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

September 1998 Gasification Archive

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

From ahe1 at cableol.co.uk Tue Sep 1 19:45:42 1998
From: ahe1 at cableol.co.uk (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:41 2004
Subject: GAS-L: another charcoal tale
In-Reply-To: <000501bdd3a3$2823b280$0100007f@localhost>
Message-ID: <199809012345.TAA12041@solstice.crest.org>

Jim
Just an initial feedback from my English perspective.
At 13:17 29-08-98 -1000, Jim Arcate wrote:
>I propose that we consider converting biomass to charcoal and co-fire
>charcoal with coal at the AES Hawaii power plant. Charcoal would be
I am with you on this one, but know nothing about AES Hawaii. I think there
are some virtues in the idea in general mostly related to proximity of use
and energy density.
>manufactured using a new high-yield process developed at the University of
>Hawaii, Hawaii Natural Energy Institute.
Why? Although the process looks good for producing a high volatiles
charcoal there are traditional efficient processes to make charcoal and
recover heat albeit in differing ratios. Also the fuel substitution fixes a
low price floor, there may well be other large scale uses which will pay a
premium for low volatiles charcoal. Metallurgical and filtering/cleaning
spring to mind as bulk users, here in U.K. we sell lumpwood barbecue
charcoal at a five fold premium over domestic solid fuel wholesale prices,
though this is a minor market. Apparently in order to defray capital costs
of opening large coal pits in AustralAsia coal once destined for the
Pacific Basin economies is appearing here at a third of the "normal" bulk
coal prices.
>
>The cost of charcoal is very sensitive to the cost of biomass feedstock and
>$ 70 per ton is at the "low end" of the expected range of charcoal prices.
Not wishing to have to calculate exchange rates and using wood as a
rawstock charcoal made here would cost 5-6 times as much as the feedstock
in wood alone. Typically with a locally delivered wood supply at gbp25 per
tonne of green wood the charcoal produced would be gbp125-150. Bearing in
mind ~50% of the heat is lost in a traditional charcoal making operation
the charcoal premium becomes essential. In our market situation we have
concluded that given a premium product it still behoves us to utilise waste
heat in a Combined Heat and Power scheme to both increase returns and clean
up the charcoal making process.

I noted your point from earlier postings that biomass powered electrical
generation was limited in size (and hence ability to benefit from economies
of large scale as well as better per cent of isentropic turbine
efficiency)by the hinterland from which it drew its supplies. I would

venture that the Charcoal,Heat and Power unit we are developing as a
response to failing industrial wood markets in a mature compact economy
will have a use in a larger market. Locally produced biomass could be
carbonised locally to provide heat and power on a small scale and the
resulting char exported as an energy dense fuel over a larger distance to
an urban large scale power station. Many small units would support one
large generator and the cash comparisons would not be so onerous as many
third world economies are unable to trade on the international fuel markets.
>
>Q1: Can charcoal at $70 per ton be "competitive" with coal in Hawaii?
>
>The plant manager at AES Hawaii told me he could buy coal today for $40 a
>ton ($28 plus $12 for shipping). But AES is now paying ~ $70 per ton per
>their
>contract for coal from Indonesia. Note: that's a "premium" of $21,000,000
Why is this premium paid, is it from some futures contract?
I would reiterate the point, which I see you have on board from your web
page, that there are probably a series of decreasing price options for
charcoal use before one would resort to co firing as a fuel, you only allow
a small % premium use. The fuel option could also be used to support the
price of the other products, i.e. if too much barbecue charcoal were on the
market, leading to discounting and loss of margin, one might decide to sell
the surplus off into the vast energy market just to stabilise the price and
hence maintain profits. There can be no force other than a low cost ( which
might include inconvenience as well as price) which would induce the
electricity producer to use biomass derived fuel.
>for the
>~ 700,000 tons per year fired at AES.
>
>Q2: Can charcoal at $70 per ton be "competitive" with coal at $40 per ton ?
>
>Charcoal has more energy than coal with 1 ton of charcoal replacing ~ 1.2
Over a short transport radius there is a case for co firing biomass
directly with coal with no treatment other than air/solar drying. In this
country a major problem is the bulk and the fact air drying is very
variable. The bulk means it is nearly impossible to optimise the full
capacity (25tonnes) of road transport as it will not fit on the vehicles
currently used. Densifying biomass appears to be a capital and energy
intensive process in comparison with carbonising.
The simple comparison with charcoal would be:
Agricultural residues delivered @ gbp20/tonne and 15% mc expressed as % dry
weight.
Forestry residues @ gbp25/tonne and 100%
Urban and post consumer waste @gbp-35/tonne ( this being a typical disposal
cost).
So if many of the inconveniences of handling biomass can be overcome then
air dry biomass with an as harvested cost of gbp20/tonne and 15GJ/tonne
compares well with coal at gbp40 and 28GJ/tonne.
Further considerations in this economy are a reported reduction in NOx and
sulphur emissions. Also there are some conservation led arguments for home
production of charcoal which have a tangible effect on prices as well as
wider environmental considerations which may in the future lead to a
monetary advantage for biomass fuel production as a byproduct of sensible

"sustainable" land use.
AJH

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

 

From mpat at erols.com Tue Sep 1 19:45:45 1998
From: mpat at erols.com (ROGER B. MCMULLEN)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:41 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Highest Biomass Energy Possible
Message-ID: <199809012345.TAA12057@solstice.crest.org>

Attn: Jim Arcate

As requested - some feedback:

Our tests and studies indicate a definite ability to utilize charcoal to
compete with coal. We have found that 1 ton of organic material @
~28% mc when processed with MPAT equipment will NET ~1 MWh/Ton of
electricity plus capture the maximum possible amount of pyrolyzate free
carbon.

The MPAT carbon is a byproduct of this ultimate electrical production,
therefore selling it as a fuel at ~$70 per ton is a plus. HECO's funds
otherwise "exported" for Indonesian coal can be retained within Hawaii.
Note: The value of local employment should be included in the economics
by a Utility when considering the process. Other advantages should
include their offset of operating costs for emission containment from
sulphur bearing coal tonnage when firing clean carbon from renewables.

MPAT's work with bagasse compares favorably to charcoal from waste wood
and greens. Moisture content (~50%) of received bagasse is reduced
during the MAPT pre processing such that the energy captured from the
tonnage processed roughly equates to waste wood and greens.

Some have asked why we refer to MPAT as a closed end "loop" process vs.
a closed end process. MPAT is thermally and electrically self sustained
by looping back approximately 15 to 20% of its product gas. Otherwise
it is a continuous closed end process.

To optimize biomass conversion efficiency the plant should
simultaneously convert the biomass to gas and carbon, combust the carbon
as fuel supporting the process thermal demands and utilize the gas
directly into spark/diesel engine generators and or turbine generators
while producing steam and electricity in a one pass operation. The MPAT
Boiler Pyrolyzer does exactly that. Waste heat boilers and other
cogenerating technology are incorporated within the MPAT design and
operation to capture the squeel of the pig, so to speak.

Jim, as you noted 1 ton of charcoal replaces ~ 1.2 tons of coal. I am
curious as to the charcoal analyses from the Hawaii Natural Energy
Institute process. Can you disclose how that process works, what the
gas BTU value is and what they do with that gas?

Regards,

Roger McMullen
Ph: 215-646-4222
Fax: 215-283-3277
E-Mail: mpat@erols.com

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

 

From btremeer at dds.nl Tue Sep 1 19:45:50 1998
From: btremeer at dds.nl (Grant Ballard-Tremeer)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:41 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO formation, was RE: Tom Reed on Emissions Target for Wood Fueled Cooking Stove
In-Reply-To: <199808281942_MC2-57B3-966C@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <000101bdd418$a4a321e0$2f0deed4@blackthorn>

Dear Tom

As far as I understand it CO2 is formed preferentially at lower temperatures
(below 400C) only in the presence of sufficient oxygen. When inlet air is
restricted, temperatures are too low, or where there is insufficient oxygen
for complete combustion smouldering occurs. The lower temperatures of the
smouldering stage results in a lower oxygen supply from diffusion into the
fuel bed - gases in this phase which leave the fuel bed are not oxidised
further, and relatively high levels of CO are produced. I'd thus expect high
CO levels at both low and high temperatures, and low levels in between.

I'm by no means an authority on this very complicated subject, but I think
this may explain your 2am wake up...

Regards
Grant

-------------------
Grant Ballard-Tremeer
btremeer@dds.nl; http://www.energy.demon.nl
-------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stoves@crest.org [mailto:owner-stoves@crest.org] On Behalf Of
Tom Reed
Sent: 29 August 1998 01:42
To: INTERNET:english@adan.kingston.net
Cc: GASIFICATION; STOVES
Subject: RE: Emissions Target for Wood Fueled Cooking Stove

Dear Alex et al:

We all share concerns in the measurement of emissions, particularly from
cooking stoves which are likely to be used indoors with the cook very close
to whatever escapes combustion.

A MAJOR reason for our interest here in WOOD-GAS stoves (as opposed to WOOD
STOVES) is that gasification permits (but does not mandate) clean
combustion by control of air fuel ratios during combustion of volatiles and
charcoal.

It is important to realize that the gases generated in flaming combustion
are very different from those arising from the charcoal, though both
contain high levels of CO.

I have a (Morningstar?) simple CO meter that I have been using to monitor
my current TURBO wood-gas stove. The stove provides adequate (but not too
much) air for secondary combustion of the gas in a well insulated chamber,
and I don't measure any CO, though I would like a better tester.

I recently placed the CO meter directly over my stove after I had
"extinguished" the stove by placing a ceramic lid over the flame holder. I

was surprised to see on checking 4 hours later that the stove was still
hot, presumably due to a small leak of primary air. 8 hours later, at 2 AM
my wife shook me awake to fix the alarm on the meter that emitted a
piercing shriek and registerd 150 ppm CO (our in my lab). Wow! A
thermocouple in the charcoal bed registered only 150 C.

>From this I learned how difficult it is to extinguish the charcoal and how
little air it takes to continue CO generation, even at very low
temperature. Frankly I am puzzled, because, while charcoal burns primarily
to CO
above 700C, equilibrium calculations show that it makes primarily CO2 at
lower temperatures, and I should have thought very little at 150C. So,
I'll run some more tests and calculations. Meanwhile, BE CAREFUL about
"nascent" charcoal (freshly formed and very pyrophoric!).

Your netpal, TOM
REED

It is incredibly difficult to

Dear Norbert and all,

I have been looking at the data files of the test burns for
Masonry Heater, which were archived at

http://mha-net.org/msb/html/lop-arc.htm#Data

When looking at this data I feel it is justified to ignore the
predictable rise in CO emissions during the charcoal phase at the end
of the batch burn cycle. Regardless, I agree with Norbert,
there seems to be ample evidence of a lack of correlation between
carbon monoxide emissions and particulate matter emissions over a the
fairly wide range of the CO/CO2 ratios and excess air factors,
typical of these tests. Only in a few cases related to start up,
where emissions for CO and Particulates were very high, was there a
clear positive correlation between the two. The CO and CO2 levels
were similar to measurements I have taken during unbridled batch
burns in box stoves.

I should point out that in the majority of cases, the masonry heater
tests showed that their particulate matter emissions were lower than
the current best values for EPA approved wood stoves, on a grams per
kilograms basis. Bravo!

> My gut feeling is that the correlation simply isn't there, except
> perhaps for a few very controlled scenarios (advanced cooking stoves
> just might be one of them, however). Although I'm very far from
> being an expert, my browsing of the literature on pyrolysis etc.,
> tells me that wood combustion chemistry is extremely complicated,
> compared to fossil fuel combustion. There are so many interactions
> and possible chemical pathways that it makes the mind spin. From my
> observations with cordwood, there seem to be two main CO sources:
> fuel-rich, unmixed, cold conditions at startup, when volatiles
> predominate, and charcoal burning at the end.

For me, the question remains, is there an emissions correlation for
more "controlled" wood combustion operating at lower CO/CO2 ratios.
perhaps with less excess air? Can that added control be low tech?

Surely greater "control" is the only possible route to cleaner
combustion. The masonry heaters tests were conducted with some
control over fuel characteristics and arrangement. Air was limited
somewhat, and the design minimizes cold surfaces where flames would

quench. Correct me if I am wrong Norbert, but these masonry heaters
don't have features which attempt to "control" or improve upon the
random turbulence which occurs naturally in the flame path which
flows upward from the fuel.

It appears from the data in D-hk94c.xls that some operational
'control' resulted in a significant reduction of PM emissions
for the later runs 7 to 16, as compared with 1 to 6. ?

> For a masonry heater, really clean would be .001, but that would
> be over the whole burn cycle, including cold start and charcoal
> phase.

Please check this again, I think this is an error. The single point
best CO/CO2 that I found in the data was closer to .003, with the
average, during the 'stable' middle portion of the burn, being closer
to .01. A target standard for 'clean' combustion in steady state chip
burners, for example, would be .00125 or less. Seemingly small
decimal differences, being ratios, mean more than they may appear to.
These lower numbers represent conditions like higher
temperatures and better mixing which are necessary for the more
complete conversion of CO and presumably many of the compounds which
would ultimately end up as particulate emissions.

Some additional data would be helpful for this exploration. If some
of the best EPA stoves are operating with better CO/CO2 ratios
while achieving no better PM results, then I don't have a point. If
the 'clean' chip burners are no better on PM, then I don't have a
point. It could be that other factors are key.
There are a number of possibilities, perhaps none of them are
relevant to masonry heaters.

Given the nature of cooking stoves, cold start, small scale and
fuel variability, it wouldn't be hard to be a skeptic.

For now I shall remain a naivic. Alex

PS. There are folks on this list who could shed light on this topic.
Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:

http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage

http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES

http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

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

 

From Iemdon at aol.com Tue Sep 1 19:45:55 1998
From: Iemdon at aol.com (Iemdon@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:41 2004
Subject: GAS-L: PhD position in Berlin, GERMANY
Message-ID: <1fc873cd.35ea265c@aol.com>

I am Don Augenstein (iemdon@aol.com). This is to suggest that you can send
mail to John Benemann, jbenemann@aol.com, with whom I work. John is fluent in
German and we have done some gasification work with the Electric Power
Research Institute in the past.

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

 

From agtrans at powerup.com.au Tue Sep 1 19:46:00 1998
From: agtrans at powerup.com.au (Peter Chudleigh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:41 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Wood Biomass for Electricity
Message-ID: <199809012346.TAA12129@solstice.crest.org>

TO: gasification@crest.org

Agtrans Research is currently working on a project looking in part at wood
gasification and electricity generation, and are hoping you may be able to
assist us with our inquiries. Please find following information relating to
our company Agtrans Research, the project we are working on, and questions
we hope you will be able to assist with.

Agtrans Research is an economic consulting firm, based in Brisbane,
Australia. We are currently undertaking a study on behalf of the Joint
Venture Agroforestry Committee which is made up of representatives from the
government bodies: the Rural Industries R&D Corporation, the Land and Water
Resources R&D Corporation, the Forest and Wood Products R&D Corporation, and
the Murray Darling Basin Commission. The information generated from this
study will be used by the committee to assist it in prioritising it's future
agroforestry R&D investments for the low rainfall zones in Australia.

We are attempting to assemble estimates of the likely costs (capital and
operating) associated with electricity production from wood biomass, namely
wood gasification, and electricity generation using gas-driven micro-turbine
technology. CSIRO are presently working on a demonstration gasification
unit and have been able to provide some technical assistance on the
gasification process. However, they were unable to provide estimates of
operating and/or capital costs. We are hoping you will be able to assist in
answering some questions (documented below) we have regarding these areas.

Questions Regarding Wood Biomass Gasification and Electricity Generation

We believe that the most realistic option for regional utilisation of wood
biomass for electricity generation in the low rainfall areas will be in the
form of wood gasification units, coupled with gas-driven microturbines. We
understand that these units, once developed, will be operated as mobile
units. Based on our research to date, we have formulated the following
questions. If however, there are other issues or technologies which we have
not considered for wood biomass electricity generation that you believe are
worth noting, we would be interested in them as well. Any input you have on
these matters would be greatly appreciated.

1. What are the capital costs associated with a small-scale, mobile wood
gasification and generation unit (gas-driven microturbine)? We are assuming
a 100kW generating capacity for the microturbine. If possible, could the
total capital cost be broken into
(a) equipment required to feed chipped material into gasifier, (b) wood
gasifier (to fuel 100kW microturbine), (c) gas-driven microturbine (100kW
generating capacity), and
(d) other capital requirements (for 100kW microturbine).

2. What would be the expected "down time" for the above capital items, and
would back-up systems be required?

3. What is the likely range of operating costs for these units? Please
include costs of labour, pretreatment costs such as chipping, cost of
feeding the biomass into the gasifier, and operating and maintenance costs
of the gasifier and microturbine.

4. Would the wood biomass be chipped prior to gasification, would it be
green or dry, and would it include leaf matter? Would the wood biomass need
to be pre-treated in any other way prior to gasification?

5. Other comments regarding wood biomass gasification and electricity
generation:

If you have any comments or questions on this request, please email us at
agtrans@powerup.com.au We would appreciate any information on this area or
the provision of sources of information from where it might be obtained.

Thank you in anticipation of your help,

Amanda Zorzetto
Research Officer

AGTRANS RESEARCH
Suite 36, Benson House, 2 Benson Street, Toowong, Brisbane, Australia
PO Box 385, Toowong Qld 4066
Telephone: (07) 3870 4047 or (07) 3870 9564 * Facsimile: (07) 3371 3381
A.C.N. 010 605 96465

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

 

From A.Cartwright at enviro-consult.com Wed Sep 2 10:36:27 1998
From: A.Cartwright at enviro-consult.com (Andy Cartwright)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Wood Biomass for Electricity
Message-ID: <199809021436.KAA15472@solstice.crest.org>

Hi Peter,

We are also a consulting firm specialisng mainly in environmental areas. I
am Currently working on a feasibility study on gasification. The project is
to install a 100kW unit into a joinery to get rid of the companies wood
waste. We also intend to sell the electricity to the grid. I am starting to
weeks holidays now so i will be able to answer some of your questions on
return. No doubt there will also be many other people on the list that can
answer you questions.

 

 

Regards

Andrew Cartwright
____________________________________________________________
Environmental Efficiency Consultants (Irl) Ltd

Tel:- + 353 1 276 1428
Fax:- + 353 1 276 1561
email:- A.Cartwright@enviro-consult.com
www.enviro-consult.com

----------
> From: Peter Chudleigh <agtrans@powerup.com.au>
> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> Subject: GAS-L: Wood Biomass for Electricity
> Date: 01 September 1998 16:46
>
> TO: gasification@crest.org
>
> Agtrans Research is currently working on a project looking in part at
wood
> gasification and electricity generation, and are hoping you may be able
to
> assist us with our inquiries. Please find following information relating
to
> our company Agtrans Research, the project we are working on, and
questions
> we hope you will be able to assist with.
>
> Agtrans Research is an economic consulting firm, based in Brisbane,
> Australia. We are currently undertaking a study on behalf of the Joint
> Venture Agroforestry Committee which is made up of representatives from
the
> government bodies: the Rural Industries R&D Corporation, the Land and
Water
> Resources R&D Corporation, the Forest and Wood Products R&D Corporation,
and
> the Murray Darling Basin Commission. The information generated from this
> study will be used by the committee to assist it in prioritising it's
future
> agroforestry R&D investments for the low rainfall zones in Australia.
>
> We are attempting to assemble estimates of the likely costs (capital and
> operating) associated with electricity production from wood biomass,
namely
> wood gasification, and electricity generation using gas-driven
micro-turbine
> technology. CSIRO are presently working on a demonstration gasification
> unit and have been able to provide some technical assistance on the

> gasification process. However, they were unable to provide estimates of
> operating and/or capital costs. We are hoping you will be able to assist
in
> answering some questions (documented below) we have regarding these
areas.
>
> Questions Regarding Wood Biomass Gasification and Electricity Generation
>
> We believe that the most realistic option for regional utilisation of
wood
> biomass for electricity generation in the low rainfall areas will be in
the
> form of wood gasification units, coupled with gas-driven microturbines.
We
> understand that these units, once developed, will be operated as mobile
> units. Based on our research to date, we have formulated the following
> questions. If however, there are other issues or technologies which we
have
> not considered for wood biomass electricity generation that you believe
are
> worth noting, we would be interested in them as well. Any input you have
on
> these matters would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
> 1. What are the capital costs associated with a small-scale, mobile wood
> gasification and generation unit (gas-driven microturbine)? We are
assuming
> a 100kW generating capacity for the microturbine. If possible, could the
> total capital cost be broken into
> (a) equipment required to feed chipped material into gasifier, (b) wood
> gasifier (to fuel 100kW microturbine), (c) gas-driven microturbine (100kW
> generating capacity), and
> (d) other capital requirements (for 100kW microturbine).
>
> 2. What would be the expected "down time" for the above capital items,
and
> would back-up systems be required?
>
> 3. What is the likely range of operating costs for these units? Please
> include costs of labour, pretreatment costs such as chipping, cost of
> feeding the biomass into the gasifier, and operating and maintenance
costs
> of the gasifier and microturbine.
>
> 4. Would the wood biomass be chipped prior to gasification, would it be
> green or dry, and would it include leaf matter? Would the wood biomass
need
> to be pre-treated in any other way prior to gasification?
>
> 5. Other comments regarding wood biomass gasification and electricity
> generation:
>
>
>
> If you have any comments or questions on this request, please email us at
> agtrans@powerup.com.au We would appreciate any information on this area
or
> the provision of sources of information from where it might be obtained.
>
> Thank you in anticipation of your help,
>
>
> Amanda Zorzetto
> Research Officer
>
> AGTRANS RESEARCH
> Suite 36, Benson House, 2 Benson Street, Toowong, Brisbane, Australia
> PO Box 385, Toowong Qld 4066
> Telephone: (07) 3870 4047 or (07) 3870 9564 * Facsimile: (07) 3371 3381
> A.C.N. 010 605 96465
>
> 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 fkuzel at cglg.org Wed Sep 2 10:55:35 1998
From: fkuzel at cglg.org (Fred Kuzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BioEnergy '98 Conference
Message-ID: <01BDD65A.4B210DA0@ts003d07.chi-il.concentric.net>

To the List:
Here's an ad hoc plug for the BioEnergy '98 conference to be held in Madison, WI between Oct. 4-8, 1998.
Based on the messages that have appeared for the past few years, I think the BioEnergy '98 conference has much to offer almost every one who has ever participated in the bioenergy list.
There are ten major topics that will be discussed at the conference and will appear in the proceedings: Policy & DOE's Program, Marketing and Finance, Burning and Co-burning, Gasification, Biogas, Advanced Concepts, Ethanol, Biodiesel, Resources and Environmental Impacts.
BioEnergy '98 will have the best and brightest speakers (mostly from the US) delivering seven keynote talks, participating in seven plenary panels and delivering over 160 papers in 26 concurrent sessions and through a poster session. BioEnergy '98 will likely have the largest bioenergy trade show ever in the US with close to 45 industry and organizational booths. In addition there will be nine bioenergy and local attraction tours.
For $325, participants get all of the above, a CD ROM proceedings, four continental breakfasts, three lunches, two evening receptions and one Taste of Wisconsin diner. All of this will take place in Madison, WI, consistently voted one of the top places to live in the US.
I hope many of those participating in the Bioenergy list will have a chance to come to Madison to participate in the BioEnergy '98 event. I believe the planning committee and conference partners have put together quite a show at a critical time in the development of bioenergy technologies and policy. If there is something that is missing, let me know and we will try to accommodate.
Check out the web site and register on line. Early registration ends September 8!
I hope to meet many of you in October.

Don Wichert
Wisconsin Energy Bureau
Plan on Attending BioEnergy '98
http://www.cglg.org/bioenergy98
wiched@mail.state.wi.us

 

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

 

From mpat at erols.com Wed Sep 2 11:54:57 1998
From: mpat at erols.com (ROGER B. MCMULLEN)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Highest Biomass Energy Possible
Message-ID: <199809021554.LAA20810@solstice.crest.org>

Attn: Jim Arcate

As requested - some feedback:

Our tests and studies indicate a definite ability to utilize charcoal to
compete with coal. We have found that 1 ton of organic material @
~28% mc when processed with MPAT equipment will NET ~1 MWh/Ton of
electricity plus capture the maximum possible amount of pyrolyzate free
carbon.

The MPAT carbon is a byproduct of this ultimate electrical production,
therefore selling it as a fuel at ~$70 per ton is a plus. HECO's funds
otherwise "exported" for Indonesian coal can be retained within Hawaii.
Note: The value of local employment should be included in the economics
by a Utility when considering the process. Other advantages should
include their offset of operating costs for emission containment from
sulphur bearing coal tonnage when firing clean carbon from renewables.

MPAT's work with bagasse compares favorably to charcoal from waste wood
and greens. Moisture content (~50%) of received bagasse is reduced
during the MAPT pre processing such that the energy captured from the
tonnage processed roughly equates to waste wood and greens.

Some have asked why we refer to MPAT as a closed end "loop" process vs.
a closed end process. MPAT is thermally and electrically self sustained
by looping back approximately 15 to 20% of its product gas. Otherwise
it is a continuous closed end process.

To optimize biomass conversion efficiency the plant should
simultaneously convert the biomass to gas and carbon, combust the carbon
as fuel supporting the process thermal demands and utilize the gas
directly into spark/diesel engine generators and or turbine generators
while producing steam and electricity in a one pass operation. The MPAT
Boiler Pyrolyzer does exactly that. Waste heat boilers and other
cogenerating technology are incorporated within the MPAT design and
operation to capture the squeel of the pig, so to speak.

Jim, as you noted 1 ton of charcoal replaces ~ 1.2 tons of coal. I am
curious as to the charcoal analyses from the Hawaii Natural Energy
Institute process. Can you disclose how that process works, what the
gas BTU value is and what they do with that gas?

Regards,

Roger McMullen
Ph: 215-646-4222
Fax: 215-283-3277
E-Mail: mpat@erols.com

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

 

From A.Cartwright at enviro-consult.com Wed Sep 2 11:55:00 1998
From: A.Cartwright at enviro-consult.com (Andy Cartwright)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Wood Biomass for Electricity
Message-ID: <199809021555.LAA20829@solstice.crest.org>

Hi Peter,

We are also a consulting firm specialisng mainly in environmental areas. I
am Currently working on a feasibility study on gasification. The project is
to install a 100kW unit into a joinery to get rid of the companies wood
waste. We also intend to sell the electricity to the grid. I am starting to
weeks holidays now so i will be able to answer some of your questions on
return. No doubt there will also be many other people on the list that can
answer you questions.

 

 

Regards

Andrew Cartwright
____________________________________________________________
Environmental Efficiency Consultants (Irl) Ltd

Tel:- + 353 1 276 1428
Fax:- + 353 1 276 1561
email:- A.Cartwright@enviro-consult.com
www.enviro-consult.com

----------
> From: Peter Chudleigh <agtrans@powerup.com.au>
> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> Subject: GAS-L: Wood Biomass for Electricity
> Date: 01 September 1998 16:46
>
> TO: gasification@crest.org
>
> Agtrans Research is currently working on a project looking in part at
wood
> gasification and electricity generation, and are hoping you may be able
to
> assist us with our inquiries. Please find following information relating
to
> our company Agtrans Research, the project we are working on, and
questions
> we hope you will be able to assist with.
>
> Agtrans Research is an economic consulting firm, based in Brisbane,
> Australia. We are currently undertaking a study on behalf of the Joint
> Venture Agroforestry Committee which is made up of representatives from
the
> government bodies: the Rural Industries R&D Corporation, the Land and
Water
> Resources R&D Corporation, the Forest and Wood Products R&D Corporation,
and
> the Murray Darling Basin Commission. The information generated from this
> study will be used by the committee to assist it in prioritising it's
future
> agroforestry R&D investments for the low rainfall zones in Australia.
>
> We are attempting to assemble estimates of the likely costs (capital and
> operating) associated with electricity production from wood biomass,
namely
> wood gasification, and electricity generation using gas-driven
micro-turbine
> technology. CSIRO are presently working on a demonstration gasification
> unit and have been able to provide some technical assistance on the
> gasification process. However, they were unable to provide estimates of
> operating and/or capital costs. We are hoping you will be able to assist
in
> answering some questions (documented below) we have regarding these
areas.
>
> Questions Regarding Wood Biomass Gasification and Electricity Generation
>
> We believe that the most realistic option for regional utilisation of
wood
> biomass for electricity generation in the low rainfall areas will be in
the
> form of wood gasification units, coupled with gas-driven microturbines.
We
> understand that these units, once developed, will be operated as mobile
> units. Based on our research to date, we have formulated the following
> questions. If however, there are other issues or technologies which we
have
> not considered for wood biomass electricity generation that you believe
are
> worth noting, we would be interested in them as well. Any input you have
on
> these matters would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
> 1. What are the capital costs associated with a small-scale, mobile wood
> gasification and generation unit (gas-driven microturbine)? We are
assuming
> a 100kW generating capacity for the microturbine. If possible, could the
> total capital cost be broken into
> (a) equipment required to feed chipped material into gasifier, (b) wood
> gasifier (to fuel 100kW microturbine), (c) gas-driven microturbine (100kW
> generating capacity), and
> (d) other capital requirements (for 100kW microturbine).
>
> 2. What would be the expected "down time" for the above capital items,
and
> would back-up systems be required?
>
> 3. What is the likely range of operating costs for these units? Please
> include costs of labour, pretreatment costs such as chipping, cost of
> feeding the biomass into the gasifier, and operating and maintenance
costs
> of the gasifier and microturbine.
>
> 4. Would the wood biomass be chipped prior to gasification, would it be
> green or dry, and would it include leaf matter? Would the wood biomass
need
> to be pre-treated in any other way prior to gasification?
>
> 5. Other comments regarding wood biomass gasification and electricity
> generation:
>
>
>
> If you have any comments or questions on this request, please email us at
> agtrans@powerup.com.au We would appreciate any information on this area
or
> the provision of sources of information from where it might be obtained.
>
> Thank you in anticipation of your help,
>
>
> Amanda Zorzetto
> Research Officer
>
> AGTRANS RESEARCH
> Suite 36, Benson House, 2 Benson Street, Toowong, Brisbane, Australia
> PO Box 385, Toowong Qld 4066
> Telephone: (07) 3870 4047 or (07) 3870 9564 * Facsimile: (07) 3371 3381
> A.C.N. 010 605 96465
>
> 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 valdir at mec.ita.cta.br Thu Sep 3 10:40:30 1998
From: valdir at mec.ita.cta.br (Valdir de Souza)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ADG
Message-ID: <199809031440.KAA19287@solstice.crest.org>

Dear Sir or Madam,
I would be grateful if you could send me some technical information and
prices on your equipaments (anaerobic digester gas) .
I am heading a project of setting up a power plant fuel cell using as
fuel methane, the fuel cell capacity will be around 200 kW.
I would apprecite if you send me the catalogs or any information on the
following address:
valdir araujo de souza
Instituto Tecnologico de Aeronautica
Rua: Professor waldemar ramos ,311
Parque Martim cerere São José dos Campos
São Paulo Brasil
CEP 12227-790
email- valdir@mec.ita.cta.br
I do apologise for taking your time.

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

 

From rolando at kemitek.ket.kth.se Thu Sep 3 11:12:06 1998
From: rolando at kemitek.ket.kth.se (Rolando Zanzi)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 2nd Olle =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lindstr=F6m?= Symposium on Renewable Energy, Bioenergy
Message-ID: <v03007801b21472588400@[130.237.54.123]>

2nd Olle Lindström Symposium on Renewable Energy, Bioenergy
9-11 June, 1999
Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm, Sweden

Symposium Internet site: http://www.ket.kth.se/O_L_Symposium.html

FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT CALL FOR PAPERS
Experts in the field are invited to participate actively in the 2nd Olle
Lindström Symposium on Renewable Energy by giving oral
presentations on their recent work. Please, submit abstracts of maximum two
pages that give a clear and comprehensive outline of your subject.

Title and abstract received: September 15, 1998
Authors notified of acceptance: November 1, 1998
Complete papers received: December 15, 1998

The scientific committee will select papers to be presented. All papers will be
reviewed by at least two reviewers prior to publication. Only papers that are
presented by the authors will appear in the proceedings.

ORGANISING COMMITTEE
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Fredrik Setterwall (Chairman)
Ivars Neretnieks, Gunnar Svedberg, Pehr Björnbom, Krister Sjöström

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
Michael Jerry Antal Jr, HNEI, USA
Thore Berntsson, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Erik Dahlqvist, ABB Industrial Systems, Sweden
Carl-Johan Fogelholm, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Mikko Hupa, Åbo Akademi University, Finland
Björn Karlsson, Linköping Universitet, Sweden
Björn Kjellström, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden
Bo Leckner, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Kent Nyström, SVEBIO, Sweden
Björn Qvale, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
Erik Rensfelt, TPS Termiska Processer AB, Sweden
Ingo Romey, Universität GH Essen, Germany
Tord Torisson, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Björn Zethræus, Växjö University College, Sweden

TOPICS
The main themes of the 2nd Olle Lindström Symposium on Renewable
Energy, Bioenergy are bioenergy and systems utilising bioenergy. All kinds
of bioenergy sources, systems using such sources and components of such
systems can be discussed. For example the scope includes basic science of
bio-fuels, gas turbines, fuel cells etc., research and development concerning
such items and all types of systems for converting bioenergy to electricity
and/or
heat.

Conditioning and storage of bio-fuels
Long term effects of bio-fuel production and use
Combustion processes and equipment
Energy systems for conversion of bioenergy
Flue gas cleaning in large and small scale operations
Ash handling
Marketable end products, e.g. charcoal, alcohols, bio-diesel fuel, and
hydrogen from biomass

The language of the symposium is English.

