out) ranked by Moisture Content
(M.C.):8% M.C. (8000 BTU/Lb) 80%
20% M.C. (6956 BTU/Lb) 76%
35% M.C. (5652 BTU/Lb) 73%
50% M.C. (4347 BTU/Lb) 70%

A 10 +/- ton steam system capable of driving a 1 MW condensing turbine is going
to suck up around 110 Lbs. of wood waste (50% M.C.) a minute. If the fuel is dry
(8% M.C.) you'll need around 52.3 Lbs/minute.

> Maintenance Costs.
> I suspect that the jury is still out on this issue. On the one hand, many
> people might suggest that high pressure steam is inherently more dangerous
> than low pressure producer gas, leading to higher daily maintenance costs.
>
> On the other hand, standard diesels do not like running for extended periods
> of time on producer gas; and complete annual strip-downs c/w extensive
> replacement of components would not be uncommon (as I understand).
> Perhaps this depends on the cleanliness of the producer gas.

Yes, energy can be dangerous. This does not usually add to the maintenance cost
of a boiler. Maintenance procedures improperly applied (ignored?) and bad design
are the cause of most energy related industrial accidents.I recenlty lost a
friend at a local lumber mill when an improperly installed valve and inadequate
steam line engineering resulting in the valve disintegrating and sending a piece
of steel into his head. He was knocked unconcious and burned severely. He died
that night. Cause: design, not maintenance.
I've also seen low BTU gas under pressure destroy a floor of an apartment
building in Bejing. Cause: improper operation, not maintenance.
Hell, more people are killed by lightening each year than injured by boiler
accidents. That's why we have ASME (and their counterparts) Codes and a full
time independent QC insurance inspector from Hartford at our plant. We've built
over 5,000 pressure vessels without one failure as a result of material or
workmanship. Now THAT'S what you call product liability.
That's not to say some fool boiler operator won't bypass an annoying low water
cutoff alarm and then promptly fall asleep (that one cost the owners a big wad
of cash for a retubing).

Daily, weekly, monthly and yearly maintenance schedules are required for a steam
system. The great majority of this cost is labor (da oprator ain't got nutin'
else ta do). Approximately 1 hour per 8 hour shift with a four day shut down
once a year. Standard maintenance materials for a 10 ton boiler cost around $900
/ year for gaskets, tube brushes, grease, etc.. I'll group active feedwater
treatment into the catagory of operating costs.

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

We are currently utilizing the following fuels (max. size around 1-1/2 - 2" and
up to 60% M.C.):saw dust, shavings, chips, bark, cardboard, paper, pellitized
paper-sludge-wood, coal, cocoa husks, coconut husks, brasil nut husks,
...............
Our system is VERY simple in actual operation. We follow steam (heat) demand.
The system, when called upon to make steam, will feed whatever fuel we are
supplying until the demand for BTU's is satisfied. Period. Aren't variable
frequency drives wonderful?

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

Thanks for asking.
I beg the List's indulgence. I'm a boilermaker at heart. I'll take the BTU's
anyway I can get them (acceptable to the EPA) and make LARGE quantities of hot
water or steam as effieciently and economically as possible. I just happen to be
fascinated (and make a living) with the coupling of our different technologies.

Best regards,
Gene Zebley
mailto:boilrmkr@surfsouth.com
Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc.
http://www.hurstboiler.com/wood.htm

 

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

 

From boilrmkr at surfsouth.com Fri Oct 30 22:49:15 1998
From: boilrmkr at surfsouth.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal vs. Direct Combustion.
In-Reply-To: <199810291258.NAA13380@silicon.tue.nl>
Message-ID: <363A8AC6.328F0671@surfsouth.com>

 

K. K. Prasad wrote:

> Maintenance Costs.
>
> I suspect that the jury is still out on this issue. On the one hand, many
> people might suggest that high pressure steam is inherently more dangerous
> than low pressure producer gas, leading to higher daily maintenance costs.
>
> FOR SMALL UNITS STEAM PRESSURES CANNOT BE ALL THAT HIGH - HOWEVER HIGHER THAN
> FOR GASIFIER SYSTEMS.
>
> On the other hand, standard diesels do not like running for extended periods
> of time on producer gas; and complete annual strip-downs c/w extensive
> replacement of components would not be uncommon (as I understand).
> Perhaps this depends on the cleanliness of the producer gas.
>
> I DOUBT WHETHER BOILERS OPERATING WITH BIOMASS CAN DO WITHOUT EXTENSIVE ANNUAL
> MAINTENANCE.

