April 1999 Gasification Archive

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Mon Apr 5 14:00:01 1999
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Smelting with bio-gas
Message-ID: <UPMAIL02.199904051759020487@classic.msn.com>

While using my large boilers with the 5'x5' firebox, that has the duraboard
and cerablanket refractory, it seems easier to get a bright red glow from the
expanded metal that protects it.
I am now thoroughly convinced that what is happening is a catalytic reaction
from the carbon monoxide caught between the expanded metal and the surface of
the duraboard.
I quantify this by stating:
A 'cool' wood fire that is 2-3' away is obviously not hot enough to get the
metal that hot.
There is a large concentration of CO falling down from the top of the chamber
uniting with oxygen, all this on the surface of the walls.
The action is most vigorous where the surface is even coarser (cerablanket vs.
duraboard).
The radiation is so intense that it smokes the handle of a shovel immediately
even outside the fire door or about 4 feet from the actual fire. these are
some long rays!
In boilers with brick type refractory, this action is not even noticable.
Same with the radiation.

Conclusion: CO combustion extends very long ray type radiation
There is definite catalytic reaction occuring on the surfaces between the
ceramic hairs and expanded metal.

Temperatures of up to 2000 degrees (F) are easily obtained by CO and other
waste gases from simple catalytic reaction. This process also is yielding a
positive delta H heat value.

Now, I would submit to all on this board that making electricity is an
expensive rabbit to chase. The idea is to show a profit with this so called
bio-gas, gassification, or whatever silly educated name you want to put on
what us boiler folks have always called 'combustion'.
It seems to me that a bright future is available by taking this cellulose and
allowing it to combust in a chamber with extensive ceramic fibers covered with
stainless steel perhaps even a coating of platinum ($?) and achieving temps of
2500 degrees quite easily and cleanly. Aside from the oxidation of the
nitrogen, and it's resulting pollution, these temperatures are ideal for
SMELTING of basic non-ferrous metals and perhaps even the refining of such?
The profit from this type of operation obviously is greater than creating
methanes, electricity or other currently used modus operendi. If nothing
else, start up capital is dramatically less.

As an aside, I can tell you that these type of furnaces make one hell of a
clean burning dry bottom boiler! Mr. Zebly is familiar with my 120' boilers
and I'll bet he is amazed that I get steam in 20 minutes from start up time
and full power in 30 minutes. (that's approx. 100 gals water and 1200 lbs of
steel going from 50 degrees to 330 degrees.) you do the math....

Wadda ya tink, guys?

Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam
Branson, MO
www.sensiblesteam.com

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

From VHarris001 at aol.com Mon Apr 5 21:50:44 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Vibratory Conveyors & Gasifiers
Message-ID: <47878dd8.243ac248@aol.com>

Dear Gasification list,

I just run across another problem with vibratory conveyors. It seems that
when manufactured, they are "tuned" for desired performance. Aparently,
variations in the load of material from original design "detunes" the
conveyor and can impede performance. In a continuous feed situation one may
be able to work around this problem without too much difficulty. However, in
a batch feed operation, this limitation could cause considerable difficulty,
either not conveying ash out - or perhaps even conveying out too much ash.

Anyone have any experience with "detuning?"

Thanks,
Vernon Harris
VHarris001@aol.com

>>The only problem I immediately forsee is that additional turbulance will
cause
additional ash carryover.

Subj: GAS-L: Vibratory Conveyors & Gasifiers
Date: 3/19/99 12:09:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: VHarris001@aol.com
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Reply-to: <A
HREF="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org</A>
To: gasification@crest.org

Does anyone in the gasification group have experience with or knowledge about
vibratory conveyors? I've been looking into problems arising from the
gasification project I'm working on and think that vibratory conveyors may
simultaneously provide a good solution to several problems. A vibratory
conveyor should solve the problem of bridging and channeling without having to
introduce a stirrer (and associated air seals and cooling). A vibratory
conveyor should solve the ash removal problem without having to introduce a
screw conveyor (and associated air seals). A vibratory conveyor should assist
in stabilization of the deep bed or assist in bed fluidization as the case may
be.

Vibratory conveyors can be made infinitely variable from zero to 100%
conveyance, will convey dry material up a 20 % incline, have no moving parts
on the conveyor bed (electromagnetic vibratory conveyors have no moving parts
at all), are reasonably quiet, and don't need to be built with alloys like
stirrers and augers.