PARTICIPATION

If you plan to attend the symposium, please complete the attached
pre-registration
form. Detailed information, including registration and hotel accommodation
forms,
will be distributed in a second announcement in October 1998.

The registration fee includes Symposium Proceedings, banquet, lunch and
refreshments during the session break.

Full registration fee:
until April 1, 1999: 4000 SEK* (~ US$ 500)
after April 1, 1999: 5000 SEK* (~ US$ 625)

*Prices include local tax (VAT).

INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

For further information please contact:

Professor Fredrik Setterwall
Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology
Division of Transport Phenomena
Royal Institute of Technology, KTH
SE-100 44 Stockholm
Sweden

Fax: + 46 8 10 52 28
E-mail: setter@ket.kth.se

*************************************************
Rolando Zanzi
KTH /Chemical Technology
S-100 44 Stockholm - Sweden
e-mail: rolando@ket.kth.se
Fax: 46-8-10 8579 Tel: 46-8- 790 8257
http://www.ket.kth.se/rolando

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

 

From arcate at email.msn.com Thu Sep 3 15:49:33 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ahead of the curve on the use of web pages
Message-ID: <00ca01bdd775$282fab00$0100007f@localhost>

Hello Gasification Group:

I have had a few positive reactions to my biomass charcoal co-firing concept
but many more compliments on my web site www.techtp.com

For example:

If you don't succeed with this biomass charcoal idea, Transnational
Technology can always branch out into developing web sites for other
companies. You really are ahead of the curve on the use of web pages!

Anybody interested in a FrontPage 98 web site? Please let me know.

aloha,

Transnational Technology
James R. Arcate
3289 Manoa Road Suite A
Honolulu, HI 9682-1273
(808) 988-7502

 

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

 

From arcate at email.msn.com Sun Sep 6 16:06:48 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: USMC Gasification Plant
Message-ID: <000101bdd9d3$4c0eb100$0100007f@localhost>

Hello Gasification:

I came across this on the EPA web site. I enjoyed learning about a plant
that seems to work well in the good ole USA.

BIOMASS POWER PLANT DEMONSTRATION AT CAMP LEJEUNE
http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/crb/apb/crppage/clew.htm

Also see link to EPA biomass integrated gasifier gas turbine project (Craig
and Purvis, 1998)].

Jim Arcate

=================
ABSTRACT
The Camp Lejeune Energy from Wood (CLEW) project has been undertaken to
demonstrate that biomass energy conversion is a competitive,
lower-polluting, electrical power option for government installations,
industrial sites, rural cooperatives, small municipalities, and regions of
developing countries. Wood gasification combined with internal combustion
engines was chosen because of 1) recent improvements in gas cleaning, 2)
simple, economical operation for units up to 5 MW, and 3) the option of a
clean, cheap replacement fuel for many existing facilities currently using
gasoline or diesel fuel in engine/generator sets. The plant incorporates a
moving bed bulk wood dryer; a downdraft, fixed bed gasifier utilizing hogged
wood residues; a gas cleaning and cooling system; and a spark ignition
engine. Operation of the plant has resulted in characterization of all major
technical challenges and provided solutions. This paper briefly describes
the process design, initial operational results, and needs and justification
for further testing.
=================

 

 

 

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Sep 7 19:13:23 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: File mail vs E-mail
Message-ID: <199809071923_MC2-58A7-F677@compuserve.com>

Dear Doelle and all:

I have recently been receiving more and more E-mail messages (in Compuserve
4.0) that have a second message attached. Frequently I can read the second
file message without problem; sometimes I have to go to my download to find
it.

If the attached file has special formatting, pictures, etc., I can
understand why it is sent as an attachment. However, if it is plain text,
why send it as an attachment rather than a plain E-mail letter???

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Sep 7 19:13:50 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Buffalo gourd, & rootfuel
Message-ID: <199809071923_MC2-58A7-F67B@compuserve.com>

Ron, Gene Schultz et al:

How glad I am to find Gene Schultz weighing in on root fuels here. I hope
some of this is also appearing in the BIOENERGY section, since root fuels
are a new, non-obvious source of fuel which may (or may not) some day be
important. (Gene sent me his book on oil-plants long ago; Thanks.) I'm
opening a new file folder on rootfuels in my file cabinet.

Gene said:

>Rootfuel is a low-power stove fuel compared to wood, but high-power
compared
>to charcoal. Rootfuel pieces release energy at about one-half to one-third
the
>rate of comparable size/shape wood pieces, in our rather elementary
studies
>using improvised field equipment, basically a simple stove on top of a
scales.
>
>The flame height is lower for rootfuel, compared to woodfuel, perhaps
because
>rootfuel lacks the volatiles found in wood. In our comparisons of cooking
a
>fixed amount of rice/water in the same pot, with rootfuel and woodfuel of
same
>size and shape, we needed only about 0.7 as much rootfuel, by weight, to
>complete the task, perhaps because the flame height was shorter and could
be
>better focused on the bottom of the pot. The woodfuel flames tended to
contact
>the sides as well as the bottom of the pot, so more energy was being
wasted.
>We could move the pot lower when burning rootfuel.

Let us speculate on the low flame height. The physical composition of
"woody biomass" is roughtly 50% cellulose, 25% hemicellulose and 25%
lignin. The carbon ratio chemical composition of woody biomass is
approximated by C H(1.4) O (0.6). I presume that the rootfuel is primarily
"carbohydrate" (derived from the formula from sugar, C6H12O6 = C-H2O,
carbon plus water). Thus the carbon-ratio forumla for starch (C6H10O5)
would be C H(1.66) O (0.833). At first glance this would appear to have
MORE potential for volatility (Higher H and O), but also lower energy
content (more H2O). Gene's figure of 17.7 kJ/g is 15% lower than the
figure of 21 kJ/g for DRY woody biomass with the formula above. .

I think it more likely that the low flame height is due to the high density
and low permeability of the rootfuel-starch. The specific gravity of woody
biomass cellwall is an amazing 1.5 (g/cm3) but hardwoods are typically .5
and softwoods .3, due to the cellular structure and air content. Ron gave
me a few pieces of buffalo gourd a few years ago, and I just went down to
my lab to check the density. It is DENSE and HARD. I put a piece in water
and it almost sank - like an ice cube. I would estimate the SG as 0.9.
Also, non-porous.

So I speculate that the low flame height is due to slower pyrolysis on the
application of heat, releasing the volatile materials more slowly.
~~~~~

We should all be VERY aware of the quenching effect of a cooking pot.
Light a candle and hold a cold spoon 2 cm above the visible flame. No soot
apparent. Hold it 1/2 cm above the visible flame. Small soot
accumulation. Hold it 1/2 cm below the top of the visible flame. COPIOUS
soot (unburned carbon) apparent. Hold it 1/2 cm above the wick. An outer
ring of soot and an inner circle of condensed parrafin wax apparent. While
this doesn't measure CO, unburned C and CO go together.

So a few cm difference in pot height can make a BIG difference over various
wood and rootfuel flames, and this could certainly explain the superior
efficiency and lower emissions of the rootfuels in Gene's tests.

~~~~~
In my most recent blue flame wood-gas stove I cooked potatoes in our
kitchen. No smell, water boiled in 3 min, potatoes delicious. Then I
looked at the bottom of the pot. No soot, but a heavy coating of a dark
varnish that it took 15 minutes to remove with Brillo! I have promised
Vivian that I will not use her pot again until this problem is solved.