Just depends on how many moving parts the manufacturer uses and how dirty
(silica content) the fuel is.

> Fuel Versatility.
> This is one issue where I would have thought that an external combustion
> power-plant would win hands-down - and especially in a country like Ireland
> where there is no one enormous reserve of biomass waiting to be harnessed
> for gasification units. External combustion must also greatly reduce the
> pre-processing costs (i.e. chipping and drying).
> This aspect of the problem would draw me strongly towards direct combustion
> if other issues above could be answered convincingly.
>
> I AM NOT SURE> COMBUSTION CHAMBER DESIGNS CANNOT BE UNIVERSAL. BIOMASS
> PROPERTIES CAN VARY SIGNIFICANTLY. I WILL GIVE AN EXTREME CASE - RICE HUSK AND
> WOOD SURELY CANNOT BE BURNT IN THE SAME BOILER FURNACE SINCE THE ASH CONTENTS
> OF THE TWO ARE A FACTOR OF TEN OR MORE APART.

The challenge is not so much the ash content (although it needs to be addressed)
as it's the actual moving of whatever fuel your using from one place to another
within the system.

> In small letters I would like to add that (a) I am retired and (b)
> not a consultant to either gasifier or engine manufacturers. Am
> trying to occupy myself usefully so that my brain can keep
> functioning. If this is offensive to some people in the list, please
> let me know. I shall unsubscribe to the list.
>
> Prasad

Diversity is the Godsend of my country and the internet. Shout on, Prasad.

Best regards,
Gene Zebley

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

 

From james at sri.org.au Fri Oct 30 23:34:25 1998
From: james at sri.org.au (James Joyce)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: USMC Project/thanx
Message-ID: <19981031144553james@jj_lap.sri.org.au>

> >>>
> Gasification, .... snip .. is capable of an efficiency of 45% (net
> electricity out vs. fuel lower heating value in). This compares to
> 35% for the usual Rankine (steam) cycle used by most power stations.
> snip ...
> >>>>>
> Mr. Joyce,
> snip ... on these efficiencies, I ask: with a 'free' fuel, is 10%
> difference relevant?

Yes, the 10% difference translates to a 29% increase in electrical
output, which is big dollars at a large scale. This may make or break
the economic viability of a project.

In any event, in the application we are looking at, the current steam
cycle equipment is no where near the 35% efficiency that I mentioned
for efficient coal fired steam cycles. In fact Queensland sugar
factories could go from a total installed electricity export of around
60 MWe to 3,400 MWe, if gasification IGCC was fully utilised.

> Concerning material handling in relation to efficiency,
> is it practical to operate a high efficiency plant if you have to
> transport your wood hundreds of miles?

In most cases I imagine not (unless the transport costs are subsidised
in some way ... perhaps via carbon credit trading). This does not apply
to bagasse fueled gasifiers ... the fuel is already transported to
sugar factories to make sugar (in the form of sugar cane). In this
sense bagasse is one of the few "free" fuels. The off season fuel
supply does however incur storage and or transport costs.

> Also, does these theoretical efficiencies include the absolute
> overall material handling energy cost?

No, but as I mentioned the fuel would be transported to the sugar
factories whether it is used or not (during the crushing season
anyway). It is difficult to decide where to finish if you try to tally
up the overall material handling energy cost. For example do you count
the energy used to manufacture the tramlines, the rolling stock, the
resources comsumed by the loco crews etc. ? And if one did do these
calculations I'm not sure what would it achieve.

> BTW...where have you found a modern steam plant that only is 35%?

The 35% (converted to LHV basis) is derived from numbers given in
extensive technology reviews by the likes of Bhattacharya and McIntosh
of the CRC for power generation using low rank coals and Maude of IEA
Coal research. These steam cycles involve very high pressures much
superheat and often a steam reheat loop. Some super-critical steam
cycles with vapour recompression can even get up to 40% ... try doing
that in the backyard !

You may have boiler thermal efficiency in mind, which is typcially
around 85% in an efficient coal fired power station, if I recall
correctly (or around 65% for a good biomass boiler using an undried
fuel).