For controlling bridging and channeling, the vibrator can remain active
without actually conveying material. When ash needs to be removed, the
conveyor action can be started and ash can be removed as needed.

The only problem I immediately forsee is that additional turbulance will cause
additional ash carryover. However, this may actually be a benefit since ash
needs to be removed from the fuel surface so that oxygen has better contact
with the fuel surface.

Conveyors can be built in any size or capacity. Even small conveyors (18" in
width) can convey up to 100 tons per hour of sand or stone, so I would think a
very small conveyor could be used on gasifiers. Does anyone know of specific
manufacturers they would recommend or have an idea about approximate cost?

Any feedback on benefits/problems would be greatly appreciated.

Vernon Harris
VHarris001@aol.com<<
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From VHarris001 at aol.com Tue Apr 6 21:39:52 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Conversion Buddy Freeware
Message-ID: <7a9bc52.243c10a2@aol.com>

Dear Gasification Group & Stovers,

If you are like me, constantly struggling with conversions from metric to US
measurements and back again, you should check out this web site. Conversion
Buddy is a freeware (free) conversion program with about 1700 factors, and is
customizable. Also available - Expression Buddy, which interprets
expressions containing up to 51 variables.

http://users.ntr.net/~jpresley/

For other conversion programs and info available, check out:

http://chemengineer.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa041398.htm?terms=standard&CO
B=home

Vernon Harris
VHarris001@aol.com
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Apr 7 09:47:53 1999
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: .._way_ off topic, becomes: Forrest Gump in Kosovo...
Message-ID: <370B5E54.89D8B72E@c2i.net>

Hi,

..this may not be the smartest thing I've done, anyway, I'm setting
up a website at
URL: http://home.c2i.net/arnt/war.htm
..I welcome mirroring but must advice you my opinions are likely
controversial.
..I suspect "somebody" may want to do a websearch after me, this may
again cause some more off-topic email, so each of you may want to review
your email filtering policy.
Do not respond to this message here in the gas list, or else
;-) you get and stay trapped in my email-filter...
..URL: http://home.c2i.net/arnt/war.htm
is where I try to get across to the Serb, the European and the American
public, the Exact Legal Motivation of the Kosovani War. I will also
post the Url to a few select usenet newsgroups.
..the 4 Geneva Conventions of Aug. 12'th 1949 Require that All Combattants
Protect All Civilians. Failure to do this, is a War Crime and the exact
cause of what we see in Kosovo these days.
..my message is: Strict Compliance to the 4 Conventions is a Powerful
Weapon which will win wars for you, because there are no POW's or Civilians
at danger, and consequently No Legal Reason to intervene. The Correct
treatment of Civilians may Earn Your Side WWII style Liberation Celebration
scenes. This knowledge will boost Your Combat Morale and secure your won
victory and future peace, because there is nothing to revenge.
..to drive home this message, I document a few known failures on
our side, an how-to win war for pasifists, the fact that Norway was
Christianized thru' what is now known as war crimes and that the Head of
the armed forces in Norway is a soldier and, as such, in war, a legal military
target for the Serb Military. Knowing that we here speak of HM King Harald
V, may help you appreciate the flak, I am in for.
...another national icon I target, is our(?) military clandestine
services, which I suspect may have some more knowledge of a few unfortunate
deaths than the local police forces around, does. I hope to be able to
find out the nice way.
..yet another national icon I target, is our Ambassador to Denmark,
Mr Thorvald Stoltenberg. As you may know, this fine man served as Peace
Negotiator in the Croatian and Bosnian War. Unfortunately, he also served
as Chief of UNPROFOR, where he failed his military responsibility to
protect the Civilian Serbs in Krajina, according to his own book and
his sworn statement to the Lund Commission on our(?) services above.
..the "Nato" intervention is Legally Motivated in International Law
and Justice, to Enforce it by stopping Genocide, Rape and Pillage, and
bring Suspect War Criminals to Trial.
This means we must also bring in our own, or else, why should the
Serb suspect war criminals, face trial?
..I finally document the fact that my home town may become a Legal target
for a nuclear strike, because a Nato Command Center has been placed here,
in the middle of the 160 000 resident metropolitan area of Stavanger, Norway.
Find details in Articles 35, 37, 51, 56.2c and 58b of the Protocol
Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12'th 1949 and relating
to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol
I), of June 8'th 1977.
..the Qualified assumption that a reasonably higher
number
of Civilian lives can be saved by a preventive nuclear strike
here, may even force an obligation, to do the nuclear
strike.
Knowing this, we also see that Such a thermo-nuclear Strike can be
faked to provoke a retaliatory nuclear strike and war, onto a likely
scapegoat.
..ah, no, I do not like getting this kinda news myself.
I
hope
I am right in bringing them.
Arnt Karlsen