What is the dark varnish????

~~~~~

Comments?

Your firebug pal,
TOM REED

 

Message text written by Ronal W. Larson
>>Ron: Yes, indeed, well-dried rootfuel is quite hard, but when fresh the
water
>content is about 70%, so it can be easily cut with a paring knife or
machete.
>A water content of 70 to 80% is typical of sweet potatoes, carrots and
some
>other root crops, I believe. Be sure to cut rootfuel soon after harvest,
or
>the energy required to chop it up later will be exorbitant. It dries to
some
>level of hardness in just a few days. Also, rootfuel needs to be cut near
the
>plot where it is grown, to avoid paying to haul all that internal water
very
>far.
>
>Another observation: dry rootfuel has no grain like wood does. Atempts to
>split dried roots into slivers usually cause the root to shatter into
chunks.
>Because its ignitability is similar to wood, we usually use slivers of
wood or
>other solid combustible with a lot of surface to get the fire started,
just as
>we start a woodfuel fire if there is no kerosene handy.
>
>
>The above is just my hypothesis. Someone competent should really do
complete
>combustion studies to compare rootfuel with several types of important
>woodfuels.
>
>We had bone-dry rootfuel tested for heating value in a commercial
industrial
>lab, using a Parr bomb and a standard ASTM method. They reported 7645
Btu/lb
>(published on p. in Shultz et al., 459-481, Energy from Biomass and
Wastes
>XIII, Don Klass, ed., Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago). I think that
7645
>Btu/lb is about 17.7 MJ/kG, so that's not far from woodfuel, at least
>hardwoods. The big difference is in the kinetics, not the thermo.
>
>I don't know how much smaller the rootfuel would need to be, in comparison
>with woodfuel, to achieve similar rates of heat release. I suspect that
the
>lower power characteristic of rootfuel is a good thing for simmered meals,
a
>common thing in most of the world. A rolling boil uses up a lot of energy,
but
>probably doesn't shorten cooking time of a boiled meal.
>
>Of course, one might like to get up to the boiling point quickly, maybe by
>using wood, then switch to a low-power solid fuel like rootfuel for the
bulk
>of the cooking time at the b.p., but we found that there wasn't much time
lost
>in getting up to boil with rootfuel. The time lost is very small to the
usual
>time required for meal prep in rural areas of the world where traditional
>stoves and solid fuels are used.
>
>But do keep in mind that Chinese and Chinese-related cuisine needs a
really
>high power fuel (stir-frying) so I guess that rootfuel wouldn't be too
good
>for that. And that's a large fraction of the world's population, not only
in
>China but in S.E. Asia.
>
>Re non-edible oils from annual root crops, I think there are plenty wild
>species that have high yields of oil, some edible and some non-edible.
>Remember that what is an annual species at higher latitudes might be a
>perennial at lower lats. In the tropics there are lots of oilseed trees,
but
>also plenty that are shrubs or smaller plants. Diversity is incredible and
>generalizations are difficult to make. Anyone on the list who is
interested
>might want to invest some time in combing through our book, Shultz and
Morgan,
>eds. Fuels and Chemicals from Oilseeds, Westview Press, 1984. It is out of
>print, so if it is hard to find I will be glad to give anyone a copy for
just
>the cost of mailing! When the book was remaindered by Westview, I acquired
a
>big box full that is still in the closet taking up space. Anyone
interested???
>
>Re rootfuel yields in northwestern New Mexico (high, semi-arid): single-
>season, oven-dry root yields ranged from 2.4 Mg/hectare to 12.2 Mg/hectare
>depending on irrigation level (the San Juan River is nearby). The roots
will
>winter-over and resume growth next spring. Over two seasons, the low and
high
>yield values were 3.9 and 21.1, resp. (Dan Smeal et al., presented 5th
Int'l
>Conf. on Desert Development, Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock). I can supply
copies
>of the paper.
>
>Oil yields were studied about 15-20 years ago by Wm. P. Bemis et al. of U.
of
>Arizona. They published a lot of yield info, some as a row crop, some in
other
>growing regimes. Maybe the handiest source for yield data is the review by
>DeVeaux and Shultz in Economic Botany, 1985, 39(4):454-472.
>
>The best niche (or niches) for this plant, Cucurbita foetidissima? Well,
fuel
>ethanol for transport in those places in the world where ethanol subsidies
are
>possible, oil is scarce, and semi-arid climatic conditions abound but
where
>water is available for irrigation (not a whole lot is needed, less than
corn).
>I think of drylands through which major rivers flow, so you aren't
stealing
>water from food crops.
>
>The seedoil, excellent as a food oil, really should be used but the whole
>world seems to be awash in foodoils, thanks mostly to widespread
cultivation
>of soybeans to feed cattle. Who really needs a new food oil source??? So
maybe
>one can justify using the oil for biodiesel, or illumination? Why not?
What do
>you think?
>
>The roots are bitter so food/feed uses for them are out of the question.
Bemis
>tried to extract the starch, hoping to find a special high-quality starch,
but
>found the starch wasn't worth it. So the only major uses for the roots are
for
>fermentation to ethanol, or for drying to give a relatively clean-burning
>solid fuel.
>
>About the latter, I have spent so many years on rootfuel that I don't have
a
>shred of objectivity left. But do hear me out on the benefits of rootfuel.
>
>Indoor smoke is a major health problem. Indoor RSP levels are typically
much
>much higher than the WHO-approved minimum when you go around the Third
World
>and make measurements. The health toll, especially on children and women
(in
>the house more than than the men) is enormous. Elder men are in the house
and
>suffer with the elder women. Under 2 mortality is high and is driven by
smoke-
>related respiratory infections just as much as by other reasons. You have
>heard Kirk Smith, and others, point this out many times. It's real. It's
big
>time.
>
>My sense of it is that we've got to do something about this as soon as we
can,
>whether via better stoves (that are affordable by the poor, or can be made
by
>the poor), or by a cleaner-burning solid fuel that doesn't require the
poor to
>buy an expensive stove (expensive for them) that burns a hydrocarbon fuel
>cleanly.
>
>Then there is also the greenhouse-gas problem that smoke creates, and this
may
>be just as serious as the effect of carbon dioxide. Again, read Kirk
Smith.
>Are we still in denial about this problem? Maybe.
>
>If we simply divert smoke out of the house into the atmosphere by means of
a
>chimney, the greenhouse-gas components of smoke are still being released
into
>the atmosphere, and in urban areas, smoke sneaks back into the house
through
>doors and windows. If we devise excellent stoves that release very little
>smoke, but those stoves can't be afforded by any but the relatively well
to
>do, most of the global problem remains. Most traditional fuel users are
quite
>poor, and there are an awful lot of poor people in this world.
>
>Downsides to rootfuel? They exist. The big problem is that renewable fuels
of
>any kind require water to grow them, and rootfuel is no exception. And we
are
>getting into trouble, globally, with water resources. One niche for
rootfuel,
>then, might be be semi-arid deforested regions crossed by rivers, heavily
>populated by rural poor families who use traditional fuels like dung and
burn
>such inherently smokey fuels indoors for good and sufficient reasons I
don't
>question.
>
>Another niche might be rapidly growing cities, growing in pop mainly by
>migration of poor from rural areas. They still need a cheap fuel where
they
>settle in the cities, and they can't grow it in the city. Rootfuel might
be
>grown and dried by entrepreneurs outside the cities who truck it in to
urban
>markets. Again, semi-arid conditions are needed, but with rivers. At
present,
>many cities of Africa struggle with smoke pollution because those
entrepeneurs
>are hauling in woodfuel to the urban markets. Rural to urban migration
will
>persist, and it will probably increase. Major, major problem. We are
becoming
>an urbanized world. Think about the implications.
>
>You are so right about the light that one gets from a wood fire. Rootfuel
has
>a red flame and provides light, but not as much as woodfuel. Burn it in an
>open fire for lighting, and virtually no smoke. Re locally produced oils
for
>oil lamps for lighting, see our 1984 book (Shultz and Morgan, eds)
>specifically Chap 12, Mathieu and Shultz. Reviews lamp technologies, and
>simple oilseed pressing technology. Not a comprehensive source of info,
but a
>place to start. Thanks for your good questions! Gene Shultz
(geneshu@aol.com)
<

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Sep 7 19:14:41 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Hemp Crops for Fuel or Fiber
Message-ID: <199809071923_MC2-58A7-F680@compuserve.com>

Dear John Olsen, Gene Schultz et al:

John wrote...
Message text written by "John Olsen"
>
Just a note regarding fibre crops.We planted 2507 Hectares of lowTHC
Industrial Hemp, across Canada,
this year. It's been legal since March 1998.
Next year I know a lot more will be planted as the demand for fibre from a
wood alternate increases.
John Olsen/ Cree Industries.
<

I have been following the fortunes of industrial hemp here in Colorado
(COHIP) for 5 years after testifying on hemp oil as a source of biodiesel
for the Colorado State Legislature (Lloyd Casey). Industrial hemp is
burdened by the advocacy of potheads who show up at the meetings. I don't
think industrial hemp is about pot, but why are they so interested.

My friend Agua Das (das@welcomehome.org) has been a leader in advocating
industrial hemp for energy (seven ways around the gas pump - with hemp).
He makes hemp ice cream (HEMPSCREAM) and hemp oil in his press. He's
thinking of taking the press to Canada. Do you know Das John??

Industrial hemp is about high fiber yields, high biomass yields and high
oil yields.

Comments??

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

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Tue Sep 8 04:34:10 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: USMC Gasification Plant
Message-ID: <199809080440.QAA00414@powerlink.co.nz>

Hi Jim

I took your advice and down loaded the Camp Lejeume project. The only
comment I can make is that it is little different from the Chinese open
core gasification concept for rice husks, and unlikely to reach acceptable
commercial levels of operation for widespread application, in developing
countries, or anywhere else!

This project has every problem in the book when it comes to engine powered
gasification. Whilst these projects have high ideals and all "new" design,
it is only new to those involved and the funding agencies who fail to seek
supervisory advice for these types of project proposals.

These fellows have found a "milk cow" and not a farmer in sight!

Regards
Doug Williams

> Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 10:16:54 -1000
> From: "Jim Arcate" <arcate@email.msn.com>
> Subject: GAS-L: USMC Gasification Plant
>
> Hello Gasification:
>
> I came across this on the EPA web site. I enjoyed learning about a plant
> that seems to work well in the good ole USA.
>
> BIOMASS POWER PLANT DEMONSTRATION AT CAMP LEJEUNE
> http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/crb/apb/crppage/clew.htm
>
> Also see link to EPA biomass integrated gasifier gas turbine project
(Craig
> and Purvis, 1998)].
>
>
> Jim Arcate
>
> =================
> ABSTRACT
> The Camp Lejeune Energy from Wood (CLEW) project has been undertaken to
> demonstrate that biomass energy conversion is a competitive,
> lower-polluting, electrical power option for government installations,
> industrial sites, rural cooperatives, small municipalities, and regions
of
> developing countries. Wood gasification combined with internal combustion
> engines was chosen because of 1) recent improvements in gas cleaning, 2)
> simple, economical operation for units up to 5 MW, and 3) the option of a
> clean, cheap replacement fuel for many existing facilities currently
using
> gasoline or diesel fuel in engine/generator sets. The plant incorporates
a
> moving bed bulk wood dryer; a downdraft, fixed bed gasifier utilizing
hogged
> wood residues; a gas cleaning and cooling system; and a spark ignition
> engine. Operation of the plant has resulted in characterization of all
major
> technical challenges and provided solutions. This paper briefly describes
> the process design, initial operational results, and needs and
justification
> for further testing.
> =================
>
>
>
>
>

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

 

From frayvo.martin at wanadoo.fr Wed Sep 9 04:22:45 1998
From: frayvo.martin at wanadoo.fr (martin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas : gas turbine ?
Message-ID: <35F6AA33.26AB@wanadoo.fr>

Hello

I am new on this mail group, I work in a consulting engineer company.
I am looking for manufacturers of gas micro turbine (from 50 to 500 kW)
Thank for your response and have a nice day

Dr. Franck Martin
Brennus
CP 68
56038 VANNES CEDEX
FRANCE
Email: frayvo.martin@wanadoo.fr
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From jphillips at alumni.stanford.org Wed Sep 9 09:04:18 1998
From: jphillips at alumni.stanford.org (Jeffrey N. Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas : gas turbine ?
In-Reply-To: <35F6AA33.26AB@wanadoo.fr>
Message-ID: <000601bddbf3$dbdbe880$3e1f29d8@jnphatch.gis.net>

Dr. Martin,

Try the following companies:

Capstone Turbine
6025 Yolanda Ave.
Tarzana, CA 91356
USA
1-818-774-9600 (phone)
1-818-774-0228 (fax)
Contact: Tim Veale, Product Manager

Elliott Energy Systems
2901 S.E. Monroe Street
Stuart, FL 34997
USA
1-561-219-9449 (phone)
1-561-219-9448 (fax)
Contact: Richard Sanders, V.P. Sales

Northern Research and Engineering Corp.
39 Olympia Ave.
Woburn, MA 01801
USA
1-781-935-9050 (phone)
1-781-935-9052 (fax)
sales@nrec.com (e-mail)
Contact: James Watts, Marketing Manager

Let me know if you need more information.

Regards,

Dr. 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
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 12:18 PM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Gas : gas turbine ?

Hello

I am new on this mail group, I work in a consulting engineer company.
I am looking for manufacturers of gas micro turbine (from 50 to 500 kW)
Thank for your response and have a nice day

Dr. Franck Martin
Brennus
CP 68
56038 VANNES CEDEX
FRANCE
Email: frayvo.martin@wanadoo.fr
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 Fri Sep 11 00:39:34 1998
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: USMC Gasification Plant
Message-ID: <c1553b78.35f8abe7@aol.com>

Dear Doug Williams,

I copied part of the operational description of the Camp Lejeune project here
for discussion purposes. Could you be more specific about: 1) the problems
likely to be encountered, 2) the cause of the problems, and 3) solutions for
the problems?

Thanks, Vernon Harris VHarris001@aol.com

P.S. Are any of your Pacific Class Gasifiers currently in operation in the
U.S.A.?

>>Camp Lejeune Energy from Wood (CLEW)

The dried fuel is conveyed to the top of the 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. Nominal wood input is 816.4 kilograms
(1800 pounds) per hour at 10% moisture. Air entering the top of the gasifier
is preheated in a jacket around a cyclone which removes entrained fines from
the synthetic gas (syngas). The nominal air flow rate into the gasifier is
about 0.184 sm3/s (390 scfm) to provide combustion that gives a gasifier
temperature distribution of about 982 to 593°C (1800 to 1100°F). The syngas
leaves the bottom of the reactor through a manifold at a flow rate of about
0.497 sm3/s (1050 scfm) and a higher heating value of about 6353 kJ/sm3 (170
Btu/scf). Char is removed from the bottom of the gasifier through multiple,
rotating “star” valves, collects in a discharge cone, and is removed through
two screw conveyors to a transportable dumpster bin. The char is added to a
local coal boiler.

The syngas passes through a cyclone; tube-in-shell (water) heat exchanger and
coalescing liquid separator for tar and water removal to a decanter;
impingement filters; multistage blower; second stage heat exchanger and
separator to compensate for heat added by the blower and to reach engine
intake temperatures; and a flare to the atmosphere and/or the reciprocating
engine. The Waukesha L7042 GSI turbo-charged engine/generator is rated at 1 MW
electricity on natural gas and up to 700 kW with wood gas.

A small cooling tower supplies water to cool the gasifier char discharge cone,
screw conveyors, and heat exchangers. Continuous gas analyzers measure carbon
monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), hydrogen (H2), and oxygen
(O2). Wood, tar, water, particulates, and exhaust gas from the dryer are
sampled periodically for analysis. The process is extensively instrumented to
measure temperatures, pressures, flow rates, power output and input, and
engine parameters. Data acquisition and automated control of most operations
are accomplished by Wonderware logic running on a Pentium 90 PC and by GE
Fanuc 90/30 Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs). <<

In a message dated 9/8/98 4:46:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
graeme@powerlink.co.nz writes:

> I took your advice and down loaded the Camp Lejeume project. The only
> comment I can make is that it is little different from the Chinese open
> core gasification concept for rice husks, and unlikely to reach acceptable
> commercial levels of operation for widespread application, in developing
> countries, or anywhere else!
>
> This project has every problem in the book when it comes to engine powered
> gasification.

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

 

From pellevin at ludd.luth.se Fri Sep 11 01:18:10 1998
From: pellevin at ludd.luth.se (Markus Almroth)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <199809110518.BAA20482@solstice.crest.org>

In "Construction of a Simplified Wood Gas Generator for
Fueling Internal Combustion Engines in a Petroleum
Crisis" published by BEF-press. H. LaFontaine reports
a very simpel stratified downdraft gas generator.

The hearth is simply a metal cylinder which length
and diameter must be selected to match the
characteristics for a particular engine.

This approach is of course very simple to manufacture,
but, though I'm not sure since I hav'nt tested it
myself, should give rather poor idling performance,
risk for air-pockets. The hottest area of the
oxidation zone should also be more concentrated in my
opinion.

Should the addion of a throat plate similar to the
WWII Zeuch design solve such problems and maybe give
as good idling performance as the Imbert generator?
If so, at wich location in the 'fire tube' should it
be? Do the experimental data from WWII still apply
with a stratified design?

If one can use the data from WWII V-hearth design
the throat plate for a 2.3l 110 Hp engine should be
abour 7.5 cm inner diameter and the reducion zone
should be about the same height. Should the fire-tube
in a stratified generator with a throat plate be
shortened so that the distance from the nozzel ring
in an Imbert design should match the distance from
the top of the 'fire tube' to the throat plate in
the LaFontaine design or does the top of the 'fire tube'
also functuon as a destillation zone?
Should the throat plate be positioned 7.5 cm up in
the 'fire tube' to get a reduction zone similar to
the one in the Imbert generator, or is the grate in
the LaFontaine generator adequate for reduction and
the throat should be positioned at the bottom of the
tube?

Would the throat plate do anything for performance or
would it just be work for nothing?

A lot of questions from an amateur interested in
building simple gas generators for use with vehicles
and for electricity generation.

/Markus Almroth

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

 

From costich at pacifier.com Fri Sep 11 10:43:10 1998
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <199809111453.HAA08122@smtp.pacifier.com>

Markus: I've built and operate a downdraft gasifier for the last 5 years.
See http://members.tripod.com I store the gas I make in a 1000cuft ag-bag
(6 mil PVC) So it cools and filters totally clean will setting in the bag
prior to use. I reflect on the time I thought I needed to "stir the throat"
(the venturi or restriction above the grate) to improve the draw. The 1"
SS auger I used ablated off and looked like a tapered Ice- sicle. My
hearth is 3/4 " SS it is a rolled cone 12"X 6" and 12" height weight 80
pounds and it runs bright orange -I've sworn I'll never try to stick any
thin pipe near that area again. Good luck Hope you build a gasifier the're
fun! Dale Costich

----------
> From: Markus Almroth <pellevin@ludd.luth.se>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
> Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 10:18 PM
>
> In "Construction of a Simplified Wood Gas Generator for
> Fueling Internal Combustion Engines in a Petroleum
> Crisis" published by BEF-press. H. LaFontaine reports
> a very simpel stratified downdraft gas generator.
>
> The hearth is simply a metal cylinder which length
> and diameter must be selected to match the
> characteristics for a particular engine.
>
> This approach is of course very simple to manufacture,
> but, though I'm not sure since I hav'nt tested it
> myself, should give rather poor idling performance,
> risk for air-pockets. The hottest area of the
> oxidation zone should also be more concentrated in my
> opinion.
>
> Should the addion of a throat plate similar to the
> WWII Zeuch design solve such problems and maybe give
> as good idling performance as the Imbert generator?
> If so, at wich location in the 'fire tube' should it
> be? Do the experimental data from WWII still apply
> with a stratified design?
>
> If one can use the data from WWII V-hearth design
> the throat plate for a 2.3l 110 Hp engine should be
> abour 7.5 cm inner diameter and the reducion zone
> should be about the same height. Should the fire-tube
> in a stratified generator with a throat plate be
> shortened so that the distance from the nozzel ring
> in an Imbert design should match the distance from
> the top of the 'fire tube' to the throat plate in
> the LaFontaine design or does the top of the 'fire tube'
> also functuon as a destillation zone?
> Should the throat plate be positioned 7.5 cm up in
> the 'fire tube' to get a reduction zone similar to
> the one in the Imbert generator, or is the grate in
> the LaFontaine generator adequate for reduction and
> the throat should be positioned at the bottom of the
> tube?
>
> Would the throat plate do anything for performance or
> would it just be work for nothing?
>
> A lot of questions from an amateur interested in
> building simple gas generators for use with vehicles
> and for electricity generation.
>
> /Markus Almroth
>
> 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 Fri Sep 11 11:29:56 1998
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <a7797e60.35f94448@aol.com>

Dear Dale,

Do you know how hot your gasifier is at the throat? To melt a stainless auger
it must be near 2400 - 2500 degrees F? How long does it take to fill the 1000
cu ft ag bag? What do you power with the producer gas?

Thanks for your gasifer stories, they're always interesting!

Vernon Harris - VHarris001@aol.com

In a message dated 9/11/98 10:56:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
costich@pacifier.com writes:

> Subj: Re: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
> Date: 9/11/98 10:56:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> From: costich@pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
> Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
</A>
> To: gasification@crest.org
>
> Markus: I've built and operate a downdraft gasifier for the last 5 years.
> See http://members.tripod.com I store the gas I make in a 1000cuft ag-bag
> (6 mil PVC) So it cools and filters totally clean will setting in the bag
> prior to use. I reflect on the time I thought I needed to "stir the throat"
> (the venturi or restriction above the grate) to improve the draw. The 1"
> SS auger I used ablated off and looked like a tapered Ice- sicle. My
> hearth is 3/4 " SS it is a rolled cone 12"X 6" and 12" height weight 80
> pounds and it runs bright orange -I've sworn I'll never try to stick any
> thin pipe near that area again. Good luck Hope you build a gasifier the're
> fun! Dale Costich
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From costich at pacifier.com Sat Sep 12 05:48:56 1998
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <199809120959.CAA10946@smtp.pacifier.com>

Vern:Thankx for your reply: throat temps probably 1800-2000F it took 50
hours of elevated temps to errode the 1"solid auger shaft and the flutes
sooner. The throat doesn't have to be "loosened" to make good gas anyway.
1000 cu ft bag fills in 20 minutes. I burn the gas to cook with and it
goes into 5 and 9 Hp gen-sets to pump water into my elevated tank. Have
you ever heard of any successes of gasification with a parabolic reflector?
I've built an 12 foot dia unit with mylar reflector that I would like to
do this with. I 've vaporized the bakelite handles off pots and pans, but
I'm at a loss how to convey charcoal to and gas from the focal point?
Goodmorning Dale

----------
> From: VHarris001@aol.com
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Cc: costich@pacifier.com
> Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
> Date: Friday, September 11, 1998 8:39 AM
>
> Dear Dale,
>
> Do you know how hot your gasifier is at the throat? To melt a stainless
auger
> it must be near 2400 - 2500 degrees F? How long does it take to fill the
1000
> cu ft ag bag? What do you power with the producer gas?
>
> Thanks for your gasifer stories, they're always interesting!
>
> Vernon Harris - VHarris001@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 9/11/98 10:56:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> costich@pacifier.com writes:
>
> > Subj: Re: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas
generator
> > Date: 9/11/98 10:56:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> > From: costich@pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
> > Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
> > Reply-to: <A
HREF="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
> </A>
> > To: gasification@crest.org
> >
> > Markus: I've built and operate a downdraft gasifier for the last 5
years.
> > See http://members.tripod.com I store the gas I make in a 1000cuft
ag-bag
> > (6 mil PVC) So it cools and filters totally clean will setting in the
bag
> > prior to use. I reflect on the time I thought I needed to "stir the
throat"
> > (the venturi or restriction above the grate) to improve the draw. The
1"
> > SS auger I used ablated off and looked like a tapered Ice- sicle. My
> > hearth is 3/4 " SS it is a rolled cone 12"X 6" and 12" height weight
80
> > pounds and it runs bright orange -I've sworn I'll never try to stick
any
> > thin pipe near that area again. Good luck Hope you build a gasifier
the're
> > fun! Dale Costich
> >
> 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 Sun Sep 13 01:20:45 1998
From: james at sri.org.au (James Joyce)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <19980913153137james@jj_lap.sri.org.au>

 

from Dale :

... snip
> Have you ever heard of any successes of gasification with a
> parabolic reflector? I've built an 12 foot dia unit with mylar
> reflector that I would like to do this with. I 've vaporized the
> bakelite handles off pots and pans, but I'm at a loss how to convey
> charcoal to and gas from the focal point?

Dale, have you thought of using a trough collector. This way you can
focus onto a "line" rather than a point. Then if you use an auger
encased in a suitable material which is insulated around it'd diameter
except for the small arc on which the sunlight is focussed, then you
should achieve be able to achive the gasification (or perhaps more
correctly pyrolysis) temperatures you are after. Solar tracking with a
trough collector should also be a bit simpler than a parabolic
reflector (although perhaps not as efficient if done only in one
plane).

The case of the auger in the section of the auger than is being solar
heated will need to either be highly heat absorbant or perhaps setup as
a window.

I'm interested in your mylar reflector, how did you fashion the mylar
into a parabolic shape ? What reflective material did you line the
relfector with ?

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 greensue at hotmail.com Sun Sep 13 01:57:25 1998
From: greensue at hotmail.com (Susanne Machler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <19980913060742.8476.qmail@hotmail.com>

So we are NOT the only crazy people left in the planet then!! Hello
there, My name is Sue Maechler and I have been reading your postings
with great interest. I work on a renewable homestead in the Caribbean,
and we are just about posting our website which speaks about both,
gasification and the use of a solar dish, as well as some of the
problems that we experience down here.
Right now I could do with some help finding sources of Mylar, Can you
help me? After posting the homepages, I hop you will visit us and see
what we do. We would be interested in some help to constrct a gasifier,
tha is if you dont do it commercially. We have designs etc, and can swop
but we would prefer to talk to someone who has already tried this
technology.

Hoping we can help each other!!

greetings, Sue.

From: "Dale Costich" <costich@pacifier.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas
generator
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 03:02:08 -0700
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org

Vern:Thankx for your reply: throat temps probably 1800-2000F it took 50
hours of elevated temps to errode the 1"solid auger shaft and the flutes
sooner. The throat doesn't have to be "loosened" to make good gas
anyway.
1000 cu ft bag fills in 20 minutes. I burn the gas to cook with and it
goes into 5 and 9 Hp gen-sets to pump water into my elevated tank. Have
you ever heard of any successes of gasification with a parabolic
reflector?
I've built an 12 foot dia unit with mylar reflector that I would like
to
do this with. I 've vaporized the bakelite handles off pots and pans,
but
I'm at a loss how to convey charcoal to and gas from the focal point?
Goodmorning Dale

----------
> From: VHarris001@aol.com
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Cc: costich@pacifier.com
> Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas
generator
> Date: Friday, September 11, 1998 8:39 AM
>
> Dear Dale,
>
> Do you know how hot your gasifier is at the throat? To melt a
stainless
auger
> it must be near 2400 - 2500 degrees F? How long does it take to fill
the
1000
> cu ft ag bag? What do you power with the producer gas?
>
> Thanks for your gasifer stories, they're always interesting!
>
> Vernon Harris - VHarris001@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 9/11/98 10:56:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> costich@pacifier.com writes:
>
> > Subj: Re: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas
generator
> > Date: 9/11/98 10:56:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> > From: costich@pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
> > Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
> > Reply-to: <A
HREF="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
> </A>
> > To: gasification@crest.org
> >
> > Markus: I've built and operate a downdraft gasifier for the last 5
years.
> > See http://members.tripod.com I store the gas I make in a 1000cuft
ag-bag
> > (6 mil PVC) So it cools and filters totally clean will setting in
the
bag
> > prior to use. I reflect on the time I thought I needed to "stir the
throat"
> > (the venturi or restriction above the grate) to improve the draw.
The
1"
> > SS auger I used ablated off and looked like a tapered Ice- sicle.
My
> > hearth is 3/4 " SS it is a rolled cone 12"X 6" and 12" height
weight
80
> > pounds and it runs bright orange -I've sworn I'll never try to
stick
any
> > thin pipe near that area again. Good luck Hope you build a
gasifier
the're
> > fun! Dale Costich
> >
> 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

 

______________________________________________________
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 Sep 13 11:53:00 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <199809131203_MC2-5952-FF5F@compuserve.com>

Dear Markus et al:

As Harry's friend and the publisher of Harry LaFontaine's " Simplified
wood gas generator" I feel some responsibility for the gasifier he designed
for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (God help us if we
ever have a nuclear/natural emergy and have to rely on them. Bureaucrat's
generally don't have much appreciation of realities - but Harry sure did.)

My recollection is that Harry built and operated this for a FEMA contract
in cooperation with the U. of Florida at Gainesville and Wayne Smith there
might provide some contacts. Looking at his schematic, Fig. 1-3:

a) I am very much in agreement with the non-throat, stratified downdraft
gasifier itself (lower half) and filled with admiration for his using a SS
colander as grate. You could buy this for $10 or have it made for $200!
The chain suspension is nice. We make gasifiers this way a lot.

b) I am horrified by the large diameter fuel magazine(30 in?) feeding into
the small (6 in) gasifier tube. He must have been using spherical pellets
- all other fuels would bridge and jam.

c) The lower tube (6 in?) is probably much to large in diameter. Harry was
never one for calculating superficial velocities.

d) It sounds as if your thinking is still in the IMBERT (Zeuch) era of
WWII. No one completely understood the function of the choke throat, so we
threw it out in 1980 in the SERI/NREL oxygen/air gasifier and many others
have done the same since.

I miss Harry! He taught me a lot by both positive and negative example. He
founded the Biomass Energy Foundation 501-c-3 which permits me to use my
time as I please.

Your contact with the silent majority,
TOM REED

Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>
In "Construction of a Simplified Wood Gas Generator for
Fueling Internal Combustion Engines in a Petroleum
Crisis" published by BEF-press. H. LaFontaine reports
a very simpel stratified downdraft gas generator.

The hearth is simply a metal cylinder which length
and diameter must be selected to match the
characteristics for a particular engine.

This approach is of course very simple to manufacture,
but, though I'm not sure since I hav'nt tested it
myself, should give rather poor idling performance,
risk for air-pockets. The hottest area of the
oxidation zone should also be more concentrated in my
opinion.

Should the addion of a throat plate similar to the
WWII Zeuch design solve such problems and maybe give
as good idling performance as the Imbert generator?
If so, at wich location in the 'fire tube' should it
be? Do the experimental data from WWII still apply
with a stratified design?

If one can use the data from WWII V-hearth design
the throat plate for a 2.3l 110 Hp engine should be
abour 7.5 cm inner diameter and the reducion zone
should be about the same height. Should the fire-tube
in a stratified generator with a throat plate be
shortened so that the distance from the nozzel ring
in an Imbert design should match the distance from
the top of the 'fire tube' to the throat plate in
the LaFontaine design or does the top of the 'fire tube'
also functuon as a destillation zone?
Should the throat plate be positioned 7.5 cm up in
the 'fire tube' to get a reduction zone similar to
the one in the Imbert generator, or is the grate in
the LaFontaine generator adequate for reduction and
the throat should be positioned at the bottom of the
tube?

Would the throat plate do anything for performance or
would it just be work for nothing?

A lot of questions from an amateur interested in
building simple gas generators for use with vehicles
and for electricity generation.

/Markus Almroth

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 Sun Sep 13 11:53:44 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Indonesia and other smoke redediation
Message-ID: <199809131203_MC2-5952-FF76@compuserve.com>

Dear Ron et al:

Your message is loud and clear - and heart rending. I am glad you pointed
out that this is not a modern problem caused by industrialization, but has
been the fate of humans since the discovery of fire and charcoal. I have
had just a touch of chronic inhalation related lung problems in early
testing days and will repeat my warning to ALL of you to provide good
insulation in your test areas.

Some thoughts for Ron et all:

1) Top down burning to make charcoal seems to be a NEW mode of production
in a very old art - but it does require moderately dry wood, since the fire
must propogate down against the flow of air. (I hope someone can tell me
the limit - if not I plan to run tests.) As the fire propogates downward,
each new piece is sumultaneously drying and pyrolysing, so that the
resulting gas is diluted with steam from wet wood and eventually won't
burn.

2) I pointed out previously that conventional bottom heat charcoal making
produces first steam, then uncombustible steam-gas, a yellow choking cloud,
and finally combustible gas (if you take care to provide air and ignition.)

3) Freshly cut wood typically contains 50% moisture. Ron's suggestion that
combustion of gas from top down be used for drying typically wet wood is
sound. There's more than enough heat available. However, I haven't seen
much evidence of appreciation of the subtleties of wood drying in STOVES of
GASIFICATION. Too high a temperature in drying can produce blue haze as
the outside of the wood overheats while the inside is still wet.

Onward....
TOM REED

 

Message text written by Ronal W. Larson
>
Stovers:
I just finished reading the August issue of National Geographic
(pages 100-118), where there is a very disturbing account of the terrible
smoke that afflicted large parts of Indonesia during August-October of
1997. The good writing (Pulitzer prize-winning author) and excellent
photographs that NG are noted for led me to two ideas that have connections
to this list:

1. First, the pictures of the Indonesian (outdoor) smoke reminded me of
homes I have been in in Kafa, Ethiopia. In both cases, it seemed you
couldn't see 10 meters.
The NG story noted that many in cities were going to hospitals for
treatment of smoke inhalation. Since there are no hospitals in Kafa (only
3 clinics for about 800,000 people), and generations have done the same
thing, there is little such treatment and few records.
The reporter noted he could not work without a gas mask. I have
wished for one in those Kafa homes.

So the first point is that there seems to be a possible correlation
(and opportunity) between the two forms of air pollution. The sources are
the same. The health impacts should be similar. Can the Indonesian
catastrophe help us to focus attention on indoor air pollution coming from
cook stoves? I wonder if Kirk Smith and others might tell us what might
have been (or could be) learned from hospital studies in Indonesia. The
impacts were even felt in very modern cities like Singapore - where the
studies should have been very thorough and for much reduced levels of
pollution. Can anyone tell us if this Indonesian air quality situation
could be used to foster stove research - based on the likely health impact
similarities?

2. My second point is that perhaps we on this list could have some role in
alleviating this forest burning problem in the future. These forests are
being burned so that the landowners can quickly replant in palm trees.
Perhaps the landowners' interests in rapid profit might be exploited by
further developing technologies for the clean conversion of this lumber and
slash to charcoal.

The problem is in the word "clean". If the owners simply turn the wood
to charcoal in pits, the noxious smoke might even be worse than at present
(less initial CO2). The wood and slash will probably have to be first
moved a bit to make room for the palm trees and then dried for probably a
year or more before a clean "top down" technique can be used for combustion
of the pyrolysis gases. With the traditional pit techniques, the pyrolysis
gases are not combustible until well into the "burn".

But some on this list are looking for ways to use the pyrolysis
gases to dry out a second batch of wet wood while pyrolyzing a first. Maybe
that is a better way. Burning this valuable resource in this senseless way
really seems like poor economics.

So, as in my question #1 - is this Indonesian forest fire situation
an opportunity where the problem might encourage international funding to
find a clean manner of making charcoal? The difference in this case is
that there should be a good profit (and long-term jobs) if the downed
forest resource can be converted either slowly after drying or with clever
techniques for drying using the heat from the combusted pyrolysis gases.

Other comments? Ron

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

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


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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Sep 13 11:53:47 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Not goodbye, Doug Williams, I hope
Message-ID: <199809131203_MC2-5952-FF6E@compuserve.com>

Dear Doug et al:

Doug's discouragement with biomass gasification is a disease that could
affect us all. Here's an immunization ANTIDOTE against RENEWABLE ENERGY
pessimism.

1) Biomass energy is our special interest, but not that of the general
public or governments. As long as oil remains cheap we can't expect the
world to beat on our doors.

2) Cheap oil is merely a blip on the pages of history. In 10 - or 30 or
50 years it will increase 10fold to its true value.

3) Until that happens, we have a unique opportunity to develop one of the
major replacements - renewable biomass energy and its various
manifestations, gasification, methanol, ethanol, biogas .... and other
renewable energy technologies, hydro, PV, TPV, thermoelectrics, wind,
direct, ....

4) For the time being there are special niches for biomass energy where it
does fit economically or can find development funds.

5) When the 10fold increase does occur there will be too much money for
developing alternatives and it will again become a principal obsession,
highly politicized and frantic.

So enjoy this brief respite between the false energy crisis of 1974 and the
coming Armageddon of Energy in 20 - - . I hope Doug can hang in there, at
least on the web and here.

Keep the faith for our children,... and civilization
TOM REED
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From paavani at giasbga.vsnl.net.in Sun Sep 13 14:23:28 1998
From: paavani at giasbga.vsnl.net.in (P Nagpal)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Moisture ?
In-Reply-To: <199809131203_MC2-5952-FF76@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <35FC0FFC.86B30681@giasbga.vsnl.net.in>

Dear Tom,

Encouraged by what I read about gasifiers I've installed one down draft
wood gasifier behind my factory. It is connected to a small generator
and two small experimental furnaces. One for melting Aluminum, Zinc; the
other furnace for pre-heating ceramic ware.

With calculations based on flame temperature of 1150 to 1200 deg C, I
was expecting more heat than what I am getting. With thermocouple
directly in the flame the best temperature I have got is 950 C.

Two things I notice :

1. Near the burner I find moisture dripping into the furnaces
(specially at lower temperatures).

2. On inspecting the wood pieces, after the gasifier is turned off,
I find them soggy wet as if it has been raining inside the gasifier.

Is this a normal happening ?

rgds

P Nagpal.

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

 

From bywateri at convertech.co.nz Sun Sep 13 18:57:23 1998
From: bywateri at convertech.co.nz (Ian Bywater)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Antidote
Message-ID: <v01540b0db221fe7b3c49@[202.37.189.108]>

Dear Tom and all

Tom Reed's point: "Biomass energy is our special interest, but not that of
the general public or governments. As long as oil remains cheap we can't
expect the
world to beat on our doors."

How true, but when you consider the *materials*, not just the energy, that
can be derived from biomass (as it was in the past, is now done on a
limited scale and will be needed in the future) ......... now, that fills
me with optimism. Only looking at the energy in biomass is like only using
oil or coal in its raw state as a fuel.

Sincerely

IAN

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

 

From costich at pacifier.com Sun Sep 13 21:53:33 1998
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <199809140204.TAA02675@smtp.pacifier.com>

James: Thank-u for reply The parabolic was free, the mylar has a few
wrinkles but simple contact cement was first spread onto the aluminum
painted surface then the 4' wide mylar (window tinting) was laid on and
rubbed into the glue. Its held good thru the last fall-winter-spring and
now this summer and still creates a white hot focal point. Its always a
pleasure to hear from you! You remember me the guy who builds stirling
engines. We communicated before you made your recent relocation.
Thankyou for the trough idea it is probably the most straightforward way to
solar gasify. Dale Costich

----------
> From: James Joyce <james@sri.org.au>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas
generator
> Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 8:31 AM
>
>
>
> from Dale :
>
>
> ... snip
> > Have you ever heard of any successes of gasification with a
> > parabolic reflector? I've built an 12 foot dia unit with mylar
> > reflector that I would like to do this with. I 've vaporized the
> > bakelite handles off pots and pans, but I'm at a loss how to convey
> > charcoal to and gas from the focal point?
>
>
> Dale, have you thought of using a trough collector. This way you can
> focus onto a "line" rather than a point. Then if you use an auger
> encased in a suitable material which is insulated around it'd diameter
> except for the small arc on which the sunlight is focussed, then you
> should achieve be able to achive the gasification (or perhaps more
> correctly pyrolysis) temperatures you are after. Solar tracking with a
> trough collector should also be a bit simpler than a parabolic
> reflector (although perhaps not as efficient if done only in one
> plane).
>
> The case of the auger in the section of the auger than is being solar
> heated will need to either be highly heat absorbant or perhaps setup as
> a window.
>
> I'm interested in your mylar reflector, how did you fashion the mylar
> into a parabolic shape ? What reflective material did you line the
> relfector with ?
>
> 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
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From tpreston at hcm.vnn.vn Sun Sep 13 23:46:47 1998
From: tpreston at hcm.vnn.vn (T R Preston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Antidote and opportunity for gasification
Message-ID: <001001bddf8a$875f69e0$d973a7ca@trp>

Unique opportunity and Antidote against renewable energy pessimism

One reason why it is often difficult to achieve an economic outcome to
gasification of biomass (applies equally to biodigester systems) is that the
cost of the process is carried by the energy component alone and until the
oil price rises (in 10, 20, 50 years??), the playing field is strongly
tilted against renewables.

Biomass has multiple uses and its components have most value when used for
food (people) or feed (for livestock). It makes no sense to take a crop
like sugar cane or a multipurpose tree and use it only for food/feed (sugars
and leaves) or for energy. By fractionating the biomass into edible and
non-edible components and processing each according to its indicated role,
the economic outcome is much improved.

Presently sugar cane offers a unique opportunity to put this strategy into
practice. In all sugar cane producing countries there is environmental
pressure to stop both pre- and post-harvest burning of the dead leaves and
the tops. In the Cauca valley in Colombia about 12,000 tonnes of leaf trash
are presently burned every day with zero utilization and negative
environmental consequences. In addition, some 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes of
bagasse are burned in the boilers to produce steam. Government has decreed
that by 2005 burning must stop.

If all this fibrous biomass was gasified and the syngas used to drive gas
turbines, electricity would become the main product and sugar and high-test
molasses (concentrated sugar cane juice) would be by-products, the latter
competitive in price with imported maize as livestock feed . The steam
needed for processing (evaporation of the juice) would be derived from heat
exchangers using the waste heat from the turbines.

The sugar cane industry in Colombia and elsewhere in Latinamerica is in
crisis due to low prices for sugar because of regional over-production
(Brazilian sugar cane now goes to sugar instead of fuel alcohol) and
environmental pressures to reduce pollution.

It is a unique opportunity to demonstrate the economic and environmental
advantages of integrated production of renewable energy and food / feed
using gasification and gas turbines and co-generation of heat from the
fibrous fractions of cane leaving the juice as raw material for sugar and /
or high test molasses.

The first step is a pilot model to demonstrate the technical feasibility of
the approach. Economic viability is assured once the technology is
validated, even with low oil prices; and once oil prices increase, profits
will soar as energy, food and feed prices will inevitably increase, spurred
on by population growth and increasing aspirations.

I go to Colombia shortly to discuss with representatives of the sugar
industry possible alternatives for up-grading the leaf trash into livestock
feed. But this is a short term solution. Better an integrated approach to
get the animal feed from molasses and turn the fibre into electricity.

Suggestions welcomed.

Dr T R Preston
Fax: 84-8-8961475
Tel: 84-8-8961472

Home pages
http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrdhome.html
LRRD (Livestock Research for Rural Development) is an international
journal published electronically as a forum for exchange of knowledge
on sustainable rural development. It is continually updated as papers
are published immediately they are refereed and edited.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ecofarm
This is a presentation of activities at an ecological farm doing
research, training and demonstrations on sustainable agriculture

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/utaf
UTAF stands for University of Tropical Agriculture Foundation. This
is an initiative directed towards developing more appropriate ways of
facilitating learning about the strategies and technologies required
to promote sustainable use of natural renewable resources in
integrated farming systems

 

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

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sun Sep 13 23:55:44 1998
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <179a4624.35fc961e@aol.com>

Dear Dale,

Since your parabolic reflector is an external heat source, try gasification
without oxygen. Use an enclosed (airtight) vessel to absorb the light energy
and gasify the material with no contact with the atmosphere. That will
produce an off gas with high heat value, comprised of carbon monoxide and
methane. As the cellulose distills, it will expand and create sufficient
pressure to push the gas through a small pipe and into the ag bag. You may
have to diffuse the focus of the dish across the gasifier to avoid damaging it
if it is metal. Either operate the gasifier in batch mode (load all the wood
in at one time) or auger the wood in and the charcoal out from airtight
magaines. The resuling charcoal will also have good heating value.

The people on the charcoal (stoves) list might also be interested in your
parabolic reflector. They are trying to perfect charcoal making through
starved air combustion. If they had a parabolic reflector they would have the
energy source to make both gas and charcoal without combustion. I know in the
third world they have little access to such equipment, but just one reflector
might serve the gasification/charcoal/cooking needs of an entire village!
(For you stove people, my pyrolysis book says C6 H10 O5 (cellulose)+ HEAT
----> CH4 + 2C0 +3H2O +3C.)

Dale, do you use any of your sterling engines to do any work? Every thing I
read about sterling engines indicates they operate but can't do any real work
(at least not yet).

Thanks, Vernon Harris VHarris001@aol.com

In a message dated 9/12/98 6:01:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
costich@pacifier.com writes:

> From: costich@pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
> Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
</A>
> To: gasification@crest.org
>
> Vern:Thankx for your reply: throat temps probably 1800-2000F it took 50
> hours of elevated temps to errode the 1"solid auger shaft and the flutes
> sooner. The throat doesn't have to be "loosened" to make good gas anyway.
> 1000 cu ft bag fills in 20 minutes. I burn the gas to cook with and it
> goes into 5 and 9 Hp gen-sets to pump water into my elevated tank. Have
> you ever heard of any successes of gasification with a parabolic reflector?
> I've built an 12 foot dia unit with mylar reflector that I would like to
> do this with. I 've vaporized the bakelite handles off pots and pans, but
> I'm at a loss how to convey charcoal to and gas from the focal point?
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Mon Sep 14 03:08:12 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: USMC Gasification Plant
Message-ID: <199809140315.PAA14693@powerlink.co.nz>

 

Dear Vernon

To be specific about this project and its attendant problems requires more
than a brief analysis based on the information presented. It is quite
clear however, that the project concept was conceived to fit into the
framework of eligibility to qualify for funds from the administration.

Lets start with the fuel: Waste wood from multiple source. This could be
anything from old buildings, crates, trees, but certainly containing
painted, treated and contaminated timber. It is suggested that the char
waste from this plant be used for activated carbon and water filtration!
Only possible with virgin tree wood.

Fuel preparation: Tub grinder.
I have only seen one of these in action (Waste Management Frisco) and it
was powered by a 250H.P. Caterpillar engine. It required another loader to
feed it and due to steel content was very demanding of maintenance. This
is one technology not suited to remote locations and unlikely to be found
or used in developing countries.

Fuel Drier:
This looks good and worthy of a better description.

Gasifier: 7 foot diameter downdraught.
On the assumption that if you make it bigger you get more gas, and if it is
called downdraught, that qualifies the design for engines. In Table 1 of
Advantages, they say mature technology, quote WWII cars and trucks, suggest
availability of new gas cleaning methods for engines on MW scale.
This style of design was never used for mobile engines using wood during
WW11. Operation of this gasifier relies on the oxidation zone being kept in
position by removal of reduction zone char (this is the stuff that actually
makes the gas), and adding a depth of fuel cap. The reliance on
temperature sensors to maintain this key parameter using Wonderware logic
says it all!

Bed Temperature: 816 - 538 degrees C is consistent with overbed air supply,
but not indicative of true bed temperature, in terms of evenness of
distribution. They state that channelling in the centre was a problem
overcome by a level rake. which suggests the centre is moving faster, will
be more permeable, and easier for the air-gas to flow through. It will be
hotter but the raw fuel will end up much closer to the bottom of the bed
increasing the volatile content of the gas. With the bed temperature at a
maximum of 816 degrees C, the char that forms below the oxidation zone
(except in some hot channels) will be frozen, and not be consumed by
reduction of the CO2 into CO. Our own experience has proven reduction of
CO2 stops at about 800 - 850 degrees C, which is why they have to remove
char continuously to keep the bed permeable. As the name of the game is
wood to gas, the fuel consumption of 816.4 kg/hr to generate 400 kWe is not
what you might say practical. A rule of thumb is 1kg/kWe, and bearing in
mind the fuel could be coming from energy plantations, is a waste to the
resource. Waste charcoal is not as easy to dispose of as suggested, and
becomes a problem very quickly. This charcoal isn't the quality used for
cooking, unless this system is really a charcoal maker and the gas is the
by-product!

Single Cyclone: The separation of solids and fine dust particles is well
documented in both gasification and combustion literature. It appears that
no understanding of cyclonic separation is understood or incorporated into
this system. To add a damper to control the inlet velocity may have
improved fines capture, but by creating turbulence and impaction, hence the
need to add vibration to remove the fines. The cone of a cyclone is not a
funnel to direct the dust into the collection box, but there to maintain
velocity of the gas and particles. At the end of the cone, the dust is
flung out of the gas and it can be found impacted in some cases on the
walls of the collection box. Multiple small cyclones are more efficient
than large units, at least pertaining to gasification.

Condensate and Tar: Whilst the water condensate of this system is
classified as O.K. to tip down a sewer line, in a rural situation it ends
up in an earth drain, and eventually the groundwater system.

Tar on the other hand is also collected and removed for "other" uses. This
is no problem it is claimed, but tar lines must be heated and unspecified
proper equipment selected to handle carbon sediment and tar. This is a
technology description of refineries not gasifiers, and its operation is
not simple. Anyone who has encountered wood tar in a pipe system will have
very graphic descriptions of what the designer should do with his system!

Again tar is a toxic waste disposal problem, not a valuable resource as a
by product of gasification.

Impingement Plate Filters: If these are collecting solids after the
cyclone and heat exchanger then the separators are not removing all the
condensate efficiently. To suggest they are an efficient low cost low
maintenance option for filtration, even though the fabric filters after the
plates catch tar and condensate is stretching poetic licence just a little.
The fabric filters work, but they do have problems letting the gas
through, but thats O.K. because the tar isn't getting into the engine
either, or is it?

Spark Ignition Engines: As I don't have technical details for this engine,
I assume its originally built for natural gas. If this is the case, then
the ignition timing should be the same for both gases. Any backfires are
open or stuck valves, or the timing a "tad" off. It will also depend on
the level of CH4 in the gas at the time of starting, so backfires may only
occur in a stop-start situation. With this gas, this engine shouldn't have
any problems except tar ingestion or pyrolysis oils condensing under the
speed control butterfly.

The fact that the emphasis is on manual speed control, over the automatic
Woodward governor points to system instability. None of the components
prior to the engine demonstrate consistent performance of a standard
appropriate for the engine. It would not be a reliable automated system,
as resistance changes (even slowly) would alter the gas air ratio at the
engine.

Conclusions: This project is a prime example of unsupervised enthusiasm
which could have achieved so much to demonstrate the reliability and
practical application of gasified power generation. Instead you have a
project with a wish list of future efforts attached under the heading of
"necessary research". Most of these questions are basic information and
the answers within the public domain. Of the 10 points for further
research, only experimenting with activated char is not taught in
Fluidyne's Operator Training Programme, first introduced in 1985. In this
context, there are barefoot men walking around the jungles of Papua New
Guinea who know the answers already.

Vernon, the problems are endless, the causes, lack of knowledge,
supervision, and accountability. The solution? Well, save the engine if
it isn't seized with tar, and scrap the gasifier.

By all means open up a discussion, but this has to be my contribution.

There are three Pacific Class gasifiers stored at the Royal Titan Ranch,
Corin Springs, Montana. They are part of the stores and equipment held in
a civil defence emergency complex (nuclear bunker) along with 4 cylinder
Caterpillar gas engines. They are not accessible to the public.

Regards

Doug Williams

Note: Engine photographs are coming up on web page later this week.

----------
> From: VHarris001@aol.com
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Cc: graeme@powerlink.co.nz
> Subject: USMC Gasification Plant
> Date: Friday, September 11, 1998 4:49 PM
>
> Dear Doug Williams,
>
> I copied part of the operational description of the Camp Lejeune project
here
> for discussion purposes. Could you be more specific about: 1) the
problems
> likely to be encountered, 2) the cause of the problems, and 3) solutions
for
> the problems?
>
> Thanks, Vernon Harris VHarris001@aol.com