In the meantime, keep making those boilers and microturbines Skip ....
I hope to have one for myself one day (afterall I'll need something to
charge up my electric car ;-)

Regards,

James Joyce
Engineer
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay Australia
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From james at sri.org.au Fri Oct 30 23:34:37 1998
From: james at sri.org.au (James Joyce)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass PFBC vs. Gasification
Message-ID: <19981031144603james@jj_lap.sri.org.au>

> Dear James Joyce:
>
> James, from your message: There are arguments about pressurized
> fluidized bed combustors and ruggedised turbines or indirect
> fired turbine cycles ... but I won't go into that any further
> unless asked.
>
> Please, I would appreciate your comments on biomass PFBC cycles vs
> direct heated pressurized gasification to a low Btu fuel gas for gas
> turbine combined cycles. Forgive me for asking you and then telling
> you what I think, but here goes:
>
> I have read that advanced PFBC systems for coal are projected to
> have efficiencies ~ 45%. Are the concerns about alkali metals in the
> PFBC flue gas the same as for gasification? Does the PFBC avoid
> "problems" with oils & tars that sometimes apply to handling
> gasifier fuel gas? Is the PFBC more fuel flexible? ... snip

PFBC - Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion

The problems with alkali metals in PFBC systems are arguably worse that
for gasification, thanks to higher operating temperatures which more
completely vapourise these nasties, while at the same time making the
conditions for gas cleanup more agressive.

PFBC doesn't have any tar problems, (but then again neither does a well
designed high temperature gasifier). Soot formation can be an issue
though.

PFBC is arguably less fuel flexible than gasification because the
temperatures are often higher or the beds are more suseptible to hot
spots, which results in fuel sintering and particle aglomeration in
high ash fuels or those with low ash sintering temperatures; which
means disaster for continued fluidisation.

> How about construction costs? operating costs? and reliability?
> there have been some recent advances in steam turbines, e.g, the
> Single Cylinder Tohiba for 100 to 250 MW units.

Biomass IGCC capital costs are around $1500-2000 US$ / kW installed at
present, for plants greater than 20 MWe (or at least that is the best
present guess).

Operating costs ... well that depends what what the fuel handling /
preparation costs are and whether the technology being used needs large
amounts of inert gas for lock hopper operation and whether an oxygen
plant is required. Baring unsual fuel preparation needs, the operating
costs for IGCC, PFBC and conventional steam cycles should be similar,
per kWe of output.

Reliability .. well that's still largely an unknown for large biomass
plants, because there aren't any. Coal IGCC plants are achieving
anywhere from 10-97% availability currently; which goes to show you
can't generalise about the reliability of immature technologies !

Steam turbines still have a place in an integrated gasification
combined cycle system, in fact up to 50% of the electrical output comes
from the steam turbine operating on the steam from the gas turbine
exhaust heat recovery boiler.

> How about the reliability of the high efficiency combustion turbines?
> some are having performance problems running on natural gas. Does
> the PFBC combustion turbine have any advantages?, e.g., the lower
> efficiency of a "ruggedised unit" would have less impact on power
> production because the C/T is smaller than a gasification unit C/T
> with the same total power plant output.

Well that depends mostly on the quality of the fuel (eg. Alkalis need
to be less that 20-50 parts per billion) ... I haven't heard of any
problems with natural gas ... perhaps it wasn't clean enough.

Ruggedised turbines and to a lesser extent indirectly fired turbines
are progressing towards becoming attractive options sometime next
century, but in the world of utility scale power generation even a
fraction of a percentage in efficiency is often worth chasing.

In answer to the original question about PFBC vs gasification, it
appears that PFBC may be best suited to high rank (black) coals which
do not gasify readily, while higher reactivity fuels like brown coal
and biomass are better suited to gasification.

It is interesting to note that advanced PFBC cycles include a
gasification step which is used to release the volatile matter from the
coal and make a char which is then burned in the PFBC combustor. This
addresses the major issue for gasification ... the first part
(devolatilisation / pyrolysis) is easy, whereas the char conversion is
inherently slow (unless done as a combustion) .... something which
suggests that the char conversion step should be done separately to the
pyrolysis step.

ABB are big in the area of commercial PFBC plants. They can be
found at : http://www.abb.com/abbreview

James Joyce
Engineer
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay Australia
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Sat Oct 31 00:33:25 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Nitrogen
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199810310543590101@classic.msn.com>

isn't the ammonia content strongly related to the sugar content of the fuel?
skip

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

 

From arcate at email.msn.com Sat Oct 31 00:51:58 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass PFBC vs. Gasification
Message-ID: <001001be0493$ef3b5820$0100007f@localhost>

Dear James Joyce & Gasification:

Thank you very much for your message about PFBC, etc.

I have seen reports on the U.S. DOE Advanced PFBC "Carbonizer", an
inefficient gasifier to make fuel gas for a topping cycle and char for the
PFBC.