From mlefcort at compuserve.com Fri Apr 9 15:43:58 1999
From: mlefcort at compuserve.com (Malcolm D. Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 5 MW Biomass Gasification Cogen Plant in UK
Message-ID: <199904091542_MC2-713E-E4F7@compuserve.com>

Jeff,

I don't know anthing about the Typhoon GT project.

However, I just wanted to pass on to you and Phil the news that B+V
Industrietechnik GmbH of Hamburg, Germany, paid for CO and NOx tests on one
of the two Lamb Wet Cell Burners at Northwood Panelboard in Solway, MN,
which have been operating continuously for 18 years. We met 1 ppm and 130
ppm by volume as measured, respectively.

We are now working our way through a manufacturing licensing agreement with
B+V for the European market. B+V is a subsidiary of Thyssen AG. HEW, a
Hamburg electric utility, wants a 40 MW steam plant featuring two 70
Million Btu/h EnvirOcyclers and two waste heat boilers up and running by
the end of 2000.

The plan is to build and test a 15 Million Btu/h PDU (Btu/h Process
Development Unit) in Prince George, BC this summer and then build the
larger EnvirOcyclers for HEW in Europe starting in the beginning of 2000.
Amongst the fuels to be tested are sewage sludge, poultry litter, etc.

Regards,

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

From mlefcort at compuserve.com Fri Apr 9 16:32:10 1999
From: mlefcort at compuserve.com (Malcolm D. Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Apology
Message-ID: <199904091631_MC2-713A-1DF3@compuserve.com>

List Members,

I apologize for inadvertently allowing a private note to appear on this
list.

I obviously negleted to check whether Jeff's note was to me or to the
gasification list when I hit the "reply" button.

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

From willy at sltnet.lk Sun Apr 11 04:49:56 1999
From: willy at sltnet.lk (W.B.Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fluidyne Gasifiers?
Message-ID: <199904111946.OAA24362@laknet.slt.lk>

Colombo, Sri
Lanka

(1) To: Mr.Doug Williams, of Fluidyne.

Are you out there? We swapped quite a bit of correspondence by FAX,
several years ago. But don't have your email address. Is Fluidyne still in
business? Please contact me at the temporary e-mail address below.

(2) To: "Woodmiser" or possibly "Woodmizer".

I've heard a little about your products, but don't know where to
find you. If you're on this mailing list, please contact me.

(3) And finally, I'm interested in hearing from anybody who is interested
in selling briquetting machines, specific for use with sawdust, bagasse or
rice hulls, in the South Asian area in general.

Many Thanks.

William B.
Hauserman
Hauserman
Associates, Inc.
willy@sltnet.lk

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Apr 11 12:06:56 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Producer gas storage
Message-ID: <feae5721.24422288@cs.com>

Anil, Dale, and all...

It is generally accepted that it is not possible to store significant
quantities of producer gas.

However,
1 m3 gas (@5 MJ/nm3) will produce about
1.5 kWh th;
300 Wh power;
½ hr of cooking (@ 3kW);
6 hr light (50 W mantle lamp equivalent):
? refrigeration using Servel cycle

so there is a lot of incentive to store a few m3. Also it is found that
storing the gas helps clean it. Also decouples gasifier operation from gas
use.

Dale Costich(@pacifier.com) has been using an "ag bag" for storing producer
gas from his gasifier for 5 years. It is monstrous. Tell us more, Dale.

Anil Rajvanshi has developed a mantle lamp for operation on ethanol and
cooking. Tell us more, Anil. I presume we could more easily make a mantle
lamp for producer gas. I once had a travel trailer with a neat ~50W mantle
lamp running on propane.

Does anyone know the gas consumption of the gas refrigerators such as we had
in our trailer?

Does anyone have improved ways of storing gas???