>
> P.S. Are any of your Pacific Class Gasifiers currently in operation in
the
> U.S.A.?
>
>
> >>Camp Lejeune Energy from Wood (CLEW)
>
> The dried fuel is conveyed to the top of the 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. Nominal wood input is 816.4
kilograms
> (1800 pounds) per hour at 10% moisture. Air entering the top of the
gasifier
> is preheated in a jacket around a cyclone which removes entrained fines
from
> the synthetic gas (syngas). The nominal air flow rate into the gasifier
is
> about 0.184 sm3/s (390 scfm) to provide combustion that gives a gasifier
> temperature distribution of about 982 to 593°C (1800 to 1100°F). The
syngas
> leaves the bottom of the reactor through a manifold at a flow rate of
about
> 0.497 sm3/s (1050 scfm) and a higher heating value of about 6353 kJ/sm3
(170
> Btu/scf). Char is removed from the bottom of the gasifier through
multiple,
> rotating “star” valves, collects in a discharge cone, and is removed
through
> two screw conveyors to a transportable dumpster bin. The char is added to
a
> local coal boiler.
>
> The syngas passes through a cyclone; tube-in-shell (water) heat exchanger
and
> coalescing liquid separator for tar and water removal to a decanter;
> impingement filters; multistage blower; second stage heat exchanger and
> separator to compensate for heat added by the blower and to reach engine
> intake temperatures; and a flare to the atmosphere and/or the
reciprocating
> engine. The Waukesha L7042 GSI turbo-charged engine/generator is rated at
1 MW
> electricity on natural gas and up to 700 kW with wood gas.
>
> A small cooling tower supplies water to cool the gasifier char discharge
cone,
> screw conveyors, and heat exchangers. Continuous gas analyzers measure
carbon
> monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), hydrogen (H2), and
oxygen
> (O2). Wood, tar, water, particulates, and exhaust gas from the dryer are
> sampled periodically for analysis. The process is extensively
instrumented to
> measure temperatures, pressures, flow rates, power output and input, and
> engine parameters. Data acquisition and automated control of most
operations
> are accomplished by Wonderware logic running on a Pentium 90 PC and by GE
> Fanuc 90/30 Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs). <<
>
>
> In a message dated 9/8/98 4:46:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> graeme@powerlink.co.nz writes:
>
> > I took your advice and down loaded the Camp Lejeume project. The only
> > comment I can make is that it is little different from the Chinese
open
> > core gasification concept for rice husks, and unlikely to reach
acceptable
> > commercial levels of operation for widespread application, in
developing
> > countries, or anywhere else!
> >
> > This project has every problem in the book when it comes to engine
powered
> > gasification.
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Mon Sep 14 13:00:35 1998
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:42 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: USMC Gasification Plant
Message-ID: <37281158.35fd4e12@aol.com>

Dear Doug Williams,

Thanks for your detailed response. If you have the time, just a couple quick
questions:

1) To maintain the projects 816.4 kg/hr (1800 lbs/hr) of wood input, what
diameter open core gasifier would you recommend?

2) They show air intake at 0.184 sm3/s (390 scfm) and gas output at 0.497
sm3/s (1050 scfm). Assuming the gasifier were built to the diameter in (1)
above, what should the air intake and gas output be to generate the 1kg/kWe.

3) Can I purchase a written copy of your "Fluidyne's Operator Training
Programme?"

Thanks again,

Vernon Harris - VHarris001@aol.com

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

Date: 9/14/98 3:19:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: graeme@powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
To: gasification@crest.org, VHarris001@aol.com

Dear Vernon

To be specific about this project and its attendant problems requires more
than a brief analysis based on the information presented. It is quite
clear however, that the project concept was conceived to fit into the
framework of eligibility to qualify for funds from the administration.

Lets start with the fuel: Waste wood from multiple source. This could be
anything from old buildings, crates, trees, but certainly containing
painted, treated and contaminated timber. It is suggested that the char
waste from this plant be used for activated carbon and water filtration!
Only possible with virgin tree wood.

Fuel preparation: Tub grinder.
I have only seen one of these in action (Waste Management Frisco) and it
was powered by a 250H.P. Caterpillar engine. It required another loader to
feed it and due to steel content was very demanding of maintenance. This
is one technology not suited to remote locations and unlikely to be found
or used in developing countries.

Fuel Drier:
This looks good and worthy of a better description.

Gasifier: 7 foot diameter downdraught.
On the assumption that if you make it bigger you get more gas, and if it is
called downdraught, that qualifies the design for engines. In Table 1 of
Advantages, they say mature technology, quote WWII cars and trucks, suggest
availability of new gas cleaning methods for engines on MW scale.
This style of design was never used for mobile engines using wood during
WW11. Operation of this gasifier relies on the oxidation zone being kept in
position by removal of reduction zone char (this is the stuff that actually
makes the gas), and adding a depth of fuel cap. The reliance on
temperature sensors to maintain this key parameter using Wonderware logic
says it all!

Bed Temperature: 816 - 538 degrees C is consistent with overbed air supply,
but not indicative of true bed temperature, in terms of evenness of
distribution. They state that channelling in the centre was a problem
overcome by a level rake. which suggests the centre is moving faster, will
be more permeable, and easier for the air-gas to flow through. It will be
hotter but the raw fuel will end up much closer to the bottom of the bed
increasing the volatile content of the gas. With the bed temperature at a
maximum of 816 degrees C, the char that forms below the oxidation zone
(except in some hot channels) will be frozen, and not be consumed by
reduction of the CO2 into CO. Our own experience has proven reduction of
CO2 stops at about 800 - 850 degrees C, which is why they have to remove
char continuously to keep the bed permeable. As the name of the game is
wood to gas, the fuel consumption of 816.4 kg/hr to generate 400 kWe is not
what you might say practical. A rule of thumb is 1kg/kWe, and bearing in
mind the fuel could be coming from energy plantations, is a waste to the
resource. Waste charcoal is not as easy to dispose of as suggested, and
becomes a problem very quickly. This charcoal isn't the quality used for
cooking, unless this system is really a charcoal maker and the gas is the
by-product!

Single Cyclone: The separation of solids and fine dust particles is well
documented in both gasification and combustion literature. It appears that
no understanding of cyclonic separation is understood or incorporated into
this system. To add a damper to control the inlet velocity may have
improved fines capture, but by creating turbulence and impaction, hence the
need to add vibration to remove the fines. The cone of a cyclone is not a
funnel to direct the dust into the collection box, but there to maintain
velocity of the gas and particles. At the end of the cone, the dust is
flung out of the gas and it can be found impacted in some cases on the
walls of the collection box. Multiple small cyclones are more efficient
than large units, at least pertaining to gasification.

Condensate and Tar: Whilst the water condensate of this system is
classified as O.K. to tip down a sewer line, in a rural situation it ends
up in an earth drain, and eventually the groundwater system.

Tar on the other hand is also collected and removed for "other" uses. This
is no problem it is claimed, but tar lines must be heated and unspecified
proper equipment selected to handle carbon sediment and tar. This is a
technology description of refineries not gasifiers, and its operation is
not simple. Anyone who has encountered wood tar in a pipe system will have
very graphic descriptions of what the designer should do with his system!

Again tar is a toxic waste disposal problem, not a valuable resource as a
by product of gasification.

Impingement Plate Filters: If these are collecting solids after the
cyclone and heat exchanger then the separators are not removing all the
condensate efficiently. To suggest they are an efficient low cost low
maintenance option for filtration, even though the fabric filters after the
plates catch tar and condensate is stretching poetic licence just a little.
The fabric filters work, but they do have problems letting the gas
through, but thats O.K. because the tar isn't getting into the engine
either, or is it?

Spark Ignition Engines: As I don't have technical details for this engine,
I assume its originally built for natural gas. If this is the case, then
the ignition timing should be the same for both gases. Any backfires are
open or stuck valves, or the timing a "tad" off. It will also depend on
the level of CH4 in the gas at the time of starting, so backfires may only
occur in a stop-start situation. With this gas, this engine shouldn't have
any problems except tar ingestion or pyrolysis oils condensing under the
speed control butterfly.

The fact that the emphasis is on manual speed control, over the automatic
Woodward governor points to system instability. None of the components
prior to the engine demonstrate consistent performance of a standard
appropriate for the engine. It would not be a reliable automated system,
as resistance changes (even slowly) would alter the gas air ratio at the
engine.

Conclusions: This project is a prime example of unsupervised enthusiasm
which could have achieved so much to demonstrate the reliability and
practical application of gasified power generation. Instead you have a
project with a wish list of future efforts attached under the heading of
"necessary research". Most of these questions are basic information and
the answers within the public domain. Of the 10 points for further
research, only experimenting with activated char is not taught in
Fluidyne's Operator Training Programme, first introduced in 1985. In this
context, there are barefoot men walking around the jungles of Papua New
Guinea who know the answers already.

Vernon, the problems are endless, the causes, lack of knowledge,
supervision, and accountability. The solution? Well, save the engine if
it isn't seized with tar, and scrap the gasifier.

By all means open up a discussion, but this has to be my contribution.

There are three Pacific Class gasifiers stored at the Royal Titan Ranch,
Corin Springs, Montana. They are part of the stores and equipment held in
a civil defence emergency complex (nuclear bunker) along with 4 cylinder
Caterpillar gas engines. They are not accessible to the public.

Regards

Doug Williams

Note: Engine photographs are coming up on web page later this week.

----------
> From: VHarris001@aol.com
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Cc: graeme@powerlink.co.nz
> Subject: USMC Gasification Plant
> Date: Friday, September 11, 1998 4:49 PM
>
> Dear Doug Williams,
>
> I copied part of the operational description of the Camp Lejeune project
here
> for discussion purposes. Could you be more specific about: 1) the
problems
> likely to be encountered, 2) the cause of the problems, and 3) solutions
for
> the problems?
>
> Thanks, Vernon Harris VHarris001@aol.com
>
> P.S. Are any of your Pacific Class Gasifiers currently in operation in
the
> U.S.A.?
> >
> In a message dated 9/8/98 4:46:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> graeme@powerlink.co.nz writes:
>
> > I took your advice and down loaded the Camp Lejeume project. The only
> > comment I can make is that it is little different from the Chinese
open
> > core gasification concept for rice husks, and unlikely to reach
acceptable
> > commercial levels of operation for widespread application, in
developing
> > countries, or anywhere else!
> >
> > This project has every problem in the book when it comes to engine
powered
> > gasification.

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

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Mon Sep 14 13:18:39 1998
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <12c7d75d.35fd525b@aol.com>

Dear Tom Reed,

You indicated that "> c) The lower tube (6 in?) is probably much to large in
diameter. Harry was never one for calculating superficial velocities. <"

1) What diameter would be better for the lower tube (fire tube).

2) If that diameter should be changed, should also the Table 2-2 Fire Tube
Dimensions (pg. 52) be changed as well?

3) If yes, would it be a valid assumption to change the inside diameter
(inches) column by the same proportion as you would change the 6" firetube in
the original FEMA gasifier?

Thanks,

Vernon Harris - VHarris001@aol.com

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

In a message dated 9/13/98 12:05:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
REEDTB@compuserve.com writes:

> From: REEDTB@compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
> Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
</A>
> To: gasification@crest.org (INTERNET:gasification@crest.org)
>
> Dear Markus et al:
>
> As Harry's friend and the publisher of Harry LaFontaine's " Simplified
> wood gas generator" I feel some responsibility for the gasifier he designed
> for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (God help us if we
> ever have a nuclear/natural emergy and have to rely on them. Bureaucrat's
> generally don't have much appreciation of realities - but Harry sure did.)
>
> My recollection is that Harry built and operated this for a FEMA contract
> in cooperation with the U. of Florida at Gainesville and Wayne Smith there
> might provide some contacts. Looking at his schematic, Fig. 1-3:
>
> a) I am very much in agreement with the non-throat, stratified downdraft
> gasifier itself (lower half) and filled with admiration for his using a SS
> colander as grate. You could buy this for $10 or have it made for $200!
> The chain suspension is nice. We make gasifiers this way a lot.
>
> b) I am horrified by the large diameter fuel magazine(30 in?) feeding into
> the small (6 in) gasifier tube. He must have been using spherical pellets
> - all other fuels would bridge and jam.
>
> c) The lower tube (6 in?) is probably much to large in diameter. Harry was
> never one for calculating superficial velocities.
>
> d) It sounds as if your thinking is still in the IMBERT (Zeuch) era of
> WWII. No one completely understood the function of the choke throat, so we
> threw it out in 1980 in the SERI/NREL oxygen/air gasifier and many others
> have done the same since.
>
> I miss Harry! He taught me a lot by both positive and negative example. He
> founded the Biomass Energy Foundation 501-c-3 which permits me to use my
> time as I please.
>
> Your contact with the silent majority,
> TOM REED
>
> Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
> >
> In "Construction of a Simplified Wood Gas Generator for
> Fueling Internal Combustion Engines in a Petroleum
> Crisis" published by BEF-press. H. LaFontaine reports
> a very simpel stratified downdraft gas generator.
>
> The hearth is simply a metal cylinder which length
> and diameter must be selected to match the
> characteristics for a particular engine.
>
> This approach is of course very simple to manufacture,
> but, though I'm not sure since I hav'nt tested it
> myself, should give rather poor idling performance,
> risk for air-pockets. The hottest area of the
> oxidation zone should also be more concentrated in my
> opinion.
>
> Should the addion of a throat plate similar to the
> WWII Zeuch design solve such problems and maybe give
> as good idling performance as the Imbert generator?
> If so, at wich location in the 'fire tube' should it
> be? Do the experimental data from WWII still apply
> with a stratified design?
>
> If one can use the data from WWII V-hearth design
> the throat plate for a 2.3l 110 Hp engine should be
> abour 7.5 cm inner diameter and the reducion zone
> should be about the same height. Should the fire-tube
> in a stratified generator with a throat plate be
> shortened so that the distance from the nozzel ring
> in an Imbert design should match the distance from
> the top of the 'fire tube' to the throat plate in
> the LaFontaine design or does the top of the 'fire tube'
> also functuon as a destillation zone?
> Should the throat plate be positioned 7.5 cm up in
> the 'fire tube' to get a reduction zone similar to
> the one in the Imbert generator, or is the grate in
> the LaFontaine generator adequate for reduction and
> the throat should be positioned at the bottom of the
> tube?
>
> Would the throat plate do anything for performance or
> would it just be work for nothing?
>
> A lot of questions from an amateur interested in
> building simple gas generators for use with vehicles
> and for electricity generation.
>
> /Markus Almroth
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Sep 15 07:23:28 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Antidote and opportunity for gasification
Message-ID: <199809150733_MC2-5980-673C@compuserve.com>

Dear Dr. Peterson and gasification:

You are SO right. Idealists want to raise energy dedicated crops and let
the bagasse/nuthulls/straw/younameit ....rot. They get millions of dollars
of support for this distant future idea. Meanwhile we practical people get
no support for today's necessary solutions to biomass energy.

I'm off to read your webpage.

TOM REED

Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>Unique opportunity and Antidote against renewable energy pessimism

One reason why it is often difficult to achieve an economic outcome to
gasification of biomass (applies equally to biodigester systems) is that
the
cost of the process is carried by the energy component alone and until the
oil price rises (in 10, 20, 50 years??), the playing field is strongly
tilted against renewables.

Biomass has multiple uses and its components have most value when used for
food (people) or feed (for livestock). It makes no sense to take a crop
like sugar cane or a multipurpose tree and use it only for food/feed
(sugars
and leaves) or for energy. By fractionating the biomass into edible and
non-edible components and processing each according to its indicated role,
the economic outcome is much improved.

Presently sugar cane offers a unique opportunity to put this strategy into
practice. In all sugar cane producing countries there is environmental
pressure to stop both pre- and post-harvest burning of the dead leaves and
the tops. In the Cauca valley in Colombia about 12,000 tonnes of leaf
trash
are presently burned every day with zero utilization and negative
environmental consequences. In addition, some 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes of
bagasse are burned in the boilers to produce steam. Government has decreed
that by 2005 burning must stop.

If all this fibrous biomass was gasified and the syngas used to drive gas
turbines, electricity would become the main product and sugar and high-test
molasses (concentrated sugar cane juice) would be by-products, the latter
competitive in price with imported maize as livestock feed . The steam
needed for processing (evaporation of the juice) would be derived from heat
exchangers using the waste heat from the turbines.

The sugar cane industry in Colombia and elsewhere in Latinamerica is in
crisis due to low prices for sugar because of regional over-production
(Brazilian sugar cane now goes to sugar instead of fuel alcohol) and
environmental pressures to reduce pollution.

It is a unique opportunity to demonstrate the economic and environmental
advantages of integrated production of renewable energy and food / feed
using gasification and gas turbines and co-generation of heat from the
fibrous fractions of cane leaving the juice as raw material for sugar and /
or high test molasses.

The first step is a pilot model to demonstrate the technical feasibility of
the approach. Economic viability is assured once the technology is
validated, even with low oil prices; and once oil prices increase, profits
will soar as energy, food and feed prices will inevitably increase,
spurred
on by population growth and increasing aspirations.

I go to Colombia shortly to discuss with representatives of the sugar
industry possible alternatives for up-grading the leaf trash into livestock
feed. But this is a short term solution. Better an integrated approach to
get the animal feed from molasses and turn the fibre into electricity.

Suggestions welcomed.

Dr T R Preston
Fax: 84-8-8961475
Tel: 84-8-8961472

Home pages
http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrdhome.html
LRRD (Livestock Research for Rural Development) is an international
journal published electronically as a forum for exchange of knowledge
on sustainable rural development. It is continually updated as papers
are published immediately they are refereed and edited.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ecofarm
This is a presentation of activities at an ecological farm doing
research, training and demonstrations on sustainable agriculture

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/utaf
UTAF stands for University of Tropical Agriculture Foundation. This
is an initiative directed towards developing more appropriate ways of
facilitating learning about the strategies and technologies required
to promote sustainable use of natural renewable resources in
integrated farming systems

 

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 Tue Sep 15 07:23:31 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: USMC Gasification Plant
Message-ID: <199809150733_MC2-5980-672E@compuserve.com>

Dear Vern, Doug et al:

I have been following Vern's questions and Doug's answers with interest.

While Doug is absolutely correct that there have been a great many failures
in gasification due to technical problems, he doesn't recognize the
successes, other than his own. There have been many technical successes,
and many advances beyond the WWII stage gasifiers that Doug prefers.

Doug's VERY negative comments on the Camp LeJeune project MAY be correct,
but I believe that they are making progress and wish that Carol Purvis or
others would join us here and defend the project. I'll call them today and
see if I can get them on board.

In particular, I take exception to Doug's statement that it is the charcoal
that makes the gas. The flaming pyrolysis of the wood first makes a VERY
hot gas (1300C) containing already lots of CO and H2 along with CO2 and
H2O. Then this gas passes over the charcoal which reduces some more CO2
and H2O, but is immediately cooled to 800C because these reactions are VERY
endothermic (absorb heat).

So, Vern, heed Doug's warnings, read all you can, think a lot about your
aims, and KEEP GOING.

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Sep 15 07:23:41 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <199809150733_MC2-5980-6737@compuserve.com>

Dear Vern, Dale et al:

The suggestion of using a parabolic reflector for supplying the heat of
pyrolysis is flawed in many ways.

1) It only heats the surface of the mass, so would be limited to small
throughputs.

2) Tars immediately coat any outer surfaces.

3) It is impossible to put any insulation around the heated materials.

4) The energy required for pyrolysis at 300-500C is quite small - typically
1-2 kJ/g (5-10% of the heat of combustion), and is easily supplied by
burning a very small amount of the biomass

In the early carefree days of renewable energy the parabolic reflector
developers looked desperately for applications and tried this one with no
success. (Mike Antal would know about it.)

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

 

From costich at pacifier.com Tue Sep 15 09:09:17 1998
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <199809151320.GAA27331@smtp.pacifier.com>

Tom: Thankyou for helitrope feed back! Since there is no prior art except
the "turkey ranch" parabolic in Calif and the NASA taut membrane which do
not get into appropriate home power apps. Your admission that this would
be limited to small thruputs gives me hope! I'm not trying to solve the
worlds energy problems here haha--I'm happy to make a gas of such higher
calorific content than my downdraft gasifier is capable of so I could
operate a mantle gas light or start with some richer H2 component for
separation purposes. Thankyou so much for any thoughts of applications now
that I already have the operating device. Sincerely, Dale

----------
> From: Tom Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
> To: INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 4:33 AM
>
> Dear Vern, Dale et al:
>
> The suggestion of using a parabolic reflector for supplying the heat of
> pyrolysis is flawed in many ways.
>
> 1) It only heats the surface of the mass, so would be limited to small
> throughputs.
>
> 2) Tars immediately coat any outer surfaces.
>
> 3) It is impossible to put any insulation around the heated materials.
>
> 4) The energy required for pyrolysis at 300-500C is quite small -
typically
> 1-2 kJ/g (5-10% of the heat of combustion), and is easily supplied by
> burning a very small amount of the biomass
>
> In the early carefree days of renewable energy the parabolic reflector
> developers looked desperately for applications and tried this one with no
> success. (Mike Antal would know about it.)
>
> Regretfully Yours.

> TOM REED
> 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 costich at pacifier.com Tue Sep 15 09:33:58 1998
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <199809151344.GAA21655@smtp.pacifier.com>

Sue : I've seen no reply to an earlier post of yours I replied to... so
Yes! I'll help and I know only from running my downdraft gasifier that
the're a lot of fun if your an electro-mech. nerd like myself. Give up
"quality time" with the family and bonding with the children--lets go out
and make a batch of headache gas! yeah! Stroll the industrial hazardous
waste site junkyards on weekends instead of sipping blitz and watching
overpaid pituitary giants subliminally sell you new forms of Persian
plastic. Silver Mylar .003 should be orderable by roll approx 150 dollars
US 4 foot wide---It works for me. Send me your snail mail I'll send you
info about my gasifier if you want it. Also see my http://members.tripod
.com/~costich I hope this gets thru. Dale

----------
> From: Susanne Machler <greensue@hotmail.com>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas
generator
> Date: Saturday, September 12, 1998 11:07 PM
>
> So we are NOT the only crazy people left in the planet then!! Hello
> there, My name is Sue Maechler and I have been reading your postings
> with great interest. I work on a renewable homestead in the Caribbean,
> and we are just about posting our website which speaks about both,
> gasification and the use of a solar dish, as well as some of the
> problems that we experience down here.
> Right now I could do with some help finding sources of Mylar, Can you
> help me? After posting the homepages, I hop you will visit us and see
> what we do. We would be interested in some help to constrct a gasifier,
> tha is if you dont do it commercially. We have designs etc, and can swop
> but we would prefer to talk to someone who has already tried this
> technology.
>
> Hoping we can help each other!!
>
> greetings, Sue.
>
> From: "Dale Costich" <costich@pacifier.com>
> To: <gasification@crest.org>
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas
> generator
> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 03:02:08 -0700
> Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
>
> Vern:Thankx for your reply: throat temps probably 1800-2000F it took 50
> hours of elevated temps to errode the 1"solid auger shaft and the flutes
> sooner. The throat doesn't have to be "loosened" to make good gas
> anyway.
> 1000 cu ft bag fills in 20 minutes. I burn the gas to cook with and it
> goes into 5 and 9 Hp gen-sets to pump water into my elevated tank. Have
> you ever heard of any successes of gasification with a parabolic
> reflector?
> I've built an 12 foot dia unit with mylar reflector that I would like
> to
> do this with. I 've vaporized the bakelite handles off pots and pans,
> but
> I'm at a loss how to convey charcoal to and gas from the focal point?
> Goodmorning Dale
>
> ----------
> > From: VHarris001@aol.com
> > To: gasification@crest.org
> > Cc: costich@pacifier.com
> > Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas
> generator
> > Date: Friday, September 11, 1998 8:39 AM
> >
> > Dear Dale,
> >
> > Do you know how hot your gasifier is at the throat? To melt a
> stainless
> auger
> > it must be near 2400 - 2500 degrees F? How long does it take to fill
> the
> 1000
> > cu ft ag bag? What do you power with the producer gas?
> >
> > Thanks for your gasifer stories, they're always interesting!
> >
> > Vernon Harris - VHarris001@aol.com
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 9/11/98 10:56:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > costich@pacifier.com writes:
> >
> > > Subj: Re: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas
> generator
> > > Date: 9/11/98 10:56:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> > > From: costich@pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
> > > Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
> > > Reply-to: <A
> HREF="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
> > </A>
> > > To: gasification@crest.org
> > >
> > > Markus: I've built and operate a downdraft gasifier for the last 5
> years.
> > > See http://members.tripod.com I store the gas I make in a 1000cuft
> ag-bag
> > > (6 mil PVC) So it cools and filters totally clean will setting in
> the
> bag
> > > prior to use. I reflect on the time I thought I needed to "stir the
> throat"
> > > (the venturi or restriction above the grate) to improve the draw.
> The
> 1"
> > > SS auger I used ablated off and looked like a tapered Ice- sicle.
> My
> > > hearth is 3/4 " SS it is a rolled cone 12"X 6" and 12" height
> weight
> 80
> > > pounds and it runs bright orange -I've sworn I'll never try to
> stick
> any
> > > thin pipe near that area again. Good luck Hope you build a
> gasifier
> the're
> > > fun! Dale Costich
> > >
> > 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
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Sep 15 22:15:51 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Camp Lejeune gasification process
Message-ID: <998eb95d.35fd546e@aol.com>

 

Mr. Williams comments about the USMC gasification facility are not unexpected
from the process which is described.
Management ofthis project have reinvented the wheel, which had several flat
sides on it to start with. There have been many processes with these similar
The use of water with gasification for cleaning is difficult at best. Other
gas cleaning processes have more maintenance and operating headaches than
reasonable.
Water cleaning and processing was discarded in the mid 70's in our
experience.
The reactor size is larger than needed and as such, will produce excessive
tars and oils. Has anyone ever calculated the downdraft throughput per area
of an old Imbert design? It is phenomonal, and this is required for the
operation of a downdraft unit.
The thermodynamic process of the gasifier has been worked with over the years
and others have solved the problems with bed process configuration. The
immature problems indicated in this process needs more work. Various schemes
have been used to maintain thermal stability and reaction which although I
have not seen work, appear to be correct for the application.
Cyclones will foul and coat with cracking tars which will require mechanical
intervention to clean. They are virtually useless.
There are alternatives to drying the feed material pre-gasifier which are
easier and do not have the emission properties. How do you clean up the blue
haze emitted from the dryer? We have the technology to do this.
I agree with Mr. Williams' comments on char production. The marketing of
pyrolysis technology has always relied upon the mystery buyer who wants
thousands of tons of the char, but is nowhere to be found when it comes to
shove. The energy balance is verily upset with the char production at this
level. The unit is not a gasifier, but a pyrolyzer. A gasifier will convert
the char to gas, this system does not. The thermodynamic losses are
significant from the lack of conversion of char.
Tar/oil/water separation is an art. Optimally, using temperature gradients
to form tar, water or oil segregated aerosols which can then be removed by
temperature. This is being incorporated to prevent the water from mixing with
the tars and reduce the complex handling and such items as pipe freezing. Our
preference is to return the combustible tars to the reactor for conversion and
increased energy conversion. Addition of recycled tars to a non-gasification
system will quickly bog it down and upset the bed.

With the right design, the pressure loss from cyclone or other gas cleaning
processes can be eliminated which the surface area and processing is
simplified.
The problems addressed by Mr. Williams have been solved and operating
equipment can be seen with these problems solved.

Sincerely,

Leland T. Taylor
President,
Thermogenics Inc.


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

 

From tpreston at hcm.vnn.vn Wed Sep 16 07:06:04 1998
From: tpreston at hcm.vnn.vn (T R Preston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Antidote and opportunity for gasification
Message-ID: <003201bde15a$4ac877c0$4c73a7ca@trp>

I would like the ideas of the list members as to how we might proceed to
fund a pilot unit in Colombia to produce energy and feed from sugar cane.

The pilot unit could be:
180 ha of sugar cane in the Cauca valley yields 60 tonnes cane stalks and 10
tonnes leaf trash per day. After juice extraction there would be 30 tonnes
bagasse at 50%
moisture plus the 10 tonnes trash at about 30% moisture. Both would have to
be dried to about 15% moisture and ground for gasification in (I presume)
some type of cyclone or fluid bed gasifier (inputs here please).
The gas would be enough to fuel a 1 MW gas turbine with waste heat converted
to low grade steam for juice evaporation to produce "high test" molassses
(about 85 Brix) for use as animal feed.

Estimated output is put at:
365*24*1 MW = 8760 Mwhrs electricity which at 5 cents/Kwh would yield USD
438,000 USD or USD 876,00 if electricity was 10 cents/kwh.
The molasses output from 30 tonnes juice would be 7.5tonnes/day * 365 =
2737.5 tonnes/yr which at USD 200/tonne is a further gross annual income of
USD 547,500.

Total annual gross income is thus USD USD 438,000 + USD 547,500 = USD
985,500

If electricity is 10 cents/kwh the gross income increases to USD 1.45
million

Capital cost for cane milling train, drier, gasifier and turbine plus vacuum
evaporators I assume is in the range of 1-2 million USD. I can obtain
figures for the cane milling side but need estimates of the gas turbine,
gasifier and associated equipment. Then there are labour and operating
costs, probably not more than USD100,00/year. Surely such a scheme is
economically attractive, even at today's prices, to be worth developing? It
is certainly innovative in the integrated approach and in environmental
benefits. And as Tom Reed pointed out "..in ten or twenty years or 50 years
it will be even more attractive".

I can deliver political support from the Governor of the Cauca Valley
province and possibly finance to cover the local costs can be got from the
sugar industry in the Cauca valley. But capital costs for equipment and
technical assistance would need to be financed elsewhere. GEF is a logical
source but appraisal by them would be a long drawn out affaire. The real
issue is: Is the technology mature enough for gasification using low density
fibrous crop residues. From what Jeff Phillipis says the gas turbines of <1
MW are available. And then to do it in the private sector, as the economics
look sufficiently promising to attract venture capital.

I have the opportunity to be in Colombia in the next few weeks for
discussions with the sugar industry. I would like to take with me the basis
for a firm proposal.

Reg Preston
in Vietnam

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

 

From troels at et.dtu.dk Wed Sep 16 08:36:37 1998
From: troels at et.dtu.dk (Troels Pedersen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Backfiring from SI engines
Message-ID: <199809161236.IAA12564@solstice.crest.org>

Dear listmembers

Does anybody on the list have experienced any problems with backfire
from SI engines, that has been driven on gasifiergas?
When using gas from the to-stage gasifier located at DTU, Denmark we
have experienced excessive backfiring on a 1.1 liter Ford VSG 411
engine. Backfiring only occurs on full load. The to-stage gas have a
very high hydrogen content (20 - 35%) and backfiring only occurs when
hydrogen concentration is higher than ~25%.
Ignitiontiming is set for MBT. We newer had any problems with
knocking (CR=9.5:1). What's the highest CR ever tried on gasifiergas?

Thanks

Troels Pedersen, DTU, Denmark

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

 

From macm at cert.UCR.EDU Wed Sep 16 10:57:16 1998
From: macm at cert.UCR.EDU (Mac McClanahan)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Backfiring from SI engines
In-Reply-To: <199809161236.IAA12564@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <35FFD42E.64978A5E@helium.ucr.edu>

Is your engine fuel-injected or carbureted? With a high hydrogen
concentration in the fuel, carburetion can be a problem. If the engine is
fuel injected, the injection timing should be set as late as possible during
the intake stroke to allow the air to pre-cool the cylinder. The good news
is that you can increase the engine compression ratio. Neat hydrogen will
run in engines with higher compression ratios (up to about 15:1).

Hope this helps.

Mac McClanahan

Troels Pedersen wrote:

> Dear listmembers
>
> Does anybody on the list have experienced any problems with backfire
> from SI engines, that has been driven on gasifiergas?
> When using gas from the to-stage gasifier located at DTU, Denmark we
> have experienced excessive backfiring on a 1.1 liter Ford VSG 411
> engine. Backfiring only occurs on full load. The to-stage gas have a
> very high hydrogen content (20 - 35%) and backfiring only occurs when
> hydrogen concentration is higher than ~25%.
> Ignitiontiming is set for MBT. We newer had any problems with
> knocking (CR=9.5:1). What's the highest CR ever tried on gasifiergas?
>
> Thanks
>
> Troels Pedersen, DTU, Denmark
>
> 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 mlefcort at compuserve.com Wed Sep 16 13:01:07 1998
From: mlefcort at compuserve.com (Malcolm D. Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Backfiring from SI engines
Message-ID: <199809161311_MC2-59A5-209F@compuserve.com>

Troels,

I developed a two-stage wet wood gasifier in the early 1980's. This was a
research project funded by the Canadian and the British Columbian
governments.

I also developed a two-stage wet wood combustor in the late 1970's. Units
have been in continuous service in the forest products industry for over 17
years.

I'd be very interested to learn some details about your two-stage gasifier.

Malcolm Lefcort, Sc.D,
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 Wed Sep 16 13:54:46 1998
From: paavani at giasbga.vsnl.net.in (P Nagpal)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Stimulate Demand ?
In-Reply-To: <v01540b0db221fe7b3c49@[202.37.189.108]>
Message-ID: <35FFFDBD.841B69B4@giasbga.vsnl.net.in>

Dear Tom and friends,

India is my country and even when not "sanctioned against", heavily
strapped for funds needed to meet the aspirations of a growing
population. Oil we import is too costly and depletes our foreign
exchange reserves, balance of payments etc. etc.

Electricity in modern civilization is a fundamental need. Foreign
companies are encouraged to bring in finance and set up power stations
here. The Government has given permission for tens of thousands of
Megawatts. Regretfully, all these are based on fossil fuels.

Owing to very high cost of fossil fuels power generation economics via
gasification makes a lot of sense to us. A private company has prepared
a project report for a 1 M Watt unit for one of its customers who has
got the Government's approval, finance, incentives etc. In my knowledge
this will be the first commercial attempt as an Independent Power
Producer (IPP) via gasification route here. Location Bangalore.

To give this technology a push we need commercial viability, fortunately
in India it is there. As you know, we have excellent scientists in
gasification. But noting works till demand is self stimulating. Demand
generates momentum and generates interest in, engineers, research,
commercial companies to manufacture equipments, spare parts, thrust for
standardization, service providers, energy crop planters etc. thereby
making the gasification power generation an attractive sustainable
business.

As for the rest of the developed world where electricity is still cheap,
should we procrastinate till oil prices go up and then shift gears ?

I agree fully with what you put up a few days ago about our short sight.
Political will ! What if by law it is made mandatory that "over the next
5 years of all projects sanctioned and for those in existence, must
deliver just 1% power into the grid from gasification - renewable.
Thereafter 2% increase each year till 2020. Immaterial whether these
power producers produce on their own or purchase from renewable power
producers". Can you imagine the demand and consequent thrust ?

Through gasification@crest.org, I want to link up with like minded
persons in India and other nations so as to explore the possibility of
arriving at a plan and and course of action we all commit to pursue. Can
gasification@crest.org provide a platform where we can discuss and
arrive at a plan ?

Tom caution me if gasification@crest.org is the wrong place for this,
personally I'll be delighted to know of your experience in any such
attempts if made earlier.

Sincerely,

Pavan.

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

 

From rbeltran at uniandes.edu.co Wed Sep 16 14:59:36 1998
From: rbeltran at uniandes.edu.co (Rafael Beltrán)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas : gas turbine ?
In-Reply-To: <35F6AA33.26AB@wanadoo.fr>
Message-ID: <36000D0D.35DEE1D@uniandes.edu.co>

 

martin wrote:

> Hello
>
> I am new on this mail group, I work in a consulting engineer company.
> I am looking for manufacturers of gas micro turbine (from 50 to 500 kW)
> Thank for your response and have a nice day
>
> Dr. Franck Martin
> Brennus
> CP 68
> 56038 VANNES CEDEX
> FRANCE
> Email: frayvo.martin@wanadoo.fr
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

Dear sir:

Perhaps you could try to contact NREC, Engineering Development Company.
Their Web Site is : www.nrec.com.

Yours truly,

Rafael G. Beltrán
Mechanical Engineering Department
School of Engineering
University of Los Andes
Bogotá - Colombia

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

 

From jphillips at alumni.stanford.org Wed Sep 16 15:11:39 1998
From: jphillips at alumni.stanford.org (Jeffrey N. Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Antidote and opportunity for gasification
In-Reply-To: <003201bde15a$4ac877c0$4c73a7ca@trp>
Message-ID: <000101bde1a7$5d9250e0$3f1d29d8@jnphatch.gis.net>

Dr. Preston,

For gas turbines of 1 MW or less, you should budget approximately $800/kW.
That means $800,000 for a 1 MW machine. This would be a skid-mounted unit
including generator and all auxiliaries, FOB the factory. If that is too
much to handle, you can buy turbines all the way down to 50 kW and still
have pretty good efficiencies.

Can a gas turbine run on gas from a biomass gasifier? Some gas turbines run
on raw crude oil, so I doubt there would be anything worse than that in
biomass gasifier gas. It is simply a matter of how often do you want to do
maintenance on the turbine. The biggest challenge will be pressurizing the
gas to the level required to get it into the turbine's combustor.

By the way, I would not premise your economics on 8760 hr/year operation.
Gas turbines typically can run 95% of the year, but I don't think a biomass
gasifier will reach that level of reliability. Of course, you could always
buy two gasifiers for one turbine.

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 T R Preston
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 6:03 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Antidote and opportunity for gasification

I would like the ideas of the list members as to how we might proceed to
fund a pilot unit in Colombia to produce energy and feed from sugar cane.

The pilot unit could be:
180 ha of sugar cane in the Cauca valley yields 60 tonnes cane stalks and 10
tonnes leaf trash per day. After juice extraction there would be 30 tonnes
bagasse at 50%
moisture plus the 10 tonnes trash at about 30% moisture. Both would have to
be dried to about 15% moisture and ground for gasification in (I presume)
some type of cyclone or fluid bed gasifier (inputs here please).
The gas would be enough to fuel a 1 MW gas turbine with waste heat converted
to low grade steam for juice evaporation to produce "high test" molassses
(about 85 Brix) for use as animal feed.

Estimated output is put at:
365*24*1 MW = 8760 Mwhrs electricity which at 5 cents/Kwh would yield USD
438,000 USD or USD 876,00 if electricity was 10 cents/kwh.
The molasses output from 30 tonnes juice would be 7.5tonnes/day * 365 =
2737.5 tonnes/yr which at USD 200/tonne is a further gross annual income of
USD 547,500.

Total annual gross income is thus USD USD 438,000 + USD 547,500 = USD
985,500

If electricity is 10 cents/kwh the gross income increases to USD 1.45
million

Capital cost for cane milling train, drier, gasifier and turbine plus vacuum
evaporators I assume is in the range of 1-2 million USD. I can obtain
figures for the cane milling side but need estimates of the gas turbine,
gasifier and associated equipment. Then there are labour and operating
costs, probably not more than USD100,00/year. Surely such a scheme is
economically attractive, even at today's prices, to be worth developing? It
is certainly innovative in the integrated approach and in environmental
benefits. And as Tom Reed pointed out "..in ten or twenty years or 50 years
it will be even more attractive".

I can deliver political support from the Governor of the Cauca Valley
province and possibly finance to cover the local costs can be got from the
sugar industry in the Cauca valley. But capital costs for equipment and
technical assistance would need to be financed elsewhere. GEF is a logical
source but appraisal by them would be a long drawn out affaire. The real
issue is: Is the technology mature enough for gasification using low density
fibrous crop residues. From what Jeff Phillipis says the gas turbines of <1
MW are available. And then to do it in the private sector, as the economics
look sufficiently promising to attract venture capital.

I have the opportunity to be in Colombia in the next few weeks for
discussions with the sugar industry. I would like to take with me the basis
for a firm proposal.

Reg Preston
in Vietnam

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 paavani at giasbga.vsnl.net.in Wed Sep 16 22:09:07 1998
From: paavani at giasbga.vsnl.net.in (P Nagpal)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Antidote
In-Reply-To: <v01540b0db221fe7b3c49@[202.37.189.108]>
Message-ID: <3600719E.1CD3C303@giasbga.vsnl.net.in>

<HTML>
Dear Tom and All,
<BR>&nbsp;
<BR>Tom Reed's point: "Biomass energy is our special interest, but not
that of
<BR>the general public or governments.&nbsp; As long as oil remains cheap
we can't
<BR>expect the
<BR>world to beat on our doors."

<P>I disagree here. For the third world nation like mine, India, economics
of 60 to 70 % diesel replacement in base generator sets, say above 200
K watts, is commercially viable.

<P>Wood costs US $&nbsp; 17 to 18 per tonne (1000 Kgs). Rice Husk waste,
of which theoretically we have enough year after year to meet our nation's
energy needs, delivered at factory doorstep is $ 15 to 16 per tonne.

<P>In my state of Karnataka, there is so much power shortage that, yesterday
industry owners through out put down their shutters in disgust. Here we
can generate power and put it into the grid and sell it privately to any
one at any price the buyer and seller decide.

<P>The local government encourages companies to keep their generator sets
on and pump power into the grid.

<P>For us tomorrow is banging the door !

<P>sincerely,

<P>Pavan.

<P>Ian Bywater wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Dear Tom and all
<BR>&nbsp;
<BR>&nbsp;

<P>How true, but when you consider the *materials*, not just the energy,
that
<BR>can be derived from biomass (as it was in the past, is now done on
a
<BR>limited scale and will be needed in the future)&nbsp; .........&nbsp;
now, that fills
<BR>me with optimism.&nbsp; Only looking at the energy in biomass is like
only using
<BR>oil or coal in its raw state as a fuel.

<P>Sincerely

<P>IAN

<P>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
<BR>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive</BLOCKQUOTE>
&nbsp;</HTML>

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

 

From paavani at giasbga.vsnl.net.in Wed Sep 16 22:09:13 1998
From: paavani at giasbga.vsnl.net.in (P Nagpal)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Antidote and opportunity for gasification
In-Reply-To: <001001bddf8a$875f69e0$d973a7ca@trp>
Message-ID: <360071AE.B4AA1799@giasbga.vsnl.net.in>

One sugar cane derivative gasifier manufactured by Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore, India, (Dr Mukunda), I belive, is delivered or
installed in the sugar growing belt near Kanpur in Northern India. His
experience may proove useful.

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

 

From paavani at giasbga.vsnl.net.in Wed Sep 16 22:09:26 1998
From: paavani at giasbga.vsnl.net.in (P Nagpal)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Antidote and opportunity for gasification
In-Reply-To: <199809150733_MC2-5980-673C@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <360071B8.35373795@giasbga.vsnl.net.in>

Dear Tom and Dr Peterson

I agree, but why can't we initiate something ? Don't we owe this to the
people who will live on this planet 20 years from now ? Can't we
conceive of a viable plan and put it on roll internationally ?

sincerely

Pavan.

(Some nucleating ideas already posted by me).

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

 

From rabello at uniserve.com Wed Sep 16 23:53:58 1998
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Backfiring in SI Engines
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19980917041114.006fa740@popserver.uniserve.com>

Hello!!!

The problem you describe with backfiring is common in externally-mixed
hydrogen engines. The causes are complex, but primarily, hydrogen's low
ignition energy requirements and high flame speed, coupled with hot spots in
the cylinder or excessive spark advance cause combustion before the intake
valve closes. This is more prevalent under load. Here are three solutions:

1) Exhaust-gas recirculation
2) Water injection
3) Direct gas injection (after the intake valve is closed)

Exhaust-gas recirculation reduces power by diluting the intake charge.
Water injection is effective and commercial units are available and easily
installed. Direct-injection gaseous-fueled engines are capable of producing
power equivalent to that created by externally-mixed, liquid-fueled engines
because intake air is not diluted by the fuel. (This approach also
eliminates throttling--a cause of inefficiency in SI engines)

If these solutions are not practical, you can move your ignition advance
closer to TDC. You will lose power, but will probably prevent engine damage.

Good luck!

robert luis rabello
VisionWorks

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

 

From riva_mukziza at hotmail.com Thu Sep 17 00:03:32 1998
From: riva_mukziza at hotmail.com (riva mukziza)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: syngas
Message-ID: <199809170403.AAA29408@solstice.crest.org>

I need more information about SPARG process from Haldor Topsoe for my
final assignment. I've read about that process at hydrocarbon processing
, 1986, but the information is not enough for me. SPARG process is a
process to synthesize syngas from natural gas . Would you help me?
Thank's

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

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

 

From dfknowles at bigfoot.com Thu Sep 17 00:03:35 1998
From: dfknowles at bigfoot.com (David Knowles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Antidote and opportunity for gasification
Message-ID: <199809170403.AAA29425@solstice.crest.org>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01BDE19A.1592D740
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Actually, for 1 MW output, you wouldn't choose a combustion turbine but
rather a reciprocating engine.  Turbines in this size range cost $800/kw
plus about $400/kw for balance of plant (ie generator, skid, interconnect,
etc).    The recip/gen package will run about $300-400/kw.

Item 2.  The significant differnce between biomass and gas from oil
operations is the particulate and alkalies in the biomass.  Both will
destroy the turbines.  Maintenance on the turbine is not a cheap or trival
matter.

------=_NextPart_000_01BDE19A.1592D740
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Actually, for 1 MW output, = you wouldn't choose a combustion turbine but
rather a reciprocating = engine.  Turbines in this size range cost $800/kw
plus
about = $400/kw for balance of plant (ie generator, skid, interconnect,
etc). =
The recip/gen package will run about = $300-400/kw.

Item 2.  The significant differnce between = biomass and gas from oil
operations is the particulate and alkalies in = the biomass.  Both will
destroy
the turbines.  Maintenance on = the turbine is not a cheap or trival matter.

------=_NextPart_000_01BDE19A.1592D740--
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From tpreston at hcm.vnn.vn Thu Sep 17 04:03:39 1998
From: tpreston at hcm.vnn.vn (T R Preston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass and gas turbines
Message-ID: <000201bde209$f85142a0$da73a7ca@trp>

I have received similar opinion as that given by David Knowles about
potential damage to turbines from synthesis gas derived from biomass. Is
this a major constraint to gasification or are there solutions being
developed?

 

Reg Preston

Dr T R Preston
Fax: 84-8-8961475
Tel: 84-8-8961472

Home pages
http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrdhome.html
LRRD (Livestock Research for Rural Development) is an international
journal published electronically as a forum for exchange of knowledge
on sustainable rural development. It is continually updated as papers
are published immediately they are refereed and edited.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ecofarm
This is a presentation of activities at an ecological farm doing
research, training and demonstrations on sustainable agriculture

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/utaf
UTAF stands for University of Tropical Agriculture Foundation. This
is an initiative directed towards developing more appropriate ways of
facilitating learning about the strategies and technologies required
to promote sustainable use of natural renewable resources in
integrated farming systems

 

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

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Sep 17 05:00:46 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: USMC Gasification Plant
Message-ID: <199809170507.RAA26730@powerlink.co.nz>

Dear Tom

I am sorry I came across as very negative in my assessment of this project,
which I might add I was requested to make. Maybe I was too quick off the
mark, and waited patiently for others to critique this project first, but
to do so does expose one to debate and even ridicule.

For the benefit of everyone interested in the technology of gasification,
it should be clearly understood that combustible gas results from all
manner of thermal processes. Tom quite rightly disagrees with me,
particularly when flaming pyrolysis is also mentioned, for as I have
previously stated, this phenomena is the result of stratified gasification,
and nothing to do with downdraught throated gasifiers which have a packed
oxidising char bed.

In a message dated 9/13/98 12:05:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
REEDTB@compuserve.com writes:

> From: REEDTB@compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
> Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
</A>
> To: gasification@crest.org (INTERNET:gasification@crest.org)
>
<snip>
>
> d) It sounds as if your thinking is still in the IMBERT (Zeuch) era of
> WWII. No one completely understood the function of the choke throat, so
we
> threw it out in 1980 in the SERI/NREL oxygen/air gasifier and many
others
> have done the same since.
>
<snip>

It is a great pity that Tom and Harry didn't come to terms with throated
gasifiers, because to unlock the mystery of how this zone works physically
provides an analytical perspective that doesn't allow compromise. Hence my
rigid and inflexible stance when discussion relates to gas for engines and
possibly one day turbines. Its clear from Tom's experience that their work
didn't deal with incandescent CO2, which should be the majority gas exiting
a fixed oxidation zone. If combustible gases survive to this point then
you have a tar maker. The charcoal through the throat and down to the
grate is the reduction zone, which driven endothermically converts the CO2
and steam into CO and H2. I can assure everyone that without reduction
char in this type of gasification, even a blow torch won't ignite the gas.
For a full explanation and drawing, access the "How gas is made" on
Graeme's web page.
http://powerlink.co.nz/~graeme/fluid.html

So please when we offer comment or formulate questions try to ensure that
we do talk about the same gasification process.

As to my apparent obsession with throated gasification, doing it right
seems to have eluded many companies, and in my case "was" providing a
progressive commercial capability to create the phenomena for large scale
gasification of the many problem agricultural waste streams. By sharing
Fluidyne's projects with this group, and offering comment on various
topics, I certainly do endeavour to be right, for in the acquisition of our
knowledge, we read the same books and most certainly made or created every
permutation of mistake possible. It is not necessary for me to recognise
the achievements of other companies success for they are quite able to do
their own promotion in this and other forums,. The only interest I have is
when they offer their technology for engines or turbines, and it then
becomes important to give it a poke with a long stick!! Just remember,
that when your project which could be any form of gasification, falls over,
it will be held up as an example of all gasification failure.


In a message dated 9/13/98 12:05:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
REEDTB@compuserve.com writes:

> From: REEDTB@compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
> Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
</A>
> To: gasification@crest.org (INTERNET:gasification@crest.org)
>
> Dear Markus et al:
>
> As Harry's friend and the publisher of Harry LaFontaine's " Simplified
> wood gas generator" I feel some responsibility for the gasifier he
designed
> for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (God help us if we
> ever have a nuclear/natural emergy and have to rely on them.
Bureaucrat's
> generally don't have much appreciation of realities - but Harry sure
did.)
>
> My recollection is that Harry built and operated this for a FEMA
contract
> in cooperation with the U. of Florida at Gainesville and Wayne Smith
there
> might provide some contacts. Looking at his schematic, Fig. 1-3:
>
> a) I am very much in agreement with the non-throat, stratified downdraft
> gasifier itself (lower half) and filled with admiration for his using a
SS
> colander as grate. You could buy this for $10 or have it made for $200!

> The chain suspension is nice. We make gasifiers this way a lot.
>
<snip>

For those who are making these types of gasifiers, you should be aware that
stainless steel has a very short life in a high temperature reducing
atmosphere. The same for steel chains which case harden and shed layers
each stop and start cycle.

With the need to prioritise my time in order to re-educate myself and
refinance my life, this type of discussion and debate really does have to
exclude me. I am not dead, disinterested, or lost the plot for what has to
be achieved by renewables in the coming years. Give me a pile of money and
its 100 per cent full on again

Thanks for your time, now push delete and move on, but please keep my name
out of the thread headings in future postings as there is a Dr. Doug
Williams in California.

Regards
Doug Williams.

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

 

From campa at hrl.com.au Thu Sep 17 05:50:07 1998
From: campa at hrl.com.au (Campisi, Tony)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass and gas turbines
Message-ID: <896DD0FA4846D211A80A00A0C955FAD4010FD5@mail_mulgrave>

Gas turbines have very low limits for alkali species and particulates
however several solutions have been developed for coal gasification which
are also applicable to biomass gasification.

At gasification temperatures alkali species (Na, K) have a significant