I do like your comment "This addresses the major issue for gasification ...
the first part (devolatization / pyrolysis) is easy, whereas the char
conversion is inherently slow (unless done as a combustion) .... something
which suggests that the char conversion step should be done separately to
the pyrolysis step."

Maybe we should make high-yield char-coal from biomass and use the charcoal
reactor off-gas to dry the biomass feed, and/or fire it in sugar mill
boilers, etc. Char could be transported to large central combined cycle
gasification power plants, maybe 350 MW.

Using char-coal rather than biomass as a feedstock for gasification may
offer special advantages. Dr. Michael J. Antal suggests (see reference) that
gasification of biomass under pressure requires high gasification
temperatures (typically above 850 degrees C) to gasify tars produced as
pyrolytic byproducts. A charcoal feedstock containing few tars should allow
lower gasification temperatures, which could reduce the concentration of
undesirable alkali gases in the product fuel gas.

aloha,

Jim Arcate
www.techtp.com

Reference:

Antal, M.J., Croiset E., Dai X., DeAlmeida C., Mok W.S., and Norberg N.,
High-Yield Biomass Charcoal, Energy & Fuels, American Chemical Society,
Vol.10, Number 3. 1996.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Sat Oct 31 11:25:13 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass PFBC vs. Gasification
Message-ID: <1c48e759.363b3c7f@aol.com>

Mr. James Joyce
The properly designed gasifier with IC engine, gas turbine, IGCC can handle a
wide variety of fuels with higher turndown, less operational cost and capital
cost than PFBC.
Overcoming the inert char reaction with higher rank coals can be greatly
enhanced with the use of high temperature steam which produces carbon monoxide
and hydrogen the primary combustion components of gasification process and
reacts rather quickly with char.
I am of the opinion that higher than 45% overall efficiency with heat
recovery on the prime mover is feasible. If capital cost is not an issue, the
low temperature organic rankine cycle can be added for more recovery.
One major aspect is that gasification process has a much smaller gas stream
than combustors so that the net gas clean up cost can be cheaper.
Sincerely,

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

 

From arcate at email.msn.com Sat Oct 31 13:56:35 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification at Burlington, Vt, McNeil generating station
Message-ID: <000201be0501$907efc60$0100007f@localhost>

Gasification Group:

I came across this on the One Week Ago On Electric Power NewsLink...
Power Magazine Web Site (http://www.powermag.com/)

Advanced biomass power process wins national award.

"A promising new biomass gasification process developed by Future Energy
Research Corp, Atlanta, Ga, is recognized as one of the most important
scientific advances of the year by R&D Magazine. The US Dept of Energy’s
biomass power program helped support the development and demonstration of
the gasification process, which received one of the magazine’s R&D 100
awards.

The technology was successfully demonstrated earlier this year at a new
biomass gasification powerplant in Burlington, Vt, at the McNeil generating
station. It runs on waste from sawmill operations and other woodwaste,
producing a combustible gas that is burned in McNeil’s conventional boiler."

Have there been reports on the "successful demonstration"? Are reports
available on the web? What is the current status & are there plans for the
future?

aloha,

Jim Arcate
www.techtp.com

PS: Power for Nov/Dec 1998: Critical technologies for a competitive future:
includes "large-scale renewables". Should be interesting.

 

 

 

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

 

From DMcilveenw at aol.com Sat Oct 31 16:16:25 1998
From: DMcilveenw at aol.com (DMcilveenw@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: USMC Project/thanx
Message-ID: <6f58707a.363b80c1@aol.com>

In a message dated 10/31/98 4:47:56AM,
James Joyce, in sunny Australia, wrote:
<<
In the meantime, keep making those boilers and microturbines Skip ....
I hope to have one for myself one day (afterall I'll need something to
charge up my electric car ;-)
>>
James,
Surely you will use PV modules for battery charging?

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

 

From rabello at uniserve.com Sat Oct 31 18:38:42 1998
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Micro-economics
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19981031235011.0067e4f0@popserver.uniserve.com>