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Apr 11 12:07:23 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: SURFACE COMBUSTION BURNERS
Message-ID: <e2967c3e.24422296@cs.com>

Dear Skip:

Surface combustion burners are all the rage today, and I am sure you are
talking about the same effect in your boiler radiation (below).

Usually SCBs have the fuel passing through from the rear and burning within
the outer surface. You see them in outdoor restaurants in mild climates
hotting up the customers with radiant heating. I bought one for about $100
to heat my lab using propane. It is amazing that one feels the heat 5-10
feet away, but no heat if you can't see the surface. Radiation in general
penetrates smoke and gases to carry heat to solid surfaces (like you and me).

Shell makes a special (expensive) alloy called FECRALLOY (FE, iron, CR,
chromium) that is particularly good for this if you need the ultimate in
lifetime and temperature, but stainless and particularly kanthal will be good
too.

Good topic that we all need to know more about, both for efficient radiant
heating and for reducing CO.

TOM REED

While using my large boilers with the 5'x5' firebox, that has the duraboard
and cerablanket refractory, it seems easier to get a bright red glow from the
expanded metal that protects it.
I am now thoroughly convinced that what is happening is a catalytic reaction
from the carbon monoxide caught between the expanded metal and the surface of
the duraboard.
I quantify this by stating:
A 'cool' wood fire that is 2-3' away is obviously not hot enough to get the
metal that hot.
There is a large concentration of CO falling down from the top of the chamber
uniting with oxygen, all this on the surface of the walls.
The action is most vigorous where the surface is even coarser (cerablanket
vs.
duraboard).
The radiation is so intense that it smokes the handle of a shovel immediately

even outside the fire door or about 4 feet from the actual fire. these are
some long rays!
In boilers with brick type refractory, this action is not even noticable.
Same with the radiation.

Conclusion: CO combustion extends very long ray type radiation
There is definite catalytic reaction occuring on the surfaces between
the
ceramic hairs and expanded metal.

Temperatures of up to 2000 degrees (F) are easily obtained by CO and
other
waste gases from simple catalytic reaction. This process also is yielding a
positive delta H heat value.

Now, I would submit to all on this board that making electricity is
an
expensive rabbit to chase. The idea is to show a profit with this so called
bio-gas, gassification, or whatever silly educated name you want to put on
what us boiler folks have always called 'combustion'.
It seems to me that a bright future is available by taking this
cellulose and
allowing it to combust in a chamber with extensive ceramic fibers covered
with
stainless steel perhaps even a coating of platinum ($?) and achieving temps
of
2500 degrees quite easily and cleanly. Aside from the oxidation of the
nitrogen, and it's resulting pollution, these temperatures are ideal for
SMELTING of basic non-ferrous metals and perhaps even the refining of such?
The profit from this type of operation obviously is greater than
creating
methanes, electricity or other currently used modus operendi. If nothing
else, start up capital is dramatically less.

As an aside, I can tell you that these type of furnaces make one
hell of a
clean burning dry bottom boiler! Mr. Zebly is familiar with my 120' boilers
and I'll bet he is amazed that I get steam in 20 minutes from start up time
and full power in 30 minutes. (that's approx. 100 gals water and 1200 lbs of
steel going from 50 degrees to 330 degrees.) you do the math....

Wadda ya tink, guys?

Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam
Branson, MO
www.sensiblesteam.com

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

From costich at pacifier.com Sun Apr 11 13:23:19 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Producer gas storage
Message-ID: <000201be8440$245cfdc0$af8c41d8@compaq>

Tom Reed, Anil and all...