vapour pressure. However, as there is a need to cool the fuel gas to below
300degC before combustion in a gas turbine (due to inlet temperature
limits), any volatilised alkali salts will condense out of the gas phase
during gas cooling (usually onto char/ash particles or reactor walls).

The particulates in the gas stream will need to be removed before combustion
of the gas in the turbine to prevent erosion/corrosion or re-release of Na
species. This can be accomplished hot by using a barrier filter system (ie
ceramic candle filters) or through wet-scrubbing schemes.

To control corrosion from sulphur species (or emission of SOx), there may be
also be a need to include a sulphur removal system (sorbent bed, wet
scrubbing)

If there are high levels of NH3/HCN in the fuel gas (which will occur for
some biomass), these may need to be removed from the gas prior to combustion
to minimise NOx formation (although some control of NOx formation can also
be achieved during the combustion process).

The gas produced from air-blown coal (biomass) gasification processes has a
low calorific value which may require the development of special gas-turbine
combustor cans.

Details of work HRL has done on low-rank coal gasification (25bar pressure,
10tonne per hour scale with 5MW gas turbine) in which these issues have been
successfully addressed can be found on our home page.

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
Home Page: http://www.hrl.com.au
---------------------------------------------------------

 

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: T R Preston [SMTP:tpreston@hcm.vnn.vn]
> Sent: Thursday, 17 September 1998 17:03
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Biomass and gas turbines
>
> I have received similar opinion as that given by David Knowles about
> potential damage to turbines from synthesis gas derived from biomass. Is
> this a major constraint to gasification or are there solutions being
> developed?
>
>
>
> Reg Preston
>
> Dr T R Preston
> Fax: 84-8-8961475
> Tel: 84-8-8961472
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From jphillips at alumni.stanford.org Thu Sep 17 14:04:37 1998
From: jphillips at alumni.stanford.org (Jeffrey N. Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: SPARG process
Message-ID: <000401bde267$31dfc7a0$3f1d29d8@jnphatch.gis.net>

My contact at Haldor Topsoe in Houston is Jens Houken. Phone 281-228-5133.
Fax 281-22-5109. Jens' responsibility is catalysts for hydrogen production,
but he should be able to point you to the right person.

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

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

 

From bywateri at convertech.co.nz Thu Sep 17 16:30:09 1998
From: bywateri at convertech.co.nz (Ian Bywater)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass and gas turbines
Message-ID: <v01540b00b227244abc09@[202.37.189.108]>

Dear All

>From Tony Campisi's reply isn't it clear that you remove these elements
*before* gasification?

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
www: http://www.southpower.co.nz/conver.htm

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

 

From jiangjc at public1.ptt.js.cn Thu Sep 17 19:25:07 1998
From: jiangjc at public1.ptt.js.cn (Jiang Jianchun)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: =?gb2312?B?16q3ojogd2VsY29tZQ==?=
Message-ID: <01bde23b$3470d6c0$LocalHost@jiang-jian-chun>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0073_01BDE27E.429416C0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0074_01BDE27E.429416C0"

------=_NextPart_001_0074_01BDE27E.429416C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=20
Dear Sir,
=20
I'm an associate research professor working at conversion of biomass =
(such as: sawdust, rice husk, straw, wood chip etc.). Now I'm in charge =
of national key projects(biomass catalytic/rich oxygen gasification  for =
civil cooking gas. If you interest in our research works,I'll write to =
you.=20
=20
Now I want to get some publications about how to converse biomass into =
fuels efficiently from you. I'll very appreciate you if you can send me =
some information. My E-mail: Jiangjc@public1.js.cn
=20
Enclosed my Resume. I'm looking forward to hear form you.Thank you very =
much!
=20
yours sincerely
=20
Jiang Jianchun =20

------=_NextPart_001_0074_01BDE27E.429416C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">

 
Dear Sir,

I'm an associate research professor = working at=20 conversion of biomass
(such
as: sawdust, = rice husk,=20 straw, wood chip etc.). Now I'm in charge of
national key = projects(biomass=20 catalytic/rich oxygen gasification  for
civil cooking gas. If you = interest=20 in our research works,I'll write to
you. 

Now I want to get some publications = about how to=20 converse biomass into
fuels efficiently from you. I'll very appreciate = you if=20 you can send me
some information. My = E-mail: <3d.htm>Jiangjc@public1.js.cn

Enclosed my Resume. I'm looking = forward to hear=20 form you.Thank you very
much!

yours sincerely

Jiang Jianchun  =

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

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Fri Sep 18 02:47:50 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Backfiring from SI engines
Message-ID: <199809180254.OAA06712@powerlink.co.nz>

Troels,

The problem of backfiring is I assume into the exhaust. This will be caused
by leaking exhaust valves and you need a valve grind. They leak under load
and each time you use the engine the valve or seat will erode as the
burning gas leaks passed. The exploding gas in the exhaust will have
leaked during compression. Compression ratio maximums will also need to
consider temperature of the whole engine, as it is ultimately the
spontaneous ignition temperature that sets the limit. We have used producer
gas with 19 % hydrogen in diesel engines with a compression ratio of 17:1
which we have found to be the limit before pre-ignition occurs. The
temperature that we believe this all to occur is about 670 degrees C,
which we have been told is the spontaneous ignition temperature for diesel.
Hope this helps, and please advise the list of your results.

Regards

Doug Williams.

>
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:36:37 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Troels Pedersen <troels@et.dtu.dk>
> Subject: GAS-L: Backfiring from SI engines
>
> Dear listmembers
>
> Does anybody on the list have experienced any problems with backfire
> from SI engines, that has been driven on gasifiergas?
> When using gas from the to-stage gasifier located at DTU, Denmark we
> have experienced excessive backfiring on a 1.1 liter Ford VSG 411
> engine. Backfiring only occurs on full load. The to-stage gas have a
> very high hydrogen content (20 - 35%) and backfiring only occurs when
> hydrogen concentration is higher than ~25%.
> Ignitiontiming is set for MBT. We newer had any problems with
> knocking (CR=9.5:1). What's the highest CR ever tried on gasifiergas?
>
> Thanks
>
> Troels Pedersen, DTU, Denmark
>
> 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 arnt at c2i.net Fri Sep 18 04:06:09 1998
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: File mail vs E-mail
Message-ID: <199809180814.KAA24145@falk.c2i.net>

> I have recently been receiving more and more E-mail messages (in
Compuserve
> 4.0) that have a second message attached. Frequently I can read the
second
> file message without problem; sometimes I have to go to my download to
find
> it.
>
> If the attached file has special formatting, pictures, etc., I can
> understand why it is sent as an attachment. However, if it is plain
text,
> why send it as an attachment rather than a plain E-mail letter???

..comments: do not attach files to e-mail messages, *link* them to the
message.
That way the recipient decides when to download the file, by simply
clicking it.
You the sender will of course have to upload it to your ftp- or
html-server.
If this file require secrecy, simply password-protect it.

..reminds me of my mum sending me her first e-mail message, which was blank
but had a MS-Word file attached, which warned against, guess what, a
MS-Word Macro virus... ;-D

..to improve security, you may want to filter out all MS-Word file
attachments and set an autoresponse to advice senders to resend their
message in a safer format such as plain text or html.

I am now unable to access my own e-mail as MSIE crashes when I try to DL it
under MSWin95. Netscape under Linux will fix that, permanently.

..and I thought MSWin95 was optimized to crash Netscape and make market
space for MSIE...

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Sep 18 08:56:07 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Message from Internet
Message-ID: <199809180906_MC2-59DC-B760@compuserve.com>

Dear Gayathri:

Your current BUN newsletter is the best yet! More info than most 300 page
books! Thanks and keep them coming.

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Sep 18 08:56:35 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Renewable Energy Power in India
Message-ID: <199809180906_MC2-59DC-B766@compuserve.com>

Dear Pavan:

India is the MOST important place for the developments you suggest. See
the latest newsletter from BUN for parts of the solution to power from
biomass.

Glad to have you aboard asking good questions.

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Sep 18 08:56:37 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Antidote and opportunity for gasification
Message-ID: <199809180906_MC2-59DC-B764@compuserve.com>

Dear Jeff et al:

The principal problem in operating turbines on wood-gas is that most
gasifiers operate at atmospheric pressure, while all gas turbines use inlet
pressures of 5-10 atmospheres. Operation of the gasifier at these
pressures doubles or more the cost of the installation.

The turbine itself can burn most of the tars found in gasifiers, but
pre-compression of the gases would require that they be cooled and cleaned
to a level the compressor could handle. Hardly worth it.

You seem very knowledgable in this field, and I would appreciate your
comments on the above.

Yours truly, TOM
REED

Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>
Dr. Preston,

For gas turbines of 1 MW or less, you should budget approximately $800/kW.
That means $800,000 for a 1 MW machine. This would be a skid-mounted unit
including generator and all auxiliaries, FOB the factory. If that is too
much to handle, you can buy turbines all the way down to 50 kW and still
have pretty good efficiencies.

Can a gas turbine run on gas from a biomass gasifier? Some gas turbines
run
on raw crude oil, so I doubt there would be anything worse than that in
biomass gasifier gas. It is simply a matter of how often do you want to do
maintenance on the turbine. The biggest challenge will be pressurizing the
gas to the level required to get it into the turbine's combustor.

By the way, I would not premise your economics on 8760 hr/year operation.
Gas turbines typically can run 95% of the year, but I don't think a biomass
gasifier will reach that level of reliability. Of course, you could always
buy two gasifiers for one turbine.

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 T R Preston
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 6:03 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Antidote and opportunity for gasification

I would like the ideas of the list members as to how we might proceed to
fund a pilot unit in Colombia to produce energy and feed from sugar cane.

The pilot unit could be:
180 ha of sugar cane in the Cauca valley yields 60 tonnes cane stalks and
10
tonnes leaf trash per day. After juice extraction there would be 30 tonnes
bagasse at 50%
moisture plus the 10 tonnes trash at about 30% moisture. Both would have to
be dried to about 15% moisture and ground for gasification in (I presume)
some type of cyclone or fluid bed gasifier (inputs here please).
The gas would be enough to fuel a 1 MW gas turbine with waste heat
converted
to low grade steam for juice evaporation to produce "high test" molassses
(about 85 Brix) for use as animal feed.

Estimated output is put at:
365*24*1 MW = 8760 Mwhrs electricity which at 5 cents/Kwh would yield USD
438,000 USD or USD 876,00 if electricity was 10 cents/kwh.
The molasses output from 30 tonnes juice would be 7.5tonnes/day * 365 =
2737.5 tonnes/yr which at USD 200/tonne is a further gross annual income of
USD 547,500.

Total annual gross income is thus USD USD 438,000 + USD 547,500 = USD
985,500

If electricity is 10 cents/kwh the gross income increases to USD 1.45
million

Capital cost for cane milling train, drier, gasifier and turbine plus
vacuum
evaporators I assume is in the range of 1-2 million USD. I can obtain
figures for the cane milling side but need estimates of the gas turbine,
gasifier and associated equipment. Then there are labour and operating
costs, probably not more than USD100,00/year. Surely such a scheme is
economically attractive, even at today's prices, to be worth developing? It
is certainly innovative in the integrated approach and in environmental
benefits. And as Tom Reed pointed out "..in ten or twenty years or 50
years
it will be even more attractive".

I can deliver political support from the Governor of the Cauca Valley
province and possibly finance to cover the local costs can be got from the
sugar industry in the Cauca valley. But capital costs for equipment and
technical assistance would need to be financed elsewhere. GEF is a logical
source but appraisal by them would be a long drawn out affaire. The real
issue is: Is the technology mature enough for gasification using low
density
fibrous crop residues. From what Jeff Phillipis says the gas turbines of <1
MW are available. And then to do it in the private sector, as the economics
look sufficiently promising to attract venture capital.

I have the opportunity to be in Colombia in the next few weeks for
discussions with the sugar industry. I would like to take with me the
basis
for a firm proposal.

Reg Preston
in Vietnam

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 jphillips at alumni.stanford.org Fri Sep 18 09:22:22 1998
From: jphillips at alumni.stanford.org (Jeffrey N. Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:43 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass and gas turbines
In-Reply-To: <v01540b00b227244abc09@[202.37.189.108]>
Message-ID: <000001bde308$e89a1ee0$062029d8@jnphatch.gis.net>

Dear Gasifiers,

I admit that I don't know much about reciprocating engines (although I do
have four in my garage, including a 12 hp snowblower which I fear will be in
use a lot this winter), but I do know a bit about gas turbines. Fern
Engineering provides gas turbine related engineering services, but we do not
provide gas turbines, so I'm not trying to sell any equipment here.

Gas turbines can run on low calorific value gas. I have witnessed tests at
GE in which they burned syngas with a heating value as low as 100 btu/scf
(circa 4 MJ/Nm3) in a gas turbine with no hardware changes. So if you can
produce it, it will run in a gas turbine.

The other contributors are correct about the need to remove alkali
components from the syngas before it enters the turbine, but as Dr. Campisi
points out, this will happen almost automatically since you need to cool the
gas and remove particulates anyway. There are many proven, highly reliable
techniques developed by the oil and gas industry for cleaning up syngas, but
none of these make economic sense for the scale that has been discussed in
this forum (<100 MW) The gas clean-up approach I suggest for smaller scale
is to using an evaporating spray dryer to cool the gas exiting the gasifier
to 300 deg C or less. This should still be above the dewpoint of the gas,
but will be cold enough to precipitate out "the bad actors" like the alkali
metals. The resulting flow can be sent to a filter to remove the
particulates including the condensed alkalis. The dust-free flow from the
filter is then sent to the gas turbine. It probably makes most sense to run
the gasifier at or near atmospheric pressure to make feeding easier. In
that case, the filter can be a simple baghouse which should be pretty cheap.
Ceramic filters are relatively expensive and only make sense for pressurized
operation where the main cost is in building the pressure vessel to hold the
filters. You need more bag filters than ceramic filters for a given
volumetric flow rate, so a pressurized bag filter vessel can get pretty
expensive.

The neat thing about this approach is you can always add in some "getters"
to the evaporating water spray to remove any other unwanted components from
the syngas. For instance, if the H2S content of the syngas is high, you can
add lime to the spray and the lime with react with the H2S to remove the
sulphur. Spray coolers are very simple devices (just an empty vessel lined
with refractory), so the cost again should be reasonable.

The big question I have for everyone, though, is this: why not just burn
the biomass in a boiler, raise steam, and use the steam for power production
and process heat demands? Wouldn't such a system be 1) cheaper to build
and 2) simpler to run?

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 Ian Bywater
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 4:43 PM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Biomass and gas turbines

Dear All

>From Tony Campisi's reply isn't it clear that you remove these elements
*before* gasification?

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
www: http://www.southpower.co.nz/conver.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 jphillips at alumni.stanford.org Fri Sep 18 09:48:51 1998
From: jphillips at alumni.stanford.org (Jeffrey N. Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Antidote and opportunity for gasification
In-Reply-To: <199809180906_MC2-59DC-B764@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <000201bde30c$9b0ee800$062029d8@jnphatch.gis.net>

Tom,

I agree with you that operating a biomass gasifier at 5-10 atmospheres
probably increases the cost so much that it doesn't make sense. I would
think the best approach for a biomass gas turbine cycle (which could still
be worse than using reciprocating engines) is to run the gasifier at or near
atmospheric pressure and then having a compressor to boost the cleaned gas
to the turbine. Yes, the compressor will consume power, but you get it back
and then some when the hot exhaust gas from the combustor is expanded
through the turbine. Think of it as a Brayton cycle with two compressors
feeding one expander. One nice idea would be to drive the syngas compressor
with steam that is raised from the exhaust heat of the gas turbine. If you
design the system right, the pressure of the steam exiting the
"turbo-compressor" can be just a little higher than the gas turbine
combustor pressure. You then send the steam to the combustor to suppress
NOx and to boost power. This sort of steam-injected gas turbine cycle can
achieve efficiencies nearing 50% (syngas-to-electricity basis). If there
are process heat demands, then you can divert some or all of the steam to
that.

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 Tom Reed
Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 9:06 AM
To: INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Antidote and opportunity for gasification

Dear Jeff et al:

The principal problem in operating turbines on wood-gas is that most
gasifiers operate at atmospheric pressure, while all gas turbines use inlet
pressures of 5-10 atmospheres. Operation of the gasifier at these
pressures doubles or more the cost of the installation.

The turbine itself can burn most of the tars found in gasifiers, but
pre-compression of the gases would require that they be cooled and cleaned
to a level the compressor could handle. Hardly worth it.

You seem very knowledgable in this field, and I would appreciate your
comments on the above.

Yours truly, TOM
REED

Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>
Dr. Preston,

For gas turbines of 1 MW or less, you should budget approximately $800/kW.
That means $800,000 for a 1 MW machine. This would be a skid-mounted unit
including generator and all auxiliaries, FOB the factory. If that is too
much to handle, you can buy turbines all the way down to 50 kW and still
have pretty good efficiencies.

Can a gas turbine run on gas from a biomass gasifier? Some gas turbines
run
on raw crude oil, so I doubt there would be anything worse than that in
biomass gasifier gas. It is simply a matter of how often do you want to do
maintenance on the turbine. The biggest challenge will be pressurizing the
gas to the level required to get it into the turbine's combustor.

By the way, I would not premise your economics on 8760 hr/year operation.
Gas turbines typically can run 95% of the year, but I don't think a biomass
gasifier will reach that level of reliability. Of course, you could always
buy two gasifiers for one turbine.

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 T R Preston
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 6:03 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Antidote and opportunity for gasification

I would like the ideas of the list members as to how we might proceed to
fund a pilot unit in Colombia to produce energy and feed from sugar cane.

The pilot unit could be:
180 ha of sugar cane in the Cauca valley yields 60 tonnes cane stalks and
10
tonnes leaf trash per day. After juice extraction there would be 30 tonnes
bagasse at 50%
moisture plus the 10 tonnes trash at about 30% moisture. Both would have to
be dried to about 15% moisture and ground for gasification in (I presume)
some type of cyclone or fluid bed gasifier (inputs here please).
The gas would be enough to fuel a 1 MW gas turbine with waste heat
converted
to low grade steam for juice evaporation to produce "high test" molassses
(about 85 Brix) for use as animal feed.

Estimated output is put at:
365*24*1 MW = 8760 Mwhrs electricity which at 5 cents/Kwh would yield USD
438,000 USD or USD 876,00 if electricity was 10 cents/kwh.
The molasses output from 30 tonnes juice would be 7.5tonnes/day * 365 =
2737.5 tonnes/yr which at USD 200/tonne is a further gross annual income of
USD 547,500.

Total annual gross income is thus USD USD 438,000 + USD 547,500 = USD
985,500

If electricity is 10 cents/kwh the gross income increases to USD 1.45
million

Capital cost for cane milling train, drier, gasifier and turbine plus
vacuum
evaporators I assume is in the range of 1-2 million USD. I can obtain
figures for the cane milling side but need estimates of the gas turbine,
gasifier and associated equipment. Then there are labour and operating
costs, probably not more than USD100,00/year. Surely such a scheme is
economically attractive, even at today's prices, to be worth developing? It
is certainly innovative in the integrated approach and in environmental
benefits. And as Tom Reed pointed out "..in ten or twenty years or 50
years
it will be even more attractive".

I can deliver political support from the Governor of the Cauca Valley
province and possibly finance to cover the local costs can be got from the
sugar industry in the Cauca valley. But capital costs for equipment and
technical assistance would need to be financed elsewhere. GEF is a logical
source but appraisal by them would be a long drawn out affaire. The real
issue is: Is the technology mature enough for gasification using low
density
fibrous crop residues. From what Jeff Phillipis says the gas turbines of <1
MW are available. And then to do it in the private sector, as the economics
look sufficiently promising to attract venture capital.

I have the opportunity to be in Colombia in the next few weeks for
discussions with the sugar industry. I would like to take with me the
basis
for a firm proposal.

Reg Preston
in Vietnam

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 macm at cert.UCR.EDU Fri Sep 18 11:27:35 1998
From: macm at cert.UCR.EDU (Mac McClanahan)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Backfiring from SI engines
In-Reply-To: <199809180254.OAA06712@powerlink.co.nz>
Message-ID: <36027804.E9221896@helium.ucr.edu>

It may be slightly less than 670C. Hydrogen autoignites at about 562C. But I
suspect, if the problem is the hydrogen, that the problem source is in the
intake area of the engine.

Mac

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

 

From mlefcort at compuserve.com Fri Sep 18 11:39:25 1998
From: mlefcort at compuserve.com (Malcolm D. Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass and gas turbines
Message-ID: <199809181149_MC2-59ED-C23A@compuserve.com>

Hi Jeff,

> The big question I have for everyone, though, is this: why not just burn
> the biomass in a boiler, raise steam, and use the steam for power
production
> and process heat demands? Wouldn't such a system be 1) cheaper to build
> and 2) simpler to run?

Up here in BC our Boiler Branch, something we inherited from the Brits,
imposes such onerous regulations regarding the staffing of boiler plants
that BC sawmills steer clear of boilers. As an example, Weyerhaeuser has a
sawmill in Vavenby, BC with a 25,000 lb/h wood burning boiler for dry kiln
steam. The boiler was installed in the mid-1970's at the height of the oil
crisis. There is no natural gas in Vavenby. A crew of 7 is required to
staff the boiler. Enough said.

As you are aware, my company, Heuristic Engineering in Vancouver, BC,
supplies an alternative 3 to 5 MW wood waste to power system which uses an
indirect-fired gas turbine generator set coupled to our two-stage
EnvirOcycler combustor. The EnvirOcycler fires a 2,000F/1093C high
temperature heat exchanger which replaces the gas turbine's regular
combustion chamber. The turbine inlet temperature is reduced to
1,550F/843C.

A waste heat boiler recovers sensible heat from the exhaust from the gas
turbine and the heat exchanger. The Boiler Branch doesn't get involved
because the 825F/ 440C exhaust comes from a "process".

Those minimal alkalies which escape from the EnvirOcycler collect on the
bare tubes of the heat exchanger; they do not enter the turbine. The great
bulk of the potash and soda in the biomass ash, the source of the alkalies,
is removed from the system by the EnvirOcycler's first stage ash removal
system. Our very large grate limits the temperature of the mineral matter
and hence the amount of potassium or sodium that actually vapourizes.

For others on the list who might be interested the system is described in
ASME paper 98-GT-62, "Sawmill, Wood Waste Fuelled, 100% Recuperated, 5 MW
Gas Turbine Co-generation Plant".

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Sep 18 12:08:17 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Hello?
Message-ID: <e3025e2f.360287b9@aol.com>

Dr. Thomas Reed
Others on gasification List
Dear Gasifier interests,
Hello out there! Anyone listening to what I have to say?
Bag houses will not work nor will water removal or quenching of the producer
gas for reasons stated before. Firing biomass in boilers will cause severe
ash fusion on the pipes and corrosion from the alkali salts which have low
melting points. You can talk to the fluid bed biomass combustors operators in
California about tube replacement and downcomer cleaning downtime from this
approach. Boiler operations are actually more expensive than IC engine on the
right gasifiers.
Knowing that a standard turbine will work on 100 BTU gas is worthy of more
information such as the gas composition because the gas composition is
important to flame front propagation and combustor size. There are other
changes which can improve the gas reaction rate and work with a standard
combustor.
The gas cleaning, cooling, compression for turbine operation are all concerns
have all been addressed by the prior statements which I have made and the
conversation is still mired in the problems, not solutions. No wonder the
field is still stagnant and dependent upon welfare support such as the
government.
Please provide a constructive response.
Sincerely,

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

 

From english at adan.kingston.net Fri Sep 18 12:41:05 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass and gas turbines
In-Reply-To: <199809181149_MC2-59ED-C23A@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <199809181651.MAA05271@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Mr Lefcort,
What are the fuel ash composition limits for the EnvirOcycler with
and without the 2000F heat exchanger? Or put another way: Have you
burned wheat straw?

Alex English

> Hi Jeff,
>
> > The big question I have for everyone, though, is this: why not just burn
> > the biomass in a boiler, raise steam, and use the steam for power
> production
> > and process heat demands? Wouldn't such a system be 1) cheaper to build
> > and 2) simpler to run?
>
> Up here in BC our Boiler Branch, something we inherited from the Brits,
> imposes such onerous regulations regarding the staffing of boiler plants
> that BC sawmills steer clear of boilers. As an example, Weyerhaeuser has a
> sawmill in Vavenby, BC with a 25,000 lb/h wood burning boiler for dry kiln
> steam. The boiler was installed in the mid-1970's at the height of the oil
> crisis. There is no natural gas in Vavenby. A crew of 7 is required to
> staff the boiler. Enough said.
>
> As you are aware, my company, Heuristic Engineering in Vancouver, BC,
> supplies an alternative 3 to 5 MW wood waste to power system which uses an
> indirect-fired gas turbine generator set coupled to our two-stage
> EnvirOcycler combustor. The EnvirOcycler fires a 2,000F/1093C high
> temperature heat exchanger which replaces the gas turbine's regular
> combustion chamber. The turbine inlet temperature is reduced to
> 1,550F/843C.
>
> A waste heat boiler recovers sensible heat from the exhaust from the gas
> turbine and the heat exchanger. The Boiler Branch doesn't get involved
> because the 825F/ 440C exhaust comes from a "process".
>
> Those minimal alkalies which escape from the EnvirOcycler collect on the
> bare tubes of the heat exchanger; they do not enter the turbine. The great
> bulk of the potash and soda in the biomass ash, the source of the alkalies,
> is removed from the system by the EnvirOcycler's first stage ash removal
> system. Our very large grate limits the temperature of the mineral matter
> and hence the amount of potassium or sodium that actually vapourizes.
>
> For others on the list who might be interested the system is described in
> ASME paper 98-GT-62, "Sawmill, Wood Waste Fuelled, 100% Recuperated, 5 MW
> Gas Turbine Co-generation Plant".
>
> Malcolm Lefcort
> Heuristic Engineering Inc
> Vancouver, BC
> 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 Sep 18 14:55:59 1998
From: boilrmkr at surfsouth.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Hello?
In-Reply-To: <e3025e2f.360287b9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3602AE3E.9BBDE44B@surfsouth.com>

I'm sorry. I just can't resist the bait any longer.

LINVENT@aol.com wrote:

> Bag houses will not work nor will water removal or quenching of the producer
> gas for reasons stated before. Firing biomass in boilers will cause severe
> ash fusion on the pipes and corrosion from the alkali salts which have low
> melting points. You can talk to the fluid bed biomass combustors operators in
> California about tube replacement and downcomer cleaning downtime from this
> approach.

I say the California fluid bed biomass combustor operators/owners may be ignorant. What
were they trying to use for fuel? Cottonwood? The only things we need to see are results
of an analysis of the fuel, species and visual inspection. Results as analyzed, on a dry
basis, ash & moisture free and as received for contents moisture, volatile, fixed carbon,
ash, sulfur and BTU. Either we can handle it or we can't. Oh yea, we prefer it maxing at
1-1/2" x 1-1/2" x 5/8" and 8 - 55% M.C.. Higher M.C. requires a little go juice.

> Boiler operations are actually more expensive than IC engine on the
> right gasifiers.

Not when the system requires 20-30 minutes of attention from the operator during a twelve
hour shift and approximately 60 hours of downtime for yearly maintenance. Heck, the
engineers are now making the daggum thing call the owner/operator's computer at home with
an operating condition report. I just adjusted the settings on three variable speed
drives in Argentina this morning via our server network in Coolidge, GA. Isn't technology
wonderful?

> Knowing that a standard turbine will work on 100 BTU gas is worthy of more
> information such as the gas composition because the gas composition is
> important to flame front propagation and combustor size. There are other
> changes which can improve the gas reaction rate and work with a standard
> combustor.
> The gas cleaning, cooling, compression for turbine operation are all concerns
> have all been addressed by the prior statements which I have made and the
> conversation is still mired in the problems, not solutions. No wonder the
> field is still stagnant and dependent upon welfare support such as the
> government.

Gas cleaning, cooling, compression, etc. Why bother? Solution: Create machines which
generate a profit and they'll beat a path to your door. To be successful in making
biomass profitable (200 employees), y'all gotta remember:

If you can't show the consumer that the system will generate enough revenues in power
offset, power sales, gas offset, oil offset, steam offset, steam sales, transportation
costs, tipping charges, etc. to generate a reasonable ROI, it's time to find another
prospect.

Make it work reliably before you leave. If the customer is happy with their new found
profits five years from now, they'll buy another one.

> Please provide a constructive response.

How about a turnkey, up and runnin', fuel storage thru turbine controls, 900 kWh biomass
power plant installed on your US job site for $1.1 mil. Just bring the fuel and the
transformers. It ain't the cheapest (spare me the efficiency comparisons), but, if it's
justifiable, it's the best investment money can buy. This is as constructive as I can be.

Well, you could dry a few 100,000 board foot of lumber while you're making power, I
guess.

Best regards,
Gene

P.S. Stay substoichiometric.

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

 

From markus.almroth at rks.se Fri Sep 18 15:35:28 1998
From: markus.almroth at rks.se (Markus Almroth)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator
Message-ID: <01BDE34E.69587140@sancho.rks.se>

 

----------
From: Tom Reed[SMTP:REEDTB@compuserve.com]
Reply To: gasification@crest.org
Sent: den 13 september 1998 18:02
To: INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Improving H. LaFontaine's Simplified wood gas generator

Dear Markus et al:

*snip*

c) The lower tube (6 in?) is probably much to large in diameter. Harry was
never one for calculating superficial velocities.

How does one calculate these velocities in such a generator?

d) It sounds as if your thinking is still in the IMBERT (Zeuch) era of
WWII. No one completely understood the function of the choke throat, so we
threw it out in 1980 in the SERI/NREL oxygen/air gasifier and many others
have done the same since.

Yes. Most of the material about gasification I've found is from WWII and naturally
I think mostly in those terms. I can calculate the dimensions for an Imbert generator,
but this type of hearth, just a simple metal cylinder and stratification is completely new
to me.

Most of my figures comes from a report written by 'Svenska Ingenjörsvetenskapsakademien'
IVA in 1950. So it sure is old :-)

Where could I find more modern data suitable for practical construction of vehicle
downdraft systems?

I am an amateur, but i still want to get things right. Thats the way I do things :-)

/Markus

begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT
M>)\^(C<3`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <`
M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````@`"``$$
MD 8`, $```$````-`````P``, (````+``\.``````(!_P\!````2P``````
M``"!*Q^DOJ,0&9UN`-T!#U0"`````&=A<VEF:6-A=&EO;D!C<F5S="YO<F<`
M4TU44 !G87-I9FEC871I;VY 8W)E<W0N;W)G```>``(P`0````4```!33510
M`````!X``S !````%P```&=A<VEF:6-A=&EO;D!C<F5S="YO<F<```,`%0P!
M`````P#^#P8````>``$P`0```!D````G9V%S:69I8V%T:6]N0&-R97-T+F]R
M9R<``````@$+, $````<````4TU44#I'05-)1DE#051)3TY 0U)%4U0N3U)'
M``,``#D`````"P! .@$````#`'$Z``````(!]@\!````! ````````((.@$$
M@ $`0P```%)%.B!'05,M3#H@26UP<F]V:6YG($@N($QA1F]N=&%I;F4G<R!3
M:6UP;&EF:65D('=O;V0@9V%S(&=E;F5R871O<@#,%@$%@ ,`#@```,X'"0`2
M`!4`*P`&``4`.P$!(( #``X```#.!PD`$@`5`"4`"@`%`#D!`0F `0`A````
M0C X,3(S1C0S131&1#(Q,3DP.3E"-$,X,#%#,3 P,# `Y08!`Y &`-0&```4
M````"P`C```````#`"8```````L`*0```````P`N```````#`#8``````$ `
M.0`@S%J./..]`1X`< `!````0P```%)%.B!'05,M3#H@26UP<F]V:6YG($@N
M($QA1F]N=&%I;F4G<R!3:6UP;&EF:65D('=O;V0@9V%S(&=E;F5R871O<@``
M`@%Q``$````6`````;WC/(Y:]".!LT\^$=*0F;3(`<$`````'@`># $````%
M````4TU44 `````>`!\,`0```!8```!M87)K=7,N86QM<F]T:$!R:W,N<V4`
M```#``80`S$V^P,`!Q 7! ``'@`($ $```!E````+2TM+2TM+2TM+4923TTZ
M5$]-4D5%1%--5% Z4D5%1%1"0$-/35!54T525D5#3TU215!,651/.D=!4TE&
M24-!5$E/3D!#4D535$]21U-%3E0Z1$5.,3-315!414U"15(Q.3DX,0`````"
M`0D0`0```!P%```8!0``# D``$Q:1G5K*MX:`P`*`')C<&<Q,C7^,@#_`@8"
MI /D!>L"@P!0$P-4`@!C: K <V5T_C(&``;#`H,.4 /5!Q,"@[HS$\U]"H (
MSPG9.Q:_O0XP-0* "H$.<0M@;@X0O# U%. +"A.R# %C`$ &( J%"HML:3$X
M,,$"T6DM,30T#K ,T+,=@PM9,38*H -@= 60?05 +1^G"H<>6PPP'R9&G0-A
M.B"N'R8,@B!4`W #!_ )X&1;4TU44 `Z4D5%1%1"0!$%H&UP=1*P<G9E>BXE
ML5T@3R%=)* +4'EG)%$BCR.;9V$`D!U08SAA=&D"("6@%L!S=/HN!;!G)J\A
M709@`C I+XTCFR .< .@,3,@$K =!3!E!M $D## .3DXX3# .#HP,BQO(5TI
M#P$C?4E.5$523D4\5#HK#RP?,P\N,G5B#FH?831O(YM'05,M6DPZH$DET -@
M=@N 9X @2"X@3&%&`B'Y"W%E)P9!!W +4#<!"8#X('=O!' J\BKP"? $D,\W
M0 6P&Z\<LS,V'B<4XE,,`1\F1&4*P4T*P&O5)? @$L @!T Z0&X:G^0J<P,`
M<"HX/4)]"H5$8RDD4&AE(!90=XTQ<70Z0$F0*#8@"X#6/TE0! `@'R%B`: H
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M0"C0:U5QX%Q#2Y!N$2C1[UUC;A!50020;5%1<> W,/\#H%3+3*$'@ "!`B!Q
M006Q7P.1// Q86^1/^8L:U5BYV517$$$('1Y4"!BDDF ]PK 56!CT&HE\$0Q
M:N%@DN=+D!+ 4)%C>1S@83)H4[\WT$ 1;^A*X6!Y/D!W9$;?3 `'@#V@5[QN
M!FTHX!U0_F<(< >1);$'D7%C5O 6P+YP%F$_, 40`D PH6(HX*PG4R8P`(!K
M5O!)&<#!"?!J7"=F-A*@)C"[@R&#X7!JH(/P#G!M") D;B=RUE9!970U,/T]
MH%-,`&414 `6P$K2!O#1/R Z+2E7O%=I$6!2_T^ /R!QX!U0:'(%L&ZA!'3V
M9#= >O%U41!+44[D'R#_`- W4$]!8&$`@'S 2[!B5KLF,%Q08WM1:U54,'=;
M4#= $ & ,/!Y-] Q0',__QN=<>&",0.@3-!5(0AP8]#]>1)I7/5-P (P2^(_
MT'DSYQG !" %$&=H-^!)83= _WF!28%-P"C@<>!4,)/&B(_^+T.T6"]9/Q\U
M6!^8V&R5"TA=%>$`G; #`! 0``````,`$1 `````0 `',.#>/KH[X[T!0 `(
G,.#>/KH[X[T!'@`]``$````%````4D4Z( `````#``TT_3<``"XH
`
end

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Sat Sep 19 01:43:33 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: : Backfiring from SI engines-a possible answer
Message-ID: <bc808c60.360346e4@aol.com>

Spark ignited engines running on carbon rich fuels may autoignite off of any
carbon remaining on the spark plugs, valves or other areas which are heated up
during combustion. If tars are being fed into the engine, they will coat,
coke, and act as spark retainers. It would take a substantial amount of
hydrogen and it is very doubtful if any portion of the cylinder would be at
the elevated temperature necessary to ignite it. High levels of hydrogen will
detonate on combustion and it has a methane value of 0 because of this.

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

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sat Sep 19 23:55:13 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: http://powerlink.co.nz/~graeme/dougspictures.html
Message-ID: <199809200002.MAA28420@powerlink.co.nz>

Doug's pictures of gasifier / engines from the Fluidyne archive have now
been uploaded onto the following site:

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

Regards,

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

 

From campa at hrl.com.au Mon Sep 21 05:02:48 1998
From: campa at hrl.com.au (Campisi, Tony)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass and gas turbines
Message-ID: <896DD0FA4846D211A80A00A0C955FAD4010FE2@mail_mulgrave>

Regarding some of the issues raised recently in this thread:

1. Burning low BTU gas in a gas turbine

There is a large body of work in the coal/peat gasification literature
regarding the combustion characteristics of low calorific value gas. The
lower energy limit of a gas that can be burnt in a gas turbine is around 100
btu/scf (~4 MJ/Nm3) however a modified combustor is required. HRL's IDGCC
gasification technology produces a gas with similar heating values. This
process has been trialed at the 10 tonne per hour scale with the low
calorific value gas successfully burnt in a 5MW EGT (European Gas Turbines)
Typhoon gas turbine with the required modified combustors.

2. NOx control

Steam injection into the gas turbine will not be effective for NOx control
for low calorific value gas. There are several reaction pathways leading to
NOx formation. Atmospheric nitrogen (N2) can react with oxygen (O2) at high
temperatures to form NOx (the Zeldovich mechanism). This mechanism is only
important at very high temperatures (>1500degC). Such local temperatures
occur with natural gas combustion in gas turbines and therefore steam
injection (in addition to other methods) is used to drop temperatures within
the combustor. For low calorific value gas produced from gasification, the
gas combustion temperatures are lower and the important reaction pathway for
NOx formation is from oxidation of NH3 and HCN in the gas (arising from the
nitrogen in the fuel). Steam injection (temperature control) does not help
prevent NOx formation in this case. What is required is to change the
combustion chemistry within the combustor (ie use air staging or rich-lean
combustion) to maximise the conversion of NH3/HCN to N2 rather than NOx.
Depending on the levels within the fuel gas, there may still be a need to
remove some NH3/HCN prior to combustion to ensure NOx emissions are below
required EPA limits.

Again, there is a lot of published literature available.

3. Pressurised systems

In order to compare the advantages of operating a gasification system at
pressure or not (for commercial power generation) requires both process and
economic evaluations - a consultancy job. If you are looking at using gas
turbines, then to be competitive on a grid system will require a large gas
turbine (perhaps >40MW). Operating at pressure reduces the
reactor/piping/etc sizes and therefore capital costs. Gas turbines of this
size generally require fuel inlet pressures of up to 17 bar, requiring a
pressurised gasifier to operate at around 20-25 bar.

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

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Sep 21 08:45:31 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Moisture ?
Message-ID: <199809210855_MC2-5A16-48C8@compuserve.com>

Dear P. Nagpal:

A thermocouple is a moderate velocity flame with temperature of 2,000C will
only read 1000C because it radiates the heat away. It is VERY difficult to
measure flame temeratures directly - the themocouple is really measuring
heat transfer, which is useful once you understand this limitation.

If you find wet wood ABOVE the reaction zone it may be that you have too
low a gas velocity - too large a diameter reactor for the air/gas thruput,
and part of the flame is circulating upward because of natural convection.

Haveyou checked the moisture content of the wood? Easy with a balance and
your wife's oven.

Yours truly,
TOM REED

Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>
With calculations based on flame temperature of 1150 to 1200 deg C, I
was expecting more heat than what I am getting. With thermocouple
directly in the flame the best temperature I have got is 950 C.

Two things I notice :

1. Near the burner I find moisture dripping into the furnaces
(specially at lower temperatures).

2. On inspecting the wood pieces, after the gasifier is turned off,
I find them soggy wet as if it has been raining inside the gasifier.

Is this a normal happening ?

rgds

P Nagpal.
<


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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Sep 21 19:21:30 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Moisture ?
Message-ID: <d8505a1f.3606e1e7@aol.com>

Dr. Reed,
If the 2000 C thermocouple is radiating the heat away-to where? If it is in a
black body absorbing environment, it would if the black body is at a much
lower temperature. Otherwise, if it is in an isothermal environment,
reflected radiation would match the emitted. Also, the emission would have to
be quite high to remove the incident heat which should easily overcome the
emission rate.
If the radiation rate was so high, the incident heat would be cooled also as
it is an emitter also, particularly at this high temperature.
Other items: In response to the strong support indicated for conventional
boiler use instead of gasifiers, the request for information on the nature of
the boimass is a strong indicator of the limited capacity of the system to
handle all biomasses. Certainly biomasses can be handled in boilers with the
appropriate combustor design, however, using the same combustor for biomasses
and tires, MSW and wheat straw or rice hulls is not in the cards. That is the
beauty of gasification.
Gasifiers will be feasible at lower sizing and throughputs. We already know
they can power thousands of cars, boats, buses as they did in WWII.
The capital cost can also be much lower than conventional boiler systems and
you do not need a pressure certified operator on an atmospheric system.
Look forward to the next comments.

Sincerely,

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

 

From mlefcort at compuserve.com Mon Sep 21 22:59:46 1998
From: mlefcort at compuserve.com (Malcolm D. Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Moisture ?
Message-ID: <199809212310_MC2-5A30-683@compuserve.com>

Tom Taylor,

A comment on your statement:

> .....however, using the same combustor for biomasses and tires, MSW and
wheat straw or rice > hulls is not in the cards. That is the beauty of
gasification.

Our two-stage combustor, the Heuristic EnvirOcycler - which gasifies wet or
dry fuel in a first stage of updraft gasification and then burns the hot
first stage producer gas immediately in a second stage combustion chamber -
has no problem disposing of 3 to 6 inch minus biomass, shredded tires,
shredded MSW, wheat straw or rice husks---all in the same basic design.

While I share your enthusiasm for the elegance of gasification, as the poet
said "there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip". Gasifying dry solid
waste is a piece of cake; gasifying wet fuel is a real pain in the you know
where. I'm using the term "gasifying" to mean a process that results in a
burnable gas, free of tars, creosotes and free water, that can be piped a
significant distance to a remote gas burner and burned.

As far as beauty is concerned, the sight of a continuous stream of dirty,
wet, hog fuel (wood waste: mainly bark and sawdust) entering our burner and
being transformed into a bright yellow vortex of producer gas burning
vigorously in our second stage of cyclonic combustion is awesome.

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Sep 22 07:54:48 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Flame Temperature and Radiation
Message-ID: <199809220805_MC2-5A37-3E76@compuserve.com>

Dear Tom:

I received your spreadsheet yesterday and am taking a preliminary look
today, trying to connect it to various earlier documents you have sent. I
hope that you can E-mail me your spreadsheet (Excel? Lotus? ...) since I
would need to know how various values are derived.

I have been a BIGTIME fan of spreadsheets since my first in 1982. They
provide visual instantaneous 2 and 3 dimensional programing compared to C,
Cobol etc. with their do loops etc.

Concerning thermocouples and flame temperatures....

One can easily calculate the adiabatic (thermodynamic) temperature of air
flames or look them up in various handbooks. Almost all air-fuel
temperatures fall in the range 1800-2100C (exceptions, unstable fuels like
acetylene).

The flame gases N2, CO2 and H2O are transparent to visible and IR unless
they are over a meter thick and they don't emit or absorb much vis and IR
either. (You can check this by putting your finger 1 cm to the side of a
bunsen or candle flame. No radiant heat. Now put your finger IN the
flame. OUCH!!)

So, the thermocouple effectively radiates energy away at a rate

Wout = e s (Ttc^4)

(where e is the emissivity ~ .5; s is the Stefan Bolzmann constant, 5.67 X
10^-12 W/cm2-deg^4; and Ttc is the absolute temp of the thermocouple.)

So, you can equate this loss to the gain from the flame and come up with a
good estimate of the heat transfer from the flame

Win = h (Tfl - Ttc)
and solve for h. h is dependent on both Tfl and the velocity of the
flame. Since the temperature is fixed in a narrow range (1800-2100 for
air; 3,000 - 3400 for O2), velocity is a prime variable and welding torces
etc. are designed to have a high flame velocity and heat transfer.

We could discuss this all at length when we meet. You seem to have learned
a lot in the 12 years since we last met. Me too!

Your netpal,
TOM REED
Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>Dr. Reed,
If the 2000 C thermocouple is radiating the heat away-to where? If
it is in a
black body absorbing environment, it would if the black body is at a much
lower temperature. Otherwise, if it is in an isothermal environment,
reflected radiation would match the emitted. Also, the emission would have
to
be quite high to remove the incident heat which should easily overcome the
emission rate.
If the radiation rate was so high, the incident heat would be
cooled also as
it is an emitter also, particularly at this high temperature.
Other items: In response to the strong support indicated for
conventional
boiler use instead of gasifiers, the request for information on the nature
of
the boimass is a strong indicator of the limited capacity of the system to
handle all biomasses. Certainly biomasses can be handled in boilers with
the
appropriate combustor design, however, using the same combustor for
biomasses
and tires, MSW and wheat straw or rice hulls is not in the cards. That is
the
beauty of gasification.
Gasifiers will be feasible at lower sizing and throughputs. We
already know
they can power thousands of cars, boats, buses as they did in WWII.
The capital cost can also be much lower than conventional boiler
systems and
you do not need a pressure certified operator on an atmospheric system.
Look forward to the next comments.

Sincerely,

Tom Taylor
Thermogenics
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 Harald.Lutz at psi.ch Tue Sep 22 10:43:12 1998
From: Harald.Lutz at psi.ch (Harald Lutz)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "WANTED": mass and energy balances
Message-ID: <980922165411.23487@psidmw.psi.ch.0>

Dear gasification community:

For a comparison of the potential and limitations of different gasification
technologies I am looking for suitable data.
I would like to present my results in the frame of a simplified (!) life-cycle
analysis (LCA) and am looking for comprehensive MASS and ENERGY BALANCES.

Who of you has calculated these kinds of balances?
Where can I find such data?

Yours sincerely,
Harald Lutz

Paul Scherrer Institut
CH-5232 Villigen PSI
Harald.Lutz@psi.ch
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From margaret_mann at nrel.gov Tue Sep 22 12:50:15 1998
From: margaret_mann at nrel.gov (Mann, Margaret)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "WANTED": mass and energy balances
Message-ID: <199809221650.MAA22526@solstice.crest.org>

We have conducted a full life cycle assessment of a biomass gasification
combined cycle power system. Mass and energy balances for the power plant
were
determined from detailed ASPEN Plus models based on experimental test data.
If
you're interested in taking a look at this study, it can be found at
http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/life_cycle.html

I'd also be happy to answer any questions that you have. I can be reached at
margaret_mann@nrel.gov.

Sincerely,

Maggie Mann
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Lutz [SMTP:Harald.Lutz@psi.ch]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 8:54 AM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: "WANTED": mass and energy balances
> Sensitivity: Confidential
>
> Dear gasification community:
>
> For a comparison of the potential and limitations of different gasification
> technologies I am looking for suitable data.
> I would like to present my results in the frame of a simplified (!)
life-cycle
> analysis (LCA) and am looking for comprehensive MASS and ENERGY BALANCES.
>
> Who of you has calculated these kinds of balances?
> Where can I find such data?
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Harald Lutz
>
> Paul Scherrer Institut
> CH-5232 Villigen PSI
> Harald.Lutz@psi.ch
> 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 steve_deutch at nrel.gov Tue Sep 22 14:17:01 1998
From: steve_deutch at nrel.gov (Deutch, Steve)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: tar analysis
Message-ID: <199809221817.OAA28951@solstice.crest.org>

id NAB26475
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification

I would like to clarify several points about the tar measurement
procedure proposed by the IEA gasification activity group. Originally Tom had
commented :

> From: Tom Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
> To: INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
> CC: STOVES <stoves@crest.org>
> Subject: GAS-L: tar analysis
> Date: 29 August 1998 01:42
>
>
> The measurement and reporting of "tar" is in a state of flux
these
> days, so it is hard to give a solid answer..
>
> 1) The pejorative word "tar" has many different compositions,
> depending on the method of gasification
>
> 2) The European Energy Commision is spending a great deal of
time
> and money trying to define "tars" and specify measurement
methods
>
> .........
>
> I heard the other day that the EEC had reached a tentative
agreement
> that "tar" was that fraction of condensibles boiling above 80
C.
> (This has the advantage of excluding benzene from being called
tar.)
> This means that diesel fuel is a "tar". Also water. I hope
this
> isn't a final decree.
>
> From my viewpoint, only condensible materials that cause a
problem
> for a PARTICULAR application should be called a TAR for that
application.
> So, creosotes that stick to engine parts at 100C would be a
tar for
> engines, but would be burned in turbines, so would not be a
tar
there.
>

During two recent meetings (IEA meeting in Brussels, March 18-20
1998) and a workshop at the European biomass conference in Würzburg, June 8-11
1998), members of the EEC, the IEA gasification activity group and the US DOE
have discussed biomass tars. The main objective was to develop a protocol for
the sampling and analysis of tars in the product gas from biomass gasifiers.
Draft versions of two developed protocols (one for small scale, fixed bed
gasifiers and one for large scale, fluidized bed gasifiers) can be found at
the
web site from Hans Jurgen Koele et al., at
http://btg.ct.utwente.nl/Projects/558. During these meetings, the above
mentioned definition of tars was a point of discussion, although not the most
important one.

The definition of tars that was agreed upon, refers to the
organic contaminants from biomass gasifiers. The definition does not state
"condensables boiling above 80 C". It does state "molecular weight larger than
that of benzene (molecular weight 78) ", which excludes water. The
definition
of tar was not based on boiling point or condensation temperature because of
ambiguities caused by variation of partial pressure (concentration) of the
different components. The sampling procedure is expected to give quantitative
collection of the defined tars.

The purpose of this definition was not to give one single
definition for the pejorative word "tar", but to agree upon the tar components
to be included in "tar" when presenting and/or comparing tar concentrations
from
biomass gasifiers. This definition was concerned solely with the product gas
from the gasifier, regardless of the ultimate use of the product gas. You
might
say it is a practical definition. The intention was to provide a common
ground
for discussion of just the gasifier performance. Previously, the
comparison of
tar concentrations, even known compounds measurable by GC, has been tedious
due
to several different definitions of tar and due to several different
methods for
the sampling and analysis of tars. Reproducibility, comparability and
universal
applicability of tar data measurements is the aim of these two protocols.

We do disagree with the approach of defining TAR by the
application for two reasons. In the first place, it is currently not exactly
known which compounds do pose problems in engines or turbines. In engines,
creosotes pose problems, but do all PAH compounds as well? In other words,
does
naphthalene pose a problem, or anthracene, or pyrene? And if they don't, up to
which concentration? Therefore, we might well define "engine-TARS"
improperly if
we tried to define them at this moment. Obviously, diesel fuel would not be a
problem in compression ignition engines but would be in spark ignition
engines.
If specific components are of interest for a given application, there is
nothing
in the protocol to prohibit the user from measuring these items separately.

In the second place, use of the word TAR specific for one
application would result in many different TARS, i.e. TARS for engines,
TARS for
turbines, TARS for compressors. Different definitions of TARS might even be
necessary for different types of engines, turbines and compressors. This would
further complicate the discussion around the word tar, because we cannot stop
people from using the general word 'tar'. However, we do realize that lumping
all organics together will only provide useful information for the most
rudimentary comparisons. The protocols do try to make some distinction
between
two classes of materials, heavy tar and light components which is an effort to
subdivide the tar into fractions that MAYBE useful to specific applications.
Again, I would like to point out that these protocols do not prevent the user
from developing more detailed information on the tar components and
concentrations. The tar values measured by this procedure should represent a
minimal but consistent level of reporting.

Please visit the web site and take a moment to read about the
protocols. Comments and suggestions on the two protocols and on
identification
of tar compounds that pose problems in specific applications are very welcome.

I would like to thank John Neeft of the Energy Research
Foundation (ECN), The Netherlands, who gathered together the majority of the
information contained in this response. His efforts were greatly appreciated

Steve Deutch
NREL
1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO, USA 80401
eMail : Steve_Deutch@nrel.gov
phone: 1-303-384-6131
fax : 1-303-384-6103

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

 

From Murat.Dogru at newcastle.ac.uk Tue Sep 22 15:46:38 1998
From: Murat.Dogru at newcastle.ac.uk (Dogru, M.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: CO level
In-Reply-To: <199809220805_MC2-5A37-3E76@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <199809221957.UAA20253@cheviot.ncl.ac.uk>

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

 

From macm at cert.UCR.EDU Tue Sep 22 18:52:53 1998
From: macm at cert.UCR.EDU (Mac McClanahan)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: CO level
In-Reply-To: <199809221957.UAA20253@cheviot.ncl.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <36082CB0.FDC56DA8@helium.ucr.edu>

The 1990 version of the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards states
the exposure limits for CO as 35 ppm average for up to 10 hours. 1500
ppm is considered immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH). But
you'll be feeling sleepy long before 1500.

Hope this helps

Mac

Dogru, M. wrote:

> 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 eta77173 at ait.ac.th Wed Sep 23 01:46:47 1998
From: eta77173 at ait.ac.th (R. K. Leelananda)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Hawaii Biomass Gasifier project
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980923101217.15494A-100000@alphaserv.ait.ac.th>

 

23 rd Sept 1998

Dear Sirs

Some information on Hawaii Biomass Gasifier Project is available in the
DOE web pages. I am interested in knowing some technical details such as
fuel consumption (sugarcane residues), net efficiency of power generation
etc., and in addition the expected cost ($/kW installed). Could you please
elaborate on these areas. Please place the message on the maling list
for gasification.

Thank you.

_____________________________
Leelananda Rajapaksha
ARREEEC
Energy Program
Asian Institiute of Technology
P O Box 04, Khlong Luang
Pathumthani 12120
Thailand.

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

 

From costich at pacifier.com Wed Sep 23 08:00:19 1998
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: CO level
Message-ID: <199809231211.FAA12158@smtp.pacifier.com>

Dogru: Forgive me for this unscientific but practical answer: If you get a
headache you've got to 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 REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Sep 23 08:56:59 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Flame temperature measurement - thermocouples not!
Message-ID: <199809230907_MC2-5A5F-4F3C@compuserve.com>

STOVES, GASIFICATION and all others interested in truth in temperatures:

There has been occasional reference to thermocouples for measuring flame
temperatures.

I recently wrote ... >A thermocouple in a moderate velocity flame with
temperature of 2,000C (like a Bunsen burner flame) will
only read 1000C because it radiates the heat away. It is VERY difficult to
measure flame temeratures directly - the thermocouple is really measuring
heat transfer, which is useful once you understand this limitation.