Extracting efficiency out of a boiler or gasifier has an economic
cost that must be weighed against its benefits. For those of you who are
involved in utility-scale projects, where maximum efficiency results in a
higher profit, it makes sense to invest in equipment that will extract as
much energy as possible from a given fuel.
We "home power" people, on the other hand, have to weigh a
substantially higher initial investment (air pre-heat, superheaters, extra
insulation, etc.) against a minimal increase in power output over the life
of our systems.
In a woodstove powered steam project I did with my class, we
calculated the kilojoules in a load of wood (from a published value),
measured the temperature of our input water (at 2 degrees Celcius in the
early spring!), the temperature of our steam (roughly 120 degrees Celcius at
the top of our monotube boiler) to arrive at a value for heat tranfer for a
given volume of water. The heat transfer was better than 40% when
calculating steam temperature--thanks in part to a hot water circulating
loop in the system that conserved the woodstove's heat.
Our non-condensing turbine, however, was appallingly inefficient.
Calculating the electrical output of our system (between 440 and 480 watts)
yielded a little less than 10% overall efficiency.
We discussed how this could be improved. Eventually, the class came
up with a water preheat system driven by condensing steam, with an integral
air preheat system and extra insulation. The cost of these improvements
would have been more than twice what we paid for our entire system to that
point! (We'd come slightly over budget and the school board wasn't willing
to pay for improvements!)
Since our fuel was free (slash from a local wood lot), we examined
the trade-off between cutting extra wood or investing in higher efficiency
and opted for cutting extra wood! (This is primarily because many people in
northern B.C. burn wood anyway--the electricity was just a bonus.)
The same issues need to be examined as they relate to gasification.
For small scale users, cogenerating process or comfort heat and electricity
makes a great deal of sense. Maximum efficiency is less of a concern,
because using the fuel for more than one thing virtually doubles its
effective use anyway.
So here's the rub, as I understand it: Building a "used V-8" for
use with wood gas will cost no less than $1500 for someone who knows how to
buy parts and build the engine personally. The gasifier and gas treatment
equipment would be an additional expense. Judging from what I've read on
the subject, a gasifier big enough to power a V-8 engine would cost at least
$500. I have no idea what a generator would cost, but I've seen "biomass
powered" stirlings projected at between $5000 and $7000. (and I doubt a
generator would run $3000) A steam system with comparable output would
likely be a bit less than the stirling (help me on this, please!).
Processing the fuel is an additional expense. The wood I burn in my
stove is cut with a chainsaw and is too big for a gasifier, I haven't found
a local source of free, processed biomass, so I'd have to buy mill ends at
$300/100 cords. (That's a delivered price in U.S. funds, and it SEEMS
inexpensive. . .) So, is it cheaper for a "homesteader" to make steam, or gas?
My experience with V-8 engines is more extensive than my experience
with steam. (The fuel cells I've built are temperamental and require very
pure hydrogen for very little electrical output.) My propane-powered Chevys
are MUCH cleaner when stripped down than a comparable engine running
gasoline or alcohol. Since the first thing to go on a small block
Chevy is usually the valve guides, and since these wear out at roughly 100
000 kms, I'm figuring about 1 000 hours of use is reasonable before I'd have
to pull the cylinder heads for maintenance. I'd find it hard to believe I'd
use 1 000 hours of genset time in a single year. I can slap a set of
reconditioned heads on an engine for about $300, which adds .03 to any
electricity I produce--assuming electricity is the only use for my gasified
fuel. (It wouldn't be, but it starts getting hard to quantify otherwise. . .)
The fact that I could use wood gas for cooking makes gasification
technology attractive. It appears more efficient than the steam system I
built with my students. The additional fuel processing cost and engine
rebuilding costs tip the scales in favor of steam power.
Someone suggested I do both! It's an intriguing idea. . . Let me
build a gasifier first, and I'll let you know how it works!

robert luis rabello (Not God!)
VisionWorks Communications

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

 

From boilrmkr at surfsouth.com Sat Oct 31 22:39:51 1998
From: boilrmkr at surfsouth.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass PFBC vs. Gasification
In-Reply-To: <1c48e759.363b3c7f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <363BDA01.766AEDA7@surfsouth.com>

LINVENT@aol.com wrote:

> Mr. James Joyce
> The properly designed gasifier with IC engine, gas turbine, IGCC can handle a
> wide variety of fuels with higher turndown, less operational cost and capital cost than
> PFBC.

How about some numbers here to support your statements.

> Overcoming the inert char reaction with higher rank coals can be greatly
> enhanced with the use of high temperature steam which produces carbon monoxide and
> hydrogen the primary combustion components of gasification process and reacts rather
> quickly with char.

How much equipment does that add to the basic process?

> I am of the opinion that higher than 45% overall efficiency with heat
> recovery on the prime mover is feasible. If capital cost is not an issue, the
> low temperature organic rankine cycle can be added for more recovery.

If capital cost was not an issue we would all be millionaires and most of the list
participants would own very profitable companies.

> One major aspect is that gasification process has a much smaller gas stream
> than combustors so that the net gas clean up cost can be cheaper.

A gasification system is cheaper than a metal box and a cyclone collector?

Gene

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