~~~~~
Here is an expanded explanation of that reply.

Concerning thermocouples and flame temperatures....

One can easily calculate the adiabatic (thermodynamic) temperature of air
flames or look them up in various handbooks. Almost all air-fuel
temperatures fall in the range 1800-2100C (exceptions, unstable fuels like
acetylene). Of course this is the peak flame temperature for premixed
flames; postmixed and rich or lean flames will be less.

The flame gases N2, CO2 and H2O are transparent to visible and IR unless
they are over a meter thick and they don't emit or absorb much visible or
IR either. (You can check this by putting your finger 1 cm to the side of
a bunsen or candle flame. No radiant heat. Now put your finger IN the
flame. OUCH!!)

HEAT LOSS: So, the thermocouple effectively radiates energy away at a rate
given by the black body equation

Wout = e s A (Ttc^4)

(where e is the emissivity (~ .5 for stainless steel); s is the Stefan
Bolzmann constant, 5.67 X 10^-12 W/cm2-deg^4; A is the radiating area, and
Ttc is the absolute temp of the thermocouple.)

HEAT GAIN: So, you can equate this loss to the gain from the flame and
come up with a good estimate of the heat transfer from the flame

Win = h A(Tfl - Ttc)

(where h is the heat transfer coefficient) and solve for h. h is
dependent on both Tfl and the velocity of the flame. Since the temperature
is fixed in a narrow range (1800-2100 for air; 3,000 - 3400 for O2),
velocity is a prime variable and welding torces etc. are designed to have a
high flame velocity and heat transfer.

SO, you can use thermocouples in flames to measure relative heat transfer
but NOT flame temperature.

To measure the flame temperature hire NTIS - or use a "suction
thermocouple". This consists of a thermocouple surrounded by many
radiation shields to prevent radiant heat loss, Wout. Flame gases are
drawn over the thermocouple at high velocity with a vacuum pump to enhance
Win. You will need a HIGH TEMPERATURE TC, pt/pt-rh or better. This method
will come quite close to giving the correct flame temperature. Or you can
calculate it from flame conditions.

I hope this is useful to this group.

TOM REED

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

 

From fkuzel at cglg.org Wed Sep 23 12:31:01 1998
From: fkuzel at cglg.org (Fred Kuzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BioEnergy '98 conference
Message-ID: <01BDE6E8.67DA41C0@ts006d29.chi-il.concentric.net>

BIOENERGY '98 IS ALMOST HERE...It's not to late to register and attend this international biomass energy conference.
The BioEnergy '98 conference will be held in Madison, WI between Oct. 4-8, 1998 at the Monona Terrace Conference Center, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The BioEnergy '98 conference has much to offer almost every one who has ever participated in the bioenergy lists.
Ten major topics will be discussed at the conference and will appear in the proceedings: Policy & DOE's Program, Marketing and Finance, Combustion and Co-firing, Gasification, Biogas, Advanced Concepts, Ethanol, Biodiesel, Resources and Environmental Impacts.
BioEnergy '98 will have some of the nations best and brightest speakers delivering seven keynote talks, participating in seven plenary panels and delivering over 160 papers in 26 concurrent sessions and through a poster session. BioEnergy '98 will likely have the largest bioenergy trade show ever in the US with close to 40 industry and organizational booths. In addition there will be nine bioenergy and local attraction tours.
The registration fee of $375 includes the above events, a CD ROM proceedings, four continental breakfasts, three lunches, two evening receptions and one Taste of Wisconsin diner. One day and student registrations are also available. All of this will take place in Madison, WI, consistently voted one of the top places to live in the US.
I hope many of those participating in the Bioenergy lists will be able to come to Madison and participate in the BioEnergy '98 event. The planning committee and conference partners have put together quite a show at a critical time in the development of bioenergy technologies and policy.
Please check out the web site at www.cglg.org/bioenergy98 for detailed program information and to register on line. Or email Fred Kuzel at fkuzel@cglg.org if you have any questions.

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

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Sep 24 03:55:07 1998
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: CO level
Message-ID: <199809240401.QAA15573@powerlink.co.nz>

 

Hello Murat

Having suffered severe CO poisoning from daily exposure, I would suggest
you ensure good ventilation at all times. CO is accumulative in situations
of regular exposure, and from our obsessiveness in pursuit of this
technology, highly addictive.

Regards
Doug Williams.

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

 

From campa at hrl.com.au Thu Sep 24 04:41:55 1998
From: campa at hrl.com.au (Campisi, Tony)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: CO level
Message-ID: <896DD0FA4846D211A80A00A0C955FAD4010FFE@mail_mulgrave>

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Sep 24 10:04:03 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: CO level
Message-ID: <f86cd55c.360a537c@aol.com>

I have found that CO exposure may not immediately produce a headache and that
some anesthesia is produced as an interim stage. The day after is the worst.
Usually a buzzing in the head is the first and ongoing sensation I have felt.
If you read about confined space incidents fatigue, lack of judgement, sleep,
are all part of exposure to CO which can lead to accidents and worse.
I am on the opinion that elevated CO will over time cause mental
deterioration. This may even be a factor in environmental air issues. The
damage it does to growing plants is unbelievable, as does ozone. They both
interfere with oxygen assimilation.

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

 

From sowinder at giasbg01.vsnl.net.in Thu Sep 24 11:19:41 1998
From: sowinder at giasbg01.vsnl.net.in (sowinder)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: CO level
In-Reply-To: <199809220805_MC2-5A37-3E76@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980924210914.00812770@giasbg01.vsnl.net.in>

CO is a chemical asphyxiant. It combines with the haemoglobin in the blood
and thus prevents the haemoglobin from taking up oxygen to form
oxy-haemoglobin. Consequently the body is deprived of necessary oxygen.
Thus, the symptom of CO inhalation in certain concentrations is similar to
being in a closed space without ventilation.

As per the 92-93 Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances in the Work
Environment adopted by ACGIH , the TLV for CO is 25 ppm. Thus, the maximum
level to which a person may be exposed to CO for a workday of 8 hours
without adverse effect is 25 ppm.

A CO concentration of around 200 ppm will produce slight symptoms such as
mild headache and discomfort in 4 to 5 hours. A concentration of approx.
400 ppm will produce distinct headache and discomfort in 2 to 3 hours.

To answer your question, the safe level of CO exposure for 3 hours would be
much lower than 400 ppm and probably in the vicinity of 100 to 200 ppm. The
symptom of headache is a warning that a dangerous concentration of CO is
being inhaled!

Sowinder Singh

 

At 09:00 PM 9/22/98 +0000, you wrote:
> 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 sowinder at giasbg01.vsnl.net.in Thu Sep 24 11:55:09 1998
From: sowinder at giasbg01.vsnl.net.in (sowinder)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers & Dual Fuel Engines
In-Reply-To: <199809200002.MAA28420@powerlink.co.nz>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980924214443.00813270@giasbg01.vsnl.net.in>

My organisation is engaged in marketing and support of gasifiers to
commercial organisations for thermal and electrical energy generation. This
includes use of gasifiers for power generation in conjunction with diesel
gensets in dual fuel mode.

I visited the site and perused the pictures and the write-up with interest.
I was particularly impressed to read that diesel replacement of over 80%
was achieved at 80% load factor. It was also very heartening to know that a
conversion kit was developed which could be fitted to any design of diesel
engine used for power generation.

Our experience so far has been that the maximum replacement of diesel has
been a function of the make and size of diesel engine. Thus, while we have
been able to get 80% replacement at around 80% load factor with some
engines, we have been unable to achieve this with other engines. Also, the
type of governor, electronic or hydraulic, has played a major role in the
level of replacement achieved.

I would therefore be very interested in getting more information on the
conversion kit developed at Fluidyne.

Regards,

Sowinder Singh

**************************************************************
Sowinder Singh
Biogen Energy Systems Pvt Ltd
207 Raheja Arcade, Koramangala
Bangalore 560 032, India

At 04:04 PM 9/20/98 +1200, you wrote:
>Doug's pictures of gasifier / engines from the Fluidyne archive have now
>been uploaded onto the following site:
>
> http://powerlink.co.nz/~graeme/dougspictures.html
>
>Regards,
>
>Graeme Williams
>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 dcomext at magic.santafe.gov.ar Thu Sep 24 12:06:46 1998
From: dcomext at magic.santafe.gov.ar (Carlos Morelli)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: HORNOS PARA LA FABRICACION DE CARB0N
Message-ID: <360A56AC.67F5D370@magic.santafe.gov.ar>

SRES.
LA EMPRESA CARLOS MEZA DE LA PROVINCIA DE SANTA FE NOS SOLICITO
ENVIARAMOS LA PRESENTE, SOLICITANDO INFORMACION SOBRE FABRICANTES DE
HORNOS PARA LA FABRICACION DEL CARBON.
AGRADECERIAMOS TODA INFORAMCION QUE AL RESPECTO NO PUEDAN REMITIR A ESTA
MISMA DIRECCION

HORACIO KRAUS
SUBSECRETARIA DE COMERCIO EXTERIOR DE SANTA FE
BV. PELLEGRINI 3100 PLANTA BAJA
3000 SANTA FE, ARGENTINA
TEL. 0054.42.552769

Liberal translation by Tom Miles (List Administrator):

Sirs,

The Carlos Meza company of the Santa Fe province (Argentina) has asked us
to send them information about manufacturers of kilns for charcoal making.
We would appreciate it if you would send all information about this subject
to the address above.

Horacio Kraus

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

 

From rabello at uniserve.com Thu Sep 24 14:48:07 1998
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification vs. "Just Burning"
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19980924190538.006ffc60@popserver.uniserve.com>

Hello!!!

I have subscribed to this list for many months now and read every posting
with interest. Most of the discussion and research seems to be centered on
large scale power production--hence the worries associated with "clean" gas,
turbines and big diesel engines.

But why bother with building gasifiers and scrubbers if the biomass could
simply be burned?

Mr. Lefcourt mentioned that the B.C. government tightly controls regulations
for boilers. He is correct, although the regulations exempt small capacity
boilers. (The regulations take on an encyclopedic appearance when viewed
for the first time!) As an elementary school teacher, my students and I
built a woodstove-powered steam turbine that produced roughly 500 watts of
electrical power at slightly under 10% over-all efficiency. The local fire
department thought I was crazy, but with the help of a certified steam plant
engineer, we operated the turbine for a short time with no difficulty.

Using the remaining energy for space and water heating would have improved
the system's efficiency. The total cost of our system was LESS than $500
because the woodstove, the singularly most expensive item, had been donated.
We used an automotive air injection pump as the turbine, but a small turbo
wheel (like one from a four cylinder automotive turbocharger) would have
been equally effective.

For small-scale power production, building a gasifier, cleaning the gas and
then burning it in an engine appears to increase the cost, complexity and
maintenance of the system without really increasing its over-all efficiency.
Furthermore, and please correct me if I am mistaken, the fuel must be of
uniform size (read SMALL) in order to gasify properly. This means
additional processing, which requires MORE equipment, time and energy.

I live in British Columbia. The amount of wood that gets THROWN AWAY here
defies understanding. I keep my family warm all winter long by burning
discarded pallets in my woodstove. Lovely, long-burning hardwood comes from
China, from Quebec and other eastern states and provinces via ship or truck.
Most of it ends up in landfills. . .

I don't like "just burning" biomass--it's as bad in my view as "just
burning" oil and coal! Worse, I know my woodstove doesn't burn the material
completely, and this inefficiency results in air pollution. (Besides, God
only knows what chemical-concoctions some of these pallets might have been
sprayed with!) So my interest in gasification was born.

But gasification has its own problems. Some of you learned people admit
that no one really understands how it works, although on a large scale it
appears to be an economical alternative to "just burning" to raise steam.

Perhaps some of you are aware of means to reform hydrogen from steam and
biomass carbon. Burning hydrogen in a fuel cell makes a lot more sense from
an efficiency and pollution-control perspective than "just burning" biomass,
or even gasifying, for that matter.

Your feedback would be most appreciated!

Respectfully,

robert luis rabello
VisionWorks

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

 

From bywateri at convertech.co.nz Thu Sep 24 17:43:06 1998
From: bywateri at convertech.co.nz (Ian Bywater)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification vs. "Just Burning"
Message-ID: <v01540b04b2306617b580@[202.37.189.15]>

Dear Robert

>But why bother with building gasifiers and scrubbers if the biomass could
>simply be burned?

The reason for large scale power generation is the higher efficiency that
can be achieved using gas turbine combined cycle plants. "Just burning" to
raise steam for a Rankine cycle steam turbine is much less efficient.

>I don't like "just burning" biomass--it's as bad in my view as "just
>burning" oil and coal!

Well said, but remember we are on the gasification list now!

>Burning hydrogen in a fuel cell makes a lot more sense from
>an efficiency and pollution-control perspective than "just burning" biomass,
>or even gasifying, for that matter.

That's a future possiblity, but hydrogen in a gas turbine would be closer
to realisation.

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
www: http://www.southpower.co.nz/conver.htm

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

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Thu Sep 24 18:37:12 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification vs. "Just Burning"
In-Reply-To: <v01540b04b2306617b580@[202.37.189.15]>
Message-ID: <199809242237.SAA01059@solstice.crest.org>

At 09:53 AM 9/25/98 +1200, Ian Bywater wrote:
>>But why bother with building gasifiers and scrubbers if the biomass could
>>simply be burned?
>
>The reason for large scale power generation is the higher efficiency that
>can be achieved using gas turbine combined cycle plants. "Just burning" to
>raise steam for a Rankine cycle steam turbine is much less efficient.

Ian,

It seems to me Roberts question was one of small scale, not large scale.
Has anyone done a recent comparison of the cost and efficiency of small
scale combustion versus gasification?

The Alaska Division of Energy Update newsletter (July 1998) reported a
small scale boiler system (1000 MBh Garn 4400 stick wood boiler) that was
installed on the 2200 ft Dot Lake district heating system for $66,420. It
consumes 160 lbs wood in two hours (600 000 Btuh) and replaces $15,500
gallons of fuel oil each year to heat the "downtown" for a community of 80
people. Operating costs for wood, labor, maintenance and utiities are
figured at $8,950 per year.

What would a gasifier cost that would generate heat and power for a similar
heat load?

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

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

 

From apchick at dmu.ac.uk Fri Sep 25 03:44:26 1998
From: apchick at dmu.ac.uk (Andrew Chick)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Hybrid Renewable Energy System.
Message-ID: <199809250803.IAA28714@macondo.dmu.ac.uk>

 

Presentation and Demonstration Day
DeMontfort University
School of Agriculture and Horticulture
Caythorpe
UK
29th October 1998

Wind, anaerobic digestion, wood gasification, chp engines, integration and control

De Montfort University have recently completed a major EC funded project to design and build a renewable energy facility at the School of Agriculture and Horticulture, Lincolnshire.

The project, which involves DeMontfort University together with the Universities of Loughborough and Zaragoza and Vergnet SA, the French wind turbine manufacturers, entails an anaerobic digester pro
ducing biogas from animal and vegetable waste, a gasifier producing gas from wood chips and a wind turbine.

During the presentation, the design and operation of the renewable sources will be described and demonstrated on site.

There will also be a plenary discussion period to enable participants to discuss the plant and point the way forward for renewable energy.

The presentation day cost stlg15 to cover food and drinks, number are strictly limited. Please make cheques payable to De Montfort University.

For further information, please Email me on the number below.
ANDREW P CHICK
DeMontfort University
School of Agriculture and Horticulture
Caythorpe Campus
Caythorpe
Lincolnshire
NG32 3EP

apchick@dmu.ac.uk
Tel 01400 275624
Fax 01400 273708
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From costich at pacifier.com Fri Sep 25 08:48:20 1998
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification vs. "Just Burning"
Message-ID: <199809251259.FAA04764@smtp.pacifier.com>

Robert : We have a lot in common: please see my
site:http://members.tripod.com/~costich and get in touch! I enjoy operating
my gasirier and I store the gas in a large PVC bag (1000 cu.ft) this way
you 'run a batch' and use it over a period of time. The beauty of it is you
can cook instantly with it--the collapse of the bag provides the pressure
just light a match and cook! Dale Costich

----------
> From: robert luis rabello <rabello@uniserve.com>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Gasification vs. "Just Burning"
> Date: Thursday, September 24, 1998 12:05 PM
>
> Hello!!!
>
> I have subscribed to this list for many months now and read every posting
> with interest. Most of the discussion and research seems to be centered
on
> large scale power production--hence the worries associated with "clean"
gas,
> turbines and big diesel engines.
>
> But why bother with building gasifiers and scrubbers if the biomass could
> simply be burned?
>
> Mr. Lefcourt mentioned that the B.C. government tightly controls
regulations
> for boilers. He is correct, although the regulations exempt small
capacity
> boilers. (The regulations take on an encyclopedic appearance when viewed
> for the first time!) As an elementary school teacher, my students and I
> built a woodstove-powered steam turbine that produced roughly 500 watts
of
> electrical power at slightly under 10% over-all efficiency. The local
fire
> department thought I was crazy, but with the help of a certified steam
plant
> engineer, we operated the turbine for a short time with no difficulty.
>
> Using the remaining energy for space and water heating would have
improved
> the system's efficiency. The total cost of our system was LESS than $500
> because the woodstove, the singularly most expensive item, had been
donated.
> We used an automotive air injection pump as the turbine, but a small
turbo
> wheel (like one from a four cylinder automotive turbocharger) would have
> been equally effective.
>
> For small-scale power production, building a gasifier, cleaning the gas
and
> then burning it in an engine appears to increase the cost, complexity and
> maintenance of the system without really increasing its over-all
efficiency.
> Furthermore, and please correct me if I am mistaken, the fuel must be of
> uniform size (read SMALL) in order to gasify properly. This means
> additional processing, which requires MORE equipment, time and energy.
>
> I live in British Columbia. The amount of wood that gets THROWN AWAY
here
> defies understanding. I keep my family warm all winter long by burning
> discarded pallets in my woodstove. Lovely, long-burning hardwood comes
from
> China, from Quebec and other eastern states and provinces via ship or
truck.
> Most of it ends up in landfills. . .
>
> I don't like "just burning" biomass--it's as bad in my view as "just
> burning" oil and coal! Worse, I know my woodstove doesn't burn the
material
> completely, and this inefficiency results in air pollution. (Besides,
God
> only knows what chemical-concoctions some of these pallets might have
been
> sprayed with!) So my interest in gasification was born.
>
> But gasification has its own problems. Some of you learned people admit
> that no one really understands how it works, although on a large scale it
> appears to be an economical alternative to "just burning" to raise steam.
>
> Perhaps some of you are aware of means to reform hydrogen from steam and
> biomass carbon. Burning hydrogen in a fuel cell makes a lot more sense
from
> an efficiency and pollution-control perspective than "just burning"
biomass,
> or even gasifying, for that matter.
>
> Your feedback would be most appreciated!
>
> Respectfully,
>
> robert luis rabello
> VisionWorks
>
> 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 jphillips at alumni.stanford.org Fri Sep 25 12:02:16 1998
From: jphillips at alumni.stanford.org (Jeffrey N. Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: CO level
In-Reply-To: <199809221957.UAA20253@cheviot.ncl.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <000101bde89f$6e820220$782029d8@jnphatch.gis.net>

Murat,

The other contributors have already given you good advice on the safe
levels. I just wanted to say that excellent CO detectors about the size of
a "beeper" are now available from many vendors. They can be set to sound an
alarm when CO reaches a certain level (at Molten Metal Technology we set
that level at 3 ppm to ensure that we had time to find and hopefully fix the
leak before we had to shutdown the gasifier due to high levels.) If you're
interested, I know a company (MMT) that is selling off all of its assets and
would probably sell you their CO detectors for cents on the dollar.

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 Dogru, M.
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 5:00 PM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Re: CO level

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 jphillips at alumni.stanford.org Fri Sep 25 12:02:19 1998
From: jphillips at alumni.stanford.org (Jeffrey N. Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Flame temperature measurement - thermocouples not!
In-Reply-To: <199809230907_MC2-5A5F-4F3C@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <000201bde89f$6f963140$782029d8@jnphatch.gis.net>

Most combustion researchers now rely on optical techniques to measure flame
temperatures. These techniques are based on the fact that the emission
spectrum from the flames is a very strong function of temperature. The
other nice thing about optical measurements is you also can extract
information on the flame's chemical composition (e.g., CO/CO2 ratios, etc.).

I don't see any reason why these techniques wouldn't work in gasification
environments also. The big challenge, of course, is keeping the sight
ports clean. Is anybody out there using optical techniques for temperature
measurements in gasifiers?

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 Tom Reed
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 9:07 AM
To: INTERNET:gasification@crest.org; STOVES
Subject: GAS-L: Flame temperature measurement - thermocouples not!

STOVES, GASIFICATION and all others interested in truth in temperatures:

There has been occasional reference to thermocouples for measuring flame
temperatures.

I recently wrote ... >A thermocouple in a moderate velocity flame with
temperature of 2,000C (like a Bunsen burner flame) will
only read 1000C because it radiates the heat away. It is VERY difficult to
measure flame temeratures directly - the thermocouple is really measuring
heat transfer, which is useful once you understand this limitation.

~~~~~
Here is an expanded explanation of that reply.

Concerning thermocouples and flame temperatures....

One can easily calculate the adiabatic (thermodynamic) temperature of air
flames or look them up in various handbooks. Almost all air-fuel
temperatures fall in the range 1800-2100C (exceptions, unstable fuels like
acetylene). Of course this is the peak flame temperature for premixed
flames; postmixed and rich or lean flames will be less.

The flame gases N2, CO2 and H2O are transparent to visible and IR unless
they are over a meter thick and they don't emit or absorb much visible or
IR either. (You can check this by putting your finger 1 cm to the side of
a bunsen or candle flame. No radiant heat. Now put your finger IN the
flame. OUCH!!)

HEAT LOSS: So, the thermocouple effectively radiates energy away at a rate
given by the black body equation

Wout = e s A (Ttc^4)

(where e is the emissivity (~ .5 for stainless steel); s is the Stefan
Bolzmann constant, 5.67 X 10^-12 W/cm2-deg^4; A is the radiating area, and
Ttc is the absolute temp of the thermocouple.)

HEAT GAIN: So, you can equate this loss to the gain from the flame and
come up with a good estimate of the heat transfer from the flame

Win = h A(Tfl - Ttc)

(where h is the heat transfer coefficient) and solve for h. h is
dependent on both Tfl and the velocity of the flame. Since the temperature
is fixed in a narrow range (1800-2100 for air; 3,000 - 3400 for O2),
velocity is a prime variable and welding torces etc. are designed to have a
high flame velocity and heat transfer.

SO, you can use thermocouples in flames to measure relative heat transfer
but NOT flame temperature.

To measure the flame temperature hire NTIS - or use a "suction
thermocouple". This consists of a thermocouple surrounded by many
radiation shields to prevent radiant heat loss, Wout. Flame gases are
drawn over the thermocouple at high velocity with a vacuum pump to enhance
Win. You will need a HIGH TEMPERATURE TC, pt/pt-rh or better. This method
will come quite close to giving the correct flame temperature. Or you can
calculate it from flame conditions.

I hope this is useful to this group.

TOM REED

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 troels at et.dtu.dk Fri Sep 25 12:11:57 1998
From: troels at et.dtu.dk (Troels Pedersen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Backfiring from SI engines part II
Message-ID: <199809251611.MAA08837@solstice.crest.org>

Dear listmembers

Thanks for the answers I already has recieved on this subject.
First I must say that I dont really believe that the problem occurs in
the exhaustsystem. Even if the exhaustvalves did leak unburnt fuel into
the exhaust, (I dont think they do), the fuel wouldnt do any harm out
there besides increasing the CO and UHC emissions.
My own expiriences with backfiring, supports the theori that the
problem is located in the intake region and the combustion chamber. I
think that hot spots in the combustionchamber, that means sparkplug,
edges, exhaustvalve and deposits, ignites the fresh charge when it's
entering the cylinder on the intakestroke. To me, it also seems like the
size of the engine has a very big influence on the back firing. Bigger
engine means less backfiring. Perhaps it because the surface to volume
ratio gets smaller, so the incoming charge dont warm up as much in the
big engine as in the small one?
I hope to be able to make a conventional carburationsystem without
fuel injection, because it takes a lot of energy to compress the
gasifiergas to the needed pressure.
What's the highest hydrogen content used in a gasifier SI engine
without problems?
Will turbocharging make the problem worse?

All comments are very welcome!

Troels Pedersen

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

 

From Murat.Dogru at newcastle.ac.uk Sat Sep 26 07:59:33 1998
From: Murat.Dogru at newcastle.ac.uk (Murat.Dogru@newcastle.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: CO level
In-Reply-To: <199809221957.UAA20253@cheviot.ncl.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <199809261210.NAA17153@cheviot.ncl.ac.uk>

 

Dear Jeff,

Thanks very much for your kind advice.
And I also get some other useful Info. from other list members.
We have already order a CO dedector last week.
Actually my problem is that I will try sewage sludge to gasify in the
downdraft gasifier which there is a possiblity for HCN production
during the gasification of sewage sludge .
Now, I think I need one HCN dedector as well.
Have you got any knowledge about HCN possiblity during sewage sludge
gasification?

Thanks
Murat

> From: "Jeffrey N. Phillips" <jphillips@alumni.stanford.org>
> To: <gasification@crest.org>
> Subject: RE: GAS-L: Re: CO level
> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:13:28 -0400
> Importance: Normal
> Reply-to: gasification@crest.org

> Murat,
>
> The other contributors have already given you good advice on the safe
> levels. I just wanted to say that excellent CO detectors about the size of
> a "beeper" are now available from many vendors. They can be set to sound an
> alarm when CO reaches a certain level (at Molten Metal Technology we set
> that level at 3 ppm to ensure that we had time to find and hopefully fix the
> leak before we had to shutdown the gasifier due to high levels.) If you're
> interested, I know a company (MMT) that is selling off all of its assets and
> would probably sell you their CO detectors for cents on the dollar.
>
> 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
>

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Sep 27 09:43:08 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:44 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification vs. "Just Burning"
Message-ID: <199809270953_MC2-5ACB-FAB5@compuserve.com>

Dear Tom, Ian robert luis rabello, et al:

This is an excellent question " WHY GASIFY - JUST BURN ON A GRATE", and the
answers aren't obvious.

Gasification expands the use of biomass to encompass all the uses of
natural gas and petroleum - close control of process heat as in glass
making; high efficiency power generation at small scale; and chemical
synthesis of methanol, ammonia or gasoline.

If the only use for the gas is to operate a boiler, the answer is not so
obvious.

However, the company CHIPTEC in Burlington Vt. has installed over 100
gasifiers at schools, hospitals etc., and other companies are manufacturing
similar units. These are boilers that were originally built for gas or oil.
It is economical today to replace the gas/oil with wood using a relatively
small gasifier - no scrubbers needed - rather than building a much larger
wood-fired boiler. So gasifiers are very useful in converting EXISTING
BOILERS.

~~~~~
In the case of using the gas for heat alone, the line between gasifiers and
woodburning furnaces blurs. The distinction has legal implications. Since
there are subsidies for building gasifiers and not for wood furnaces,
keeping the secondary combustion of the gases separate from the primary
gasification can be worth a lot of money. How to distinguish?

If you can find a spot in the furnace and abstract a sample of gas
representative of most of the combustion fuel before it meets the secondary
air supply, you can legally call it a gasifier. If primary and secondary
air processes are all mixed together it is a combustor.
~~~~~
I just read the posting of robert luis rabello. Wish he had been my
teacher. I hope he will look into this further and try the same project
with a gasifier. Since his turbine generated 500 Wel at 10% efficiency it
would need to be 5 kWthermal. That is only a little larger than the large
burner on a gas or electric stove.

It is amazing how small a gasifier could be for his project, and the
STOVES group regularly builds gasifiers this size with several insulated
tin cans.
~~~~~

I hope we get more comments on this question whose answers form the
foundation of this group. The manager of the DOE gasifier program in the
early 1980s, Beverly Burgher, asked the same question, so wouldn't support
gasification research. As a result the BOILER CONVERSION, POWER and
SYNTHESIS programs languished.

Yours truly, TOM
REED

Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>>>But why bother with building gasifiers and scrubbers if the biomass
could
>>simply be burned?
>
>The reason for large scale power generation is the higher efficiency that
>can be achieved using gas turbine combined cycle plants. "Just burning"
to
>raise steam for a Rankine cycle steam turbine is much less efficient.

Ian,

It seems to me Roberts question was one of small scale, not large scale.
Has anyone done a recent comparison of the cost and efficiency of small
scale combustion versus gasification?

The Alaska Division of Energy Update newsletter (July 1998) reported a
small scale boiler system (1000 MBh Garn 4400 stick wood boiler) that was
installed on the 2200 ft Dot Lake district heating system for $66,420. It
consumes 160 lbs wood in two hours (600 000 Btuh) and replaces $15,500
gallons of fuel oil each year to heat the "downtown" for a community of 80
people. Operating costs for wood, labor, maintenance and utiities are
figured at $8,950 per year.

What would a gasifier cost that would generate heat and power for a similar
heat load?

Tom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
<

 

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 Sep 27 09:43:15 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifiers & Dual Fuel Engines
Message-ID: <199809270953_MC2-5ACB-FAB6@compuserve.com>

Dear Mr. Singh:

You are in the heartland of diesel gasifiers in India and will have no
trouble finding out more than you need to know.

Prof. P. P. Parikh at IIT Bombay Dept. of Mechanical Engineering has a
large group testing gasifiers and diesel engines and has turned out many
fine theses on the subject.

Prof. Mukunda at IISc Bangalore has develped very low tar gasifiers and
regularly operates diesel engines in both diesel and spark mode.

Good luck.

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 Sep 27 09:43:25 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fans, blowers and ??? for gasifiers and stoves
Message-ID: <199809270953_MC2-5ACB-FAB7@compuserve.com>

Dear ELK

It is important to distinguish between fans and blowers. Fans move the
largest amount of air/watt, but at the smallest pressure - typically .001
inch of water. Blowers move less air, but my little Radio Shack blower has
a static pressure of almost 1 inch of water with an outlet of only 2 in2. .
So, it depends on how much air pressure you need to move the primary air
through the mass.

I believe the little muffin fans fall somewhere in between, since they have
much more sophisticated blade shapes.
Neverthesless, even the muffin fan would be very useful (and much better
than Fred Hottenroth's Sierra stove) for providing draft for stoves.

I hope someone with a draft meter will measure pressure and flow of all
three types.

I also hope anyone knowing of other blowers will post their source.

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

Tom Reed- your small blower could possibly be the cooling fan found on
Pentium computer chips?

I've been playing with my Zip-Stove, and recently found these Pentium
coolers in a Radio-Shack store- though 12 V. and a bit expensive, they must
be made in the absolute millions somewhere & should be both heat resistant
and cheap if bough direct from the manufacturer.

The fans have many blades- a bit like a turbine.

What stove are you 'blowing'? I'm considering forced draft on my sawdust
carboniser, but don't know which end to start from.

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

 

From DMcilveenw at aol.com Sun Sep 27 16:46:45 1998
From: DMcilveenw at aol.com (DMcilveenw@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "WANTED": mass and energy balances
Message-ID: <95b1a106.360ea6a7@aol.com>

In a message dated 9/22/98 2:56:07PM, you write:

<<
Dear gasification community:

For a comparison of the potential and limitations of different gasification
technologies I am looking for suitable data.
I would like to present my results in the frame of a simplified (!) life-
cycle
analysis (LCA) and am looking for comprehensive MASS and ENERGY BALANCES.

Who of you has calculated these kinds of balances?
Where can I find such data?

Yours sincerely,
Harald Lutz

Paul Scherrer Institut
CH-5232 Villigen PSI
Harald.Lutz@psi.ch >>

Harald,
We have used the ECLIPSE process simulation package to do mass and energy
balances (plus utility usages and economic assessment) of several biomass (or
biomass/coal co-fired) power plants.
These include combustion plants, biomass (wood) IGCC plants ( 5 different
turbines, atmospheric or pressurised gasifiers, hot or cold gas cleanup),
biomass gasification with simple cycle gas turbines, biomass gasification with
SI gas engines, biomass gasification with fuel cells (Molten Carbonate or
Phosphoric Acid).
For co-fired CFBC systems we have looked at two coals (Bellambi and Federation
8) with straw or with wood, and I'm currently looking at cork waste and WPOS
(pressed olive stones). We have also looked at co-fired CFBG using high ash
coal or lignite with pine chips.
Most of this work has been done under JOULE, APAS or FAIR contracts in
conjunction with other European partners. Feel free to contact me for further
details.

Regards,

David McIlveen-Wright,
NICERT/ Energy Research Centre,
University of Ulster,
Coleraine BT52 1SA
UK

Tel. 00 44 1265 324400
Fax 00 44 1265 324900
Email dr.mcilveen-wright@ulst.ac.uk or dmcilveenw@aol.com
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From arcate at email.msn.com Sun Sep 27 19:10:32 1998
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "WANTED": mass and energy balances
Message-ID: <001401bdea6d$6918a6c0$0100007f@localhost>

David McIlveen-Wright,
NICERT/ Energy Research Centre,
University of Ulster,
Coleraine BT52 1SA
UK

Dear David:

>From your message to Gasification: We have used the ECLIPSE process
simulation package to do mass and energy balances (plus utility usages and
economic assessment) of several biomass (or biomass/coal co-fired) power
plants.

Have you considered "biomass charcoal" for co-firing with coal?

I propose that we consider converting biomass to charcoal and co-fire
charcoal with coal in PC and CFB power plants. Charcoal has
more energy than coal with 1 ton of charcoal replacing ~ 1.2 tons of coal.
Charcoal could be manufactured using a new high-yield process developed at
the University of Hawaii, Hawaii Natural Energy Institute.

"Green Power" could be produced by replacing coal with charcoal from
dedicated energy crops. Charcoal production economics would be improved by
using "waste wood and green waste" as part of the feed for charcoal.
Charcoal co-products such as activated carbon for wastewater treatment
would also be possible.

Please see my draft report on Waste Wood for Fuel at
http://www.techtp.com/projects/

My paper "Biomass Charcoal for PFBC Power Plants" will be in the proceedings
of BioEnergy '98. It is available at my web site at
http://www.techtp.com/bioenerg.htm

I would appreciate your comments on the biomass charcoal concept.
thank you,

Jim Arcate
3289 Manoa Road Apt A
Honolulu, HI 9682-1273
(808) 988-7502
www.techtp.com

 

 

 

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

 

From jphillips at alumni.stanford.org Mon Sep 28 12:23:45 1998
From: jphillips at alumni.stanford.org (Jeffrey N. Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: CO level
In-Reply-To: <199809261210.NAA17153@cheviot.ncl.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <000701bdeafd$f1173f60$1e2029d8@jnphatch.gis.net>

Murat,

In my experience from gasifying coal, petroleum coke, and hydrocarbon-based
hazardous wastes, you will always produce some HCN (typically less than 250
ppmv). Strangely enough, I've found the HCN concentration not to be a very
strong function of the nitrogen content of the feed. Instead it seems to be
a function of the gasifier temperature (colder gasifier yields more HCN) and
the amount of H2O in the product gas (H2O apparently reacts with HCN to form
NH3). So you can minimize HCN if you have a hot gasifier with lots of H2O
in the product gas. Does my experience match the experience of other list
readers who actually have gasified biomass?

Good luck with your sewer sludge tests. I'm sure many of us will want to
hear how they turn out.

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 Murat.Dogru@newcastle.ac.uk
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 1998 9:09 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Re: CO level

Dear Jeff,

Thanks very much for your kind advice.
And I also get some other useful Info. from other list members.
We have already order a CO dedector last week.
Actually my problem is that I will try sewage sludge to gasify in the
downdraft gasifier which there is a possiblity for HCN production
during the gasification of sewage sludge .
Now, I think I need one HCN dedector as well.
Have you got any knowledge about HCN possiblity during sewage sludge
gasification?

Thanks
Murat

> From: "Jeffrey N. Phillips" <jphillips@alumni.stanford.org>
> To: <gasification@crest.org>
> Subject: RE: GAS-L: Re: CO level
> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:13:28 -0400
> Importance: Normal
> Reply-to: gasification@crest.org

> Murat,
>
> The other contributors have already given you good advice on the safe
> levels. I just wanted to say that excellent CO detectors about the size
of
> a "beeper" are now available from many vendors. They can be set to sound
an
> alarm when CO reaches a certain level (at Molten Metal Technology we set
> that level at 3 ppm to ensure that we had time to find and hopefully fix
the
> leak before we had to shutdown the gasifier due to high levels.) If
you're
> interested, I know a company (MMT) that is selling off all of its assets
and
> would probably sell you their CO detectors for cents on the dollar.
>
> 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
>

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 campa at hrl.com.au Mon Sep 28 16:20:10 1998
From: campa at hrl.com.au (Campisi, Tony)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "WANTED": mass and energy balances
Message-ID: <896DD0FA4846D211A80A00A0C955FAD4011011@mail_mulgrave>

Dear Harald,

At HRL we generally use ASPEN PLUS for gasifier mass and energy balances and
use GTPRO (Thermoflow Inc., MA, USA) for gas-turbine and combined cycle
plant. We have done extensive cycle and cost evaluations for various
energy-conversion process technologies for electricity generation. Although
the programs do meet our cycle calculation needs they are expensive. There
are several other process modelling programs with capabilities comparable to
ASPEN and GTPRO also available. Like all such software, be aware that
garbage in equals garbage out and always check your inputs/outputs/units.

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: Harald Lutz [SMTP:Harald.Lutz@psi.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, 23 September 1998 0:54
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: "WANTED": mass and energy balances
> Sensitivity: Confidential
>
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From fkuzel at cglg.org Mon Sep 28 18:03:55 1998
From: fkuzel at cglg.org (Fred Kuzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BioEnergy '98 conference
Message-ID: <01BDEB04.CB4A90A0@fred>

BioEnergy '98 is just one week away in Madison, Wisconsin. Here's the agenda for next Monday. Don't miss it. Check our web page at www.cglg.org/bioenergy98 for full information on the conference and registration forms.

Monday, October 5, 1998 "Vision & Business"

7:00 - 8:30 a.m. Breakfast in the Trade Show and Conference Posters - Exhibit Hall B, Level One
7:00 - 8:30 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 - Ballroom A & B, Level Four
8:30 - 8:40 a.m. Welcoming: Don Wichert, Co-Chair, BioEnergy '98
8:40 - 9:10 a.m. Opening Address: "Energy, Economics and the Environment. Bioenergy and Buildings." Don Aitken, Union of Concerned Scientists
9:10 - 9:40 a.m. Keynote Address: "Latest Developments in Biomass Energy Technology." Stan Bull, Associate Director for Research Operations, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
9:40 - 10:00 a.m. Refreshment Break - Grand Terrace, Level Four
10:00 - 10:45 a.m. "Power of the Regions. An overview of the U.S. Department of Energy Regional Biomass Energy Program's (RBEP) highlights and successes."
Moderator: Gerson Santos Leon, Program Manager, and Mike Voorhies, RBEP Manager, Office of Transportation Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy
Panelists
* Rick Handley, Manager, Northeast RBEP
* Phil Badger, Manager, Southeast REBP
* Fred Kuzel, Manager, Great Lakes RBEP
* Jeff Graef, Manager, Western RBEP
* Jeff James, Manager, Northwest and Alaska RBEP

10:45 - 12:00 p.m. "Industry Market Opportunities." Panelists will discuss current and future opportunities and markets for biomass energy"
Moderator: Dave Allen, President, National Bioenergy Industries Association
Panelists:
* Bill Cruickshank, Manager, Biochemical Conversion, Natural Resources Canada
* Patritia J. Hus, Program Leader, Environmental Performance, Northern Indiana Public Service Company
* Chris Schoenherr, Renewable Energy Strategist, Wisconsin Electric Power Company
* Gary Welch, Manager, Commercial Development and Quality Assurance, Williams Energy Service

12:00 - 1:15 p.m. Lunch - Exhibit Hall A, Level One
Luncheon Address: Rodney Stevenson, University of Wisconsin - Madison
Presentation of the Regional Biomass Energy Program Awards
1:15 - 3:00 p.m. Concurrent Sessions I
GREEN HOUSE GAS MITIGATION - Hall of Ideas E & F
Session Leader: Art Wiselogel, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
* "Sequestering Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Through Industrial Usage of Agricultural Cropping Residues" Al Wong, Arbokem, Vancouver (Co-Author: Ed Hogan)
* "Biomass Contribution to Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Washington State" James D. Kerstetter, Washington State University
* "The Impact of Biodiesel on Greenhouse Gas Emissions" John Sheehan, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
* "Assessment of Environmental Implications of Producing Electricity" Margaret K. Mann, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Co-Author: P. L. Spath)
* "Greenhouse Gas Emission of Corn Ethanol: Key Issues and Uncertainties" Michael Wang, Argonne National Laboratory

ENERGY POLICY - Ballroom A & B
Session Leader: Rick Handley, Northeast Regional Biomass Energy Program
* "Factors for Bioenergy Market Development" Anders Roos, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (Co-Authors: B. Hektor, R. Graham, C. Rakos)
* "Minnesota Agricultural Energy Use and Incidence of a Carbon Tax" Barry Ryan, University of Minnesota (Co-Author: D. G. Tiffany)
* "Policy Considerations of the Chariton Valley RC&D Biomass Project" Jim Cooper, Chariton Valley RC&D
* "National Energy Policy and Long-term Strategic Petroleum Reserve" Robert Harris, Nebraska Energy Office
* "Partners for the Future, Where Will They Come from in New York?" Jeff Peterson, NYSERDA

PROJECT FINANCING - Hall of Ideas H & I
Session Leader: Christian Demeter, Antares Group
* "Estimating the Optimal Lignocellulosic to Ethanol Plant Size with Various Feedstocks and Feedstock Densities" D.L. Van Dyne, University of Missouri (Co-Authors: M.S. Kaylen, M.G. Blase)
* "Tax Incentives for Bioenergy Projects" Ann S. Rotroff, Gomel & Davis (Co-Author: G. A. Sanderson)
* An Energy Model for the Development of Strategies for the Economic Use of Biomass in Rural Areas in Germany" Janet Nagel, Brandenburgische Technische Universitat Cottbus, Germany
* "The Austrian Biomass Energy Strategy: General Equilibrium Economic Impacts and National Benefit/Cost Evaluation" Karl Steininger, University of Graz, Austria
* "Economic and Business Model of a Commercial Willow Energy Crop Enterprise" Christopher A. Lindsey, Antares Group (Co-Author: T. A. Volk)

DIRECT COMBUSTION - Hall of Ideas G
Session Leader: Ken Ragland, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Mechanical Engineering Department
* "Combustion of Animal Manure as a Renewable Energy Source" Bob W. Young, Vortex Combustion Co.
* "Low NOx Combustion of Biomass Fuels" Tim Webster, Coen Company (Co-Author: S. Drennan)
* "Development of the Moving Hole Feeder for Biomass" Nazmir Bundali, Kamengo Technology, Inc.
* "Combustion of HiMicro-Processed Coal/Biomass Fuels: FETC CERF Preliminary Results" M.C. Freeman, Federal Energy Technology Center (Co-Authors: G.F. Walbert, D.K. Brown)
3:00p.m. Refreshments - Grand Terrace, Level Four
3:15 - 5:00 p.m. Concurrent Sessions II
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF BIOMASS PRODUCTION AND COLLECTION - Hall of Ideas E & F
Session Leader: Art Wiselogel, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
* "Environmental Effects of Alternative Bioenergy Crops" C.H. Perry, University of Minnesota
* "Harvested Switchgrass Fields Provide Habitat for Declining Grassland Birds" David W. Sample, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Co-Authors: L. Paine, A. Roth)
* "Bioenergy and Watershed Restoration in the Mountainous Regions of the West: What are the Environmental/Community Issues?" Robin Graham, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Co-Authors: D. D. Huff, M. R. Kaufmann, W. D. Shepperd , and J. Sheehan)
* "Soil and Water Quality Aspects of Herbaceous & Woody Energy Crop Production: Lessons Learned from Field-scale Comparisons with Agricultural Crops" Virginia R. Tolbert, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Co-Authors: F. C. Thornton, J. D. Joslin, B. R. Bock, W. E. Bandaranayake, D. D. Tyler, D. Pettry, T. H. Green, R. Makik, A. E. Houston, S. Schoenholtz, M. Shires, L. Bingham, J. Dewey)

GREEN MARKETING - Ballroom A & B
Session Leader: Rick Handley, Northeast Regional Biomass Energy Program
* "Green Pricing and Marketing of Biomass Power" Christian Demeter, Antares Group
* "The Marketing of Bioenergy as Green Power: How Biomass is Doing in Recent Wires Charge, Disclosure, and Certification Efforts" Christine T. Donovan, C.T. Donovan Associates
* "Where There's a Bill There's a Way: Renewable Energy Markets in a Restructured Electric Utility Industry" Thomas Stanton, Michigan Public Service Commission
* "Independent System Operators and Implications for Bioenergy Technologies" Kevin Porter, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
* "The Cost and Regional Impacts of Renewable Portfolio Standards in Proposed Federal Legislation" Steve Clemmer, Union of Concerned Scientists

BIODIESEL MARKET OPPORTUNITIES - Hall of Ideas G
Session Leader: Craig Chase, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
* "Environmental & Regulatory Benefits Derived from the Truck in the Park Biodiesel Emissions Testing & Demonstration in Yellowstone National Park" Howard Haines, Montana Department of Environmental Quality (Co-Author: J. Evanoff)
* "Biodiesel Marine Marketing Opportunities: Successes and Challenges in the Chesapeake Bay" Alan Weber, National Biodiesel Board (Co-Authors: S. Howell and S. Hammond)
* "Economic Analysis of Biodiesel Usage in Underground Mines" Jerry Fruin, University of Minnesota, St. Paul (Co-Author: D. G. Tiffany)
* "Development of a Bio-based Fuel for Turbine Engines" M.E. Shauck, Baylor University (Co-Author: M.G. Zanin)
* "Waste Grease Resources in 30 U.S. Metropolitan Areas" George Wiltsee, Appel Consultants
NEAR TERM COMMERCIAL GASIFICATION - Hall of Ideas H & I
Session Leader: Kevin Craig, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
* "Integrated Biomass Gasification and Emission Control" Daniel Young, Callidus Technologies
* "Electric Energy Production by Utilization of Purified Low Energy Gas Coming from Refuse Derived Fuel" Gianluca Barducci, Tavolini, Italy (Co-Authors: P. Ulivieri, D.C. Pike, N. McDonald, F. Repetto, F. Cristo)
* "Testing of the Multi Annular Swirl Burner for the MAP Project" John Brushwood, Westinghouse Power (Co-Authors: , D. Bachovchin and M. Sanders)
* "Starved Air Gasification Tests on Five Biomass Feedstocks" Kevin McQuigg, Primenergy (Co-Author: W. N. Scott)
* "Power from Biomass: Coming of Age" Ron L. Menville Jr, Brightstar Synfuels Co., et al.

FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY - Hall of Ideas J
Session Leader: Eric Simpkins, Energy Research Corporation
* "Potential Benefits of Applying Fuel Cells to Agricultural Waste Streams" Frank Thompson, Biomass Fuel Cell Council (Co-Authors: J. Stark, P. Patel and E. Simpkins)
* "Evaluation of Biomass Gasification Fuel Cell System" P. Patel, Energy Research Corporation
* "Ethanol for Transportation and Small Fuel Cell Power Systems" W.L. Mitchell, EPYX Corporation (Co-Authors: , J.M. Bentley, R.W. Derby and M. Sun)

5:00 - 7:00 p.m. Reception in the Trade Show. Authors will present posters. Exhibit Hall B, Level One
Dinner on Own - Inquire at the Registration Desk for a listing of local restaurants.

 

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

 

From fkuzel at cglg.org Tue Sep 29 13:48:11 1998
From: fkuzel at cglg.org (Fred Kuzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BioEnergy '98 conference
Message-ID: <01BDEBAA.3D05CD40@ts008d43.chi-il.concentric.net>

BioEnergy '98 will take place October 4-8 in Madison, Wisconsin. For detailed information on the conference, including registration forms, check our web site at www.cglg.org/bioenergy98 or email Fred Kuzel at fkuzel@cglg.org Here's what you'll miss if you don't attend:

Tuesday, October 6, 1998 "Business & Power"

7:00 - 8:30 a.m. Breakfast in the Trade Show and Conference Posters - Exhibit Hall B, Level One
7:00 - 8:30 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 - Ballroom A & B, Level Four
8:30 - 9:30 a.m. Keynote Address: "25 Years After the Oil Embargo" James Woolsey, Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency, and the "United States' Vision for Biomass Energy" Dan Reicher, Undersecretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
9:30 - 10:30 a.m. "Restructuring the Electric Utility Industry, Can Biomass Compete?"
Moderator: Val Jensen, Director, U.S. Department of Energy, Chicago Regional Support Office
Panelists:
* Rich Sedano, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service
* Bill Spratley, The LEAP (Electric Restructuring) Newsletter
* Dave Allen, Wheelabrator Environmental
10:30 a.m. Refreshments - Grand Terrace, Level Four
10:45 - 12:30 p.m. Concurrent Sessions III
LANDFILL GAS - Hall of Ideas G
Session Leader: Ed Coe, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
* "Development of a Hybrid Mechanistic Landfill Gas Generation Model Incorporating Enzymatic Reaction Fundamentals" David R. Finley, Tri-State University (Co-Authors: R. H. Kummler)
* "Landfill Gas-Impacts of Trace Contaminants on Equipment Performance" John Cosulich, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
* "Landfill Gas-to-Energy-Case Study of Electrical Generation and Asphalt Plant Fuel" Dan Magoun, National Serv-All, Inc. (Co-Authors: M. Michels, R. Tekach)
* "Perspectives on CNG, LNG-to-Pipeline, and Other Projects" Jerrel Branson, Ecogas
* "Developing Landfill Gas-to-Energy Projects Under Different Conditions" Ed Coe, Landfill Methane Outreach Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S BIOPOWER PROGRAM - Ballroom A & B
Session Leader: Rick Handley, Northeast Regional Biomass Energy Program
* "Overview of the Chariton Valley Switchgrass Project: A Part of the Biomass Power for Rural Development Initiative" Jim Cooper, Chariton Valley RC&D (Co-Authors: M. Braster, E. Woolsey)
* "Minnesota Agri-Power Project: New Technologies to Convert Farm-Grown Biomass to Electricity" David Wilbur, MnVAP (Co-Authors S. Shurts and C. V. Hanson)
* "The DOE Small Modular Biopower Initiative - Status & Plans" Dave Boron, U.S. Department of Energy
* "Role of Biomass in Carbon Management" Raymond Costello and Helena Li Chum, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
* "The Salix Consortium - A Partnership for Bioenergy Commercialization" Edwin H. White, University of New York-Syracuse (Co-Authors: E.F. Neuhauser, L.P. Abrahamson, T.A. Volk, W.H. Benjamin, J.M. Peterson, E. Gray, C. Demeter and C. Lindsey)

ADVANCED CONCEPTS IN ENERGY CONVERSION - Hall of Ideas H & I
Session Leader: Evan Hughes, Electric Power Research Institute
* "Synergies in Cogasification of Biomass with Coal: Promoted Reactivity of Char in the Process" Guanxing Chen, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden (Co-Authors: Q. Yu, C. Brage, C. Rosén and K. Sjöström)
* "High Efficiency Bioenergy Steam Power Plant" K.W. Ragland, University of Wisconsin-Madison (Co-Author: D. Ostlie)
* "Combustion Performance of Carbonized Animal Manures and Other Agricultural Residues" Michael Klosky, EnerTech Environmental (Co-Author: V. M. Zamansky)
* "Bed Mixing Dryer - An Advanced and Cost Effective Steam Drying Technology for Biofuels and Sludges" Seppo Hulkkonen, IVO Power Engineering, Finland (Co-Author: O. Heinonen)
* "Linking Ethanol and Electricity Production at Existing Coal Fired Power Plants" James Easterly, DynCorp

BIOMASS CO-BURNING - Hall of Ideas E & F
Session Leader: Phil Goldberg, U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Technology Center
* "Biomass Cofiring R&D and Utility Experiences: What's Happened, What's Next?" Mark Freeman, Federal Energy Technology Center, U.S. Department of Energy (Co-Authors: P. M. Goldberg, and S. I. Plasynski)
* "Cofiring in Cyclone Boilers Using Powder River Basin Coal: Test Results" David Tillman, Foster Wheeler (Co-Authors: C. Newell, P. Hus, E. Hughes, K. Therkelsen)
* "Demonstration Program for Wood/Coal Cofiring in Western Pennsylvania Stokers" James T. Cobb, Jr., University of Pittsburgh (Co-Authors: W. W. Elder, M. C. Freeman, R. A. James, L. R. McCreery, W. Biedenbach, and W. E. Burnett)
* "Co-firing Switchgrass in a 50 MW Pulverized Coal Utility Boiler" J. Aerts, University of Wisconsin-Madison (Co-Author: K.W. Ragland)
* "Cofiring Biomass with Coal" Allen Robinson, Sandia National Lab (Co-Author: L. Baxter)

Work Group Discussion: Ethanol Vehicle Challenge
Discussion Leader: Bob Larson, Argonne National Laboratory
* This Work Group will focus on a review of the 1998 Ethanol Vehicle Challenge (EVC) program and results. Participating schools will relate their experiences and the EVC video will be shown. Participating universities include Crowder College, Missouri, University of California-Riverside, University of Illinois-Chicago.

12:30 - 2:30 p.m. Lunch in the Trade Show and Conference Posters - Exhibit Hall B, Level One
This is your last chance to cast your vote for the Best Booth at the Trade Show. Your ballot automatically enters you in a Grand Prize drawing. The Best Booth and Grand Prize drawing winner will be announced during lunch.

TOURS: Concurrent Off-Site Local Technical Tours
Buses will load at 2:30.

2:30 - 5:00 p.m. 1. Co-burning Tour
* Tour Leader: Danny Aerts, University of Wisconsin - Mechanical Engineering Department
* 2:30 - 5:30 p.m. 2. Small Industrial Wood Burning
* Tour Leader: Ben Paulos, Union of Concerned Scientists
* 2:30 - 5:30 p.m. 3. Biogas Tour
* Tour Leader: Alex DePillis, Wisconsin Department of Administration - Energy Bureau
* 2:30 - 4:15 p.m. Concurrent Sessions IV

BIOMASS RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - Hall of Ideas E & F
Mark Downing, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
* "Management Guide for the Production of Switchgrass for Biomass Fuel in Southern Iowa" Alan Teel, Iowa State University
* ""European Energy Crops Internetwork" Douwe van den Berg, BTG Biomass Technology Group, The Netherlands (Co-Authors: R. Venendaal and J. Vos)
* "Economic Comparison: Alfalfa Biomass Rotation vs. Corn-Soybean Rotation" Douglas G. Tiffany, University of Minnesota
* 'Developing Switchgrass into a Biomass Fuel Crop for the Midwestern USA" Kenneth P. Vogel, USDA-ARS, Nebraska (Co-Author: R.A. Masters)

BIODIESEL PRODUCTION AND USE - Hall of Ideas G
Shaine Tyson, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
* "Quality Fuel Production and Support of the Over-the-Road Operational Demonstration" C.L. Peterson, University of Idaho, (Co-Authors: J. C. Thompson, G. A. Lowe, J. S. Taberski, P. T. Mann and C. L. Chase)
* 'Comparative Engine Performance and Emissions Testing Results" J.S. Taberski, University of Idaho
* "The OxyDiesel Fuel Project" Norman Marek, Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs
* "Cheaper Biodiesel Through a Reduction in Transactions Costs" Don Van Dyne, University of Missouri (Co-Author: M. G. Blase)

ETHANOL PRODUCTION - Hall of Ideas H & I
Mary Wertschnig, Renewable Fuels Association
* "Reducing the Effect of Inhibitors in Lignocellulosic Fermentations" A.R. Barber, University of Melbourne, Australia (Co-Authors: H.Hansson, G.J. Dumsday, N.B. Pamment)
* "Fermentation of Strongly Inhibiting Wood Hydrolzates Using Fed-batch Technique" Mohammad J. Taherzadeh, Chalmers University of Technology, Gotenborg, Sweden (Co-Authors: C. Niklasson, L. Gustafsson, G. Lidén)
* "Ethanol Production from Dry-Mill Corn Starch in a Fluidized-bed Bioreactor" M. S. Krishnan, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Co-Authors: N. P. Nghiem and B. H. Davison)
* "Non-synthetic Cellulosic Textile Feedstock Resource Assessment" Tim Rooney, NEOS Corporation (Co-Authors: S. Haase, P. Badger)
* "Genetic Engineering of Pichia Stipitis for the Improved Fermentation of Xylose," T.W. Jeffries, USDA Forest Products Lab, (Co-Authors: N.Q. Shi, J.Y. Cho, P. Lu, K. Dahn, J. Hendrick, H.K. Sreenath and B.P. Davis)
DOE SMALL MODULAR BIOPOWER PROGRAM CONTRACTOR REPORTS, Hall of Ideas J.
Session Leader: Kevin Craig, National Renewable Energy Lab
* Ten DOE contractors will be describing their projects.
4:15 - 5:45 p.m. Workgroup Discussion: "State and Local Governments as Biomass Markets and Strategic Partners"
Discussion Leader: Don Wichert, Wisconsin Department of Administration - Energy Bureau and Vicki Mastaitis, Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Hall of Ideas E & F
* The Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) is a non-profit organization representing state and municipal energy offices, federal laboratories, and energy educational and advocacy organizations across the United States. IREC members seek to expand the use of renewable energy through cooperation and information sharing about state government policy and procurement. This workshop will define IREC's biomass programs and give examples of state procurement and biomass market and research opportunities in a number of states. A facilitated open discussion will focus on developing methods, techniques and partners to accelerate adoption of bioenergy technologies. Don Wichert (WI), Chair-IREC's biomass subcommittee and Vicki Mastaitis (NY), Chair of IREC will lead the session. A reception will be held on the Monona Terrace Rooftop (weather permitting) directly after the meeting. The workshop discussion will be useful for government representatives, renewable energy organizations and businesses wishing to establish new markets through collaborative efforts.
Dinner On Own
Inquire at the Registration Desk for a list of local restaurants.

 

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

 

From tom at planetarypub.com Tue Sep 29 21:03:26 1998
From: tom at planetarypub.com (Tom Beckman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: U.S. Gasifier Manufacturers?
Message-ID: <v04011714b23734f4a9a5@[205.178.118.4]>

I'm looking for U.S.-based gasifier manufactureres. The gasifier I'm looking for would run a 60 kW generator. Thanks.

Tom

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Beckman P.O. Box 66 831-338-2161
Planetary Publications Boulder Creek, CA 95006 831-338-9861 fax
tom@planetarypub.com http://www.planetarypub.com
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Tue Sep 29 22:20:32 1998
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gassification vs. Burning
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199809300042400985@classic.msn.com>

Looks like Mr. Rabello has a very valid point. On paper, things seem to have
promise, but in reality they may not. You can always tell when something
will
work and when it wont by the following:
does it have to be subsidized....guaranteed failure
is the free market producing it....promising future

Kudos to the Alaskans for the wood furnace thing. You see those all over the
world. I sure wish I knew that they were spending so much $$.
My units do the same specs plus....they give up to 10 kw of juice.
It must be a time thing. Thanks to y2k, I cant deliver in less than 50
days.

I think that gasification makes sense if the investment in the material
handling can be offset by whatever byproduct the unit will produce (and that
would include amortization). This usually means getting back at least 3-4
dollars per ton of biomass.
At the current prices of mulch, that doesn't seem like an option at this time.
skip
sensible steam
www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/6362
146942@msn.com

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Sep 29 23:14:18 1998
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: U.S. Gasifier Manufacturers?
Message-ID: <bb84cfb9.3611a465@aol.com>

What is the fuel?
TomTaylor,
Thermogenics Inc.
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From valmari at valmari.pp.fi Tue Sep 29 23:15:59 1998
From: valmari at valmari.pp.fi (Teemu)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "WANTED": mass and energy balances
Message-ID: <199809300315.XAA22484@solstice.crest.org>

id RAA02625
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification

Hi,

We have computed lots of different kind of biomass gasification and
combustion systems. Mass and energy balances are calculated on Excel
speadsheet using steam and gas property and unit libraries. These models
are freely available from htpp://finnfuture.bizhosting.com (and
htpp://www.kolumbus.fi/finnfuture).

Sincerely,

Teemu Valmari
Finnfuture (LSD Oy)
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 fkuzel at cglg.org Wed Sep 30 10:54:58 1998
From: fkuzel at cglg.org (Fred Kuzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BioEnergy '98 conference
Message-ID: <01BDEC5B.388596E0@ts008d43.chi-il.concentric.net>

It's almost here! BioEnergy '98 begins in Madison, Wisconsin this Sunday, October 4 at the Frank Lloyd Wright-designed Monona Terrace Conference Center. You don't want to miss it. Here's a run down of the talks, tours, and fund that will take place on Wednesday. If you have questions, please contact me at fkuzel@cglg.org or check out our web site at www.cglg.org/bioenergy98 You can register on-line and get a complete program listing.

Wednesday, October 7 "Biofuels & Resources"

7:00 - 8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast, Grand Terrace
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 - Ballroom A & B, Level Four
8:15 - 8:45 a.m. Keynote Address: "Biofuels Marketplace and Policy," Eric Vaughn, President and Chief Executive Officer, Renewable Fuels Association
8:45 - 10:15 a.m. "Cellulosic Ethanol Development and Commercialization"
Moderator: John Ferrell, Director, Biofuels Systems Division, U.S. Department of Energy
Panelists:
* Necy Sumait, Manager of Regulatory Affairs, Arkenol, Inc.
* Steve Gatto, President and Chief Executive Officer, BC International
* Jeff Passmore, Executive Vice President, IOGEN Corporation
* Daryl Harms, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Masada Resource Group
* Robert Walker, President, SWAN Biomass

10:15 a.m. Refreshments - Grand Terrace, Level Four
10:30 - 12:00 p.m. Concurrent Sessions V
FARM DIGESTERS - Hall of Ideas J
Session Leader: Phillip Badger, Southeastern Regional Biomass Energy Program
* "A Case Study of Michigan Farm-Based Anaerobic Digestion: Suggestions for Building Successful Farm-Based Bioenergy Systems" Jack Rozdilsky, Michigan State University
* "A Membrane Bioreactor Coupled to an Ammonia Stripper and a RO Unit Enabling Conversion of Manure and Slurry into Energy, Concentrated Fertilizer and Potable Water: The BIOREK Principl" Birgir Norddahl, Bioscan Engineering, Denmark (Co-Author: L. Roholt)
* "Economic Projections in Feasibility Studies for Biogas Production by Anaerobic Digestion" James A. Isom, Armor Engineering (Co-Author: A. E. Isom)
* "Benefits, Costs and Operating Experience at Seven New Agricultural Anaerobic Digesters" Mark Moser, Resource Conservation Management (Co-Author: R. Mattock, S. Gettier, K. Roos)
* "Facultative Digestion Aided by NADPH: Flavodixin Oxidoreductase" Leonard Matz, Matz & Associates
BIOENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT - Hall of Ideas E & F
Session Leader: Marie Walsh, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
* "Corn Stover Potential for Bioethanol Production" David Glassner, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Co-Authors: J. R. Hettenhaus, T. M. Schechinger)
* "Custom Farming, Interest Among Alabama Farmers in Growing Switchgrass for Energy" David I. Bransby, Auburn University
* "Farmer Attitudes Towards Utilization of Field Residues: Implications for Energy Conservation and Policy" William J. Bluemle, University of Nebraska (Co-Author: E. González-Clements)
* "Estimating Energy Crop Production Regions, Quantities, and Prices" Marie Walsh, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Co-Authors: D. De La Torre Ugarte, S. Slinsky, R. L. Graham, H. Shapouri, D. Ray)

ENERGY SYSTEM RESIDUE MITIGATION - Hall of Ideas G
Session Leader: Art Wiselogel, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
* "Particulate Emission Control Optimization in Sugar Cane Bagasse Boilers" Electo Silva Lora, Federal Engineering School of Itajuba, Brazil (Co-Author: Msc. Istvan Hervas Játiva)
* "The Environmental Implications of Providing Electricity from Coal in Three Likely Scenarios for Comparison with Biomass Technologies" Pamela L. Spath, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, et al.
* "Strategies to Reduce the Ash Content in Perennial Grasses" Roger Samson, Resource Efficient Agricultural Production-Canada (Co-Author: B. Mahdi)
* "Urban Wood Waste Resources in 30 U.S. Metropolitan Areas" George Wiltsee, Appel Consultants

ETHANOL UTILIZATION - Hall of Ideas H & I
Session Leader: David Loos, Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs
* "A Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Fuels" John Van Pelt, Illinois Dept. of Commerce & Community Affairs
* "Mankato State University's Dedicated E85 Fuel Vehicle: Conversion Techniques, Test Results and a Review of the 1998 Ethanol Vehicle" Kirk Ready, Mankato State University, Minnesota
* "National Overview of the E-85 Program" Mike Roelofs, Minnesota Department of Public Service
* "High Ethanol Fuel Blend's Effect on Emissions from Small Utility Engines" Damen Bresnahan, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (Co-Author: J. Reisel)

POWER MARKETING OPPORTUNITIES - Ballroom A & B
Session Leader: Rick Handley, Northeast Regional Biomass Energy Program
* "Agricultural Cooperatives and Marketing Bioenergy Crops: Case Studies of Emerging Cooperative Development of Agriculture and Energy" Mark Downing, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Co-Authors: C. Demeter, M. Braster, C. Hanson, G. Larson, and T. Volk)
* "Commercial Opportunities for Biomass-Fueled Combined Heat and Power" Ronald P. Belval, Burlington Electric Department, Vermont
* "Evaluation of Biomass Utilization Options in the Lake Tahoe Basin" Scott Haase, NEOS Corporation, et al.
* "Experiences from Several Commercial Biomass Power Plants in Finland" Seppo Hulkkonen, IVO Power Engineering, Finland (Co-Author: M. Äijälä)
* "Pellet Consumers in Austria, USA, and Sweden" J. Vinterbäck, Swedish University of Agriculture (Co-Authors: A. Roos, R. Folk, C. Rakos, A. Grübl)

12:00 - 1:15 p.m. Lunch: Evjue Rooftop Garden, Monona Terrace (rain site Exhibit Hall A)
* Max Schauk will perform an aerial show with his bi-plane powered by fuel ethanol.
* Luncheon Address: "The Value of Biomass as an Energy Feedstock" David Morris, Vice-President, Institute for Local Self-Reliance
1:15 - 2:15 p.m. "Agriculture and the Bioenergy Industry" - Evjue Rooftop Garden, Monona Terrace (rain site Exhibit Hall A)
Moderator: Janet Cushman, Bioenergy Feedstock Development Program, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Panelists:
* Roger Conway, Director, Office of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture
* Ben Brancel, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
* John McClelland, Director of Energy & Analysis, National Corn Growers Association
* Randy Schwake, President, Securities State Bank and Co-Founder, Al-Corn Clean Fuels Coop
* Nicholas Hollis, Agribusiness Council, Inc.

TOURS: Concurrent Off-Site Local Technical Tours
2.30 - 5:00 p.m. 4. U.S. Forest Products Laboratory
* Tour Leader: Alex DePillis, Wisconsin Department of Administration - Energy Bureau
* 2:30 - 5:30 p.m. 5. Energy Crops
* Tour Leader: Ben Paulos, Union of Concerned Scientists
* 2:30 - 5:00 6. University of Wisconsin Arboretum Tour
* Tour Leader: Nicole Graf, Bryan & Bryan Inc.
* 2:30 - 4:00 p.m. Concurrent Sessions VI
GASIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT - Hall of Ideas H & I
Session Leader: Kevin Craig, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
* "Current Status of the Hawaiian Biomass Gasification Facility" Benjamin C. Wiant, Westinghouse Power (Co-Authors: Bruce Bryan and Thomas Miles Jr.)
* "Indirectly Heated Fluidized Bed Biomass Gasification Using a Latent Heat Ballast" Ryan Pletka, Iowa State University (Co-Authors: R. Brown, J. Smeenk)
* "Progress of Piston Engine/Downdraft Channel Gasifier Integration Testing" Robert Stwalley, Stwalley & Stwalley (Co-Author: C. S. Stwalley)
* "Depowering of a Once-Through Coal and Natural Gas Fired PC-Boiler" Folke Engstrom, Foster Wheeler Development Corporation

BIOMASS CO-FIRING - Hall of Ideas E & F
Session Leader: Ken Ragland, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Mechanical Engineering
* "Biomass Co-firing with Coal at Lakeland Florida Utilities" Seagrest, S.A. (Co-Authors: D. L. Rockwood, J. A. Stricker, A. E. S. Green, W. H. Smith, and D. R. Carter)
* "Cofiring Wood Waste with Coal in a Wall-fired Boiler: Initiating a Three-year Demonstration Program" Joseph Battista, GPU Genco badge.
How to get there by foot and bicycle....take the pedestrian and bicycle path which traverses along the lake front of Monona Terrace Convention Center and go south (turn right) on path about 1.75 miles to the Olin Park.
How to get there by boat....pontoon rides from Monona Terrace will depart 5:00, 5:30, 6:00 and 6:30. Get there early to ensure you'll get a ride. Space is limited!
How to get there by motor vehicle....shuttle rides will depart about every twenty minutes from the Level Four entrance of Monona Terrace.

 

 

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

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Sep 30 14:59:47 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:45 2004
Subject: GAS-L: U.S. Gasifier Manufacturers?
Message-ID: <199809301510_MC2-5B22-4E11@compuserve.com>

Dear Tom Taylor et al:

As webmaster here at GASIFICATION I am puzzled by Tom Taylor's message
below. While E-mail makes possible easy communication, we should not be
TOO cryptic. Give a little context, or attach the original message. (I'll
probably see it later as I go through my 40 messages today.)

Also, remember that when you reply to GASIFICATION@CREST.ORG you are
talking to several hundred interested parties. If you are addressing only
one person, you may need to add his/her address and then delete
GASIFICATION, or others may read what you want to keep private.

So, "What is the fuel?" What is the question?

TOM REED

Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>
What is the fuel?
TomTaylor,
Thermogenics Inc.
<

 

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