I am honored at your request,to speak with experience regarding the storage
and consumption of wood-gas from a PVC "ag-bag". I firmly believe the
future of cellulosic pyrolysis (for indepedent renewable energy ie. home
power), will use the voluminous storage of the gas product. Not just
because I've coined the process. Imagine this: an accordian like the one I
took those insufferable lessons on as a youth . .only make it B I G. yes
an accordian that responds like a suction pump when hoisted to the top of a
pully and allowed to suck on a gasification fire, during its expansion.
Then loose the rope thru the top pully and its own weight is the force to
push the gas into the various burners of your dwelling.
Those of us that know gasification as the most efficient process to convert
solid to gas (and absolutely least polluting) and is a most eco-politicallly
benign way to obtain energy freedom, have cooked popcorn to lobsters with
wood gas and I can unequivically tell you that about 10 to 15 gallons of
wood blocks will expand to fill a volume 10' dia X 20' tall ~1000cu.ft and
even after many days of storage will cook food, act as gaseous fuel with
enough energy to run a 8hp Kohler air-cooled generator for an 1 hp output.
(measured 100VDC@7amp). This fuel is so thin I actually inhale the exhaust
from this genset and get no headache (please do not try this at home without
parental supervision). Other externalities include: dumping distillate
juice on anthills and black-berry vines and sprinkleing powdery ash on the
garden. Visiting the cabinet shop with your pickup/or chopping wood. Its
just about that simple--give or take a lifetime of doing things the hard way
even tho it makes perfect sense to me. Dale
-----Original Message-----
From: Reedtb2@cs.com <Reedtb2@cs.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>; akraj@pn2.vsnl.net.in
<akraj@pn2.vsnl.net.in>; costich@pacifier.com <costich@pacifier.com>
Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 9:09 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Producer gas storage

>Anil, Dale, and all...
>
>It is generally accepted that it is not possible to store significant
>quantities of producer gas.
>
>However,
>1 m3 gas (@5 MJ/nm3) will produce about
>1.5 kWh th;
>300 Wh power;
>½ hr of cooking (@ 3kW);
>6 hr light (50 W mantle lamp equivalent):
>? refrigeration using Servel cycle
>
>so there is a lot of incentive to store a few m3. Also it is found that
>storing the gas helps clean it. Also decouples gasifier operation from gas
>use.
>
>Dale Costich(@pacifier.com) has been using an "ag bag" for storing producer
>gas from his gasifier for 5 years. It is monstrous. Tell us more, Dale.
>
>Anil Rajvanshi has developed a mantle lamp for operation on ethanol and
>cooking. Tell us more, Anil. I presume we could more easily make a mantle
>lamp for producer gas. I once had a travel trailer with a neat ~50W mantle
>lamp running on propane.
>
>Does anyone know the gas consumption of the gas refrigerators such as we
had
>in our trailer?
>
>Does anyone have improved ways of storing gas???
>
>Just asking,
> 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 fractional at willmar.com Sun Apr 11 14:13:03 1999
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas fridge burner jet enlargement
Message-ID: <36EF7D33.A3FBAA88@willmar.com>

Hello Dale and list members,

Dales accordion idea really intrigues me as a way to statically set
the pressure on home use producer gas. Sufficient to reliably feed a
gas powered refrigerator.
Given equal ounces of pressure, what might be a good RATIO of
expansion of orifice size (by diameter) to adjust for BTUs for various
values of low grade gas?

Thanks,

Alan

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

From costich at pacifier.com Mon Apr 12 08:17:36 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas fridge burner jet enlargement
Message-ID: <000601be84de$9b474d20$7e8c41d8@compaq>

Alan and list: The accordian analogy taken to its ultimate conclusion will
be the form of flexible attic vent ducting only in 10' dia. (or 20') X h. I
suggest the accordian only to convey the principal. A cylindrical geometry
is best!
My gut feeling is wood gas contains 125 btu @cu.ft. I've been told propane
is 10 times as powerful. The math is no doubt linear. Clearly, any
elimination of Nitrogen during the process would make this energy conversion
more attractive. My mama always told me if wishes were horses then beggars
would ride! I'm thankful that it works at all. The uncertainty of the heat
content of any gas I've made has been too wet fuel, or a dilution of product
gas during storage. You know (by flaring) if your gas is right before you
divert it into storage. There is no room for leaks in the manufacture and
storage of wood gas. There will also be detractors that question the
propriety of the storage medium--to those of you please ponder the
alternatives and say the word Exon to yourself. more on request, Dale
-----Original Message-----
From: fractional@willmar.com <fractional@willmar.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 11:15 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Gas fridge burner jet enlargement

>Hello Dale and list members,
>
> Dales accordion idea really intrigues me as a way to statically set
>the pressure on home use producer gas. Sufficient to reliably feed a
>gas powered refrigerator.
> Given equal ounces of pressure, what might be a good RATIO of
>expansion of orifice size (by diameter) to adjust for BTUs for various
>values of low grade gas?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alan
>
>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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Apr 12 09:23:19 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification-A Bridge to the Coming Sustainable World
Message-ID: <d7a424c4.24434da5@cs.com>

Dear Citizens of Two Worlds:

Gasification-A Bridge to the Coming Sustainable World

Before 1800 this could be a great world occasionally for the few, but was
miserable for the masses. The discovery of gasification (mostly of coal)
initiated the Industrial Revolution, and within 50 years the major cities of
the world began to have the ammenities that we now take for granted -
reliable lighting of London and Paris by 1830, home lighting and cooking and
pumped water by 1880. By 1930 every major city in the world had a "gas
works" and city dwellers reaped the benefits of gas. When electricity
arrived, much of it was generated by "gas engines" which preceded small
gasoline engines by several decades. (See Rambush, N. E., Modern Gas
Producers, Benn Bros. Ltd., London, 1923). Note that coal gasification was
never cheap enough to supply home heat or most of our electric power. The
convenience of electric home heat evaporated with Nuclear power "too cheap to
meter".

If the 19th Century was the gasification decade, the 20th Century was the
fossil fuel decade with oil and natural gas supplying the same ammenities and
more even more conveniently and at a lower cost.

Someday - maybe sooner than later - the many costs of oil, and the rising
consumption of oil will make oil and its benefits unavailable to the majority
of the world's 6 billion citizens and we (they) will have to turn to other
energy sources. Natural gas seems to be in better supply and will tide us
over another 50 years if global warming doesn't prevent its use. However,
eventually we will all have to return from fossil to renewable energy. I
hope we can figure out how to maintain our high standard of living on a "pay
as you go" basis. If not - Armegeddon.

Gasification of biomass will be one of the bridges back to the sustainable
world of our ancestors. Biomass gasification easily supplies heat, light and
power, and can even supply convenient liquid fuels (methanol, DME) to drive
our cars. Furthermore, biomass gasification can supply 10 kW to 10 MW at a
much smaller scale, elminating the need to build so much infrastructure for
the unserved parts of the world.

The Small Modular Biomass program of the US Department of Energy is one step
in bringing this dream closer to reality. CREST and particularly the
GASIFICATION and STOVES divisions are bringing ideas out that will move
rapidly that way.

I look forward to rapid progress toward bringing the benefits of biomass
gasification that were briefly experienced during WW II back in modern dress
that will benefit all humanity.

Yours truly, TOM REED The Biomass Energy Foundation

~~~~
This essay is courtesy of waking at 3 AM from a dream of gasification.
Now it's time to get to work on the details.
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From fractional at willmar.com Mon Apr 12 12:37:32 1999
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: accordian gas bags
Message-ID: <37119815.EAC6B821@willmar.com>

Dale and List,

Had not thought of flex duct even though I can obtain it wholesale
where I work as even then it is very expensive. Using 16" material will
hold more for the dollar and make for fewer connections. The stuff is
available in aluminum, aluminized plastic, vinyl, and tough but brittle
and tear-able clear plastic that resembles acetate. The vinyl would
certainly hold up to repeated expansions even in cold weather, but it is
the material that seams to LEAK a lot. Not a problem for a forced air
heating but not good for fuel.

After hearing of Dale's vertical bag idea, a 12' x 12' x20'
ventilated pole barn seamed like an excellent way to protect such a bag
from the elements. My thinking was to put the skin on the inside (poles
outside) and tape the lap joints for a 'smooth' interior for the
accordion. While originally presuming frames to support a squared-up
bag to keep things orderly and prevent rubbing on the enclosure, perhaps
a round simple bag with end plates attached for seals and taps would
save a lot of work. It could then ride in a round inside out pole
building. If frames were still desired, hoops made of 1/2" electrical
conduit with alternating bungee cords would be fast to construct and
easy on bag. This could be hung in anything.
There are some old feed hoppers in the area and I just might grab two
of them and line them plastic. Paint the exteriors and cover with vines.

The local dealer Ag bag dealer has polyethylene and a 'silage' bag
which is a multi-laminate of undeclared construction. Would this silage
bag be PVC? Just curious if the hydrogen was hard on the PP and PVC was
resistant to this, or if PVC bags are less permeable than others for
this purpose.

Thanks,

Alan

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

From mlefcort at compuserve.com Mon Apr 12 16:41:53 1999
From: mlefcort at compuserve.com (Malcolm D. Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: accordian gas bags
Message-ID: <199904121637_MC2-7187-548F@compuserve.com>

It seems to me that not enough attention is being given to the fact that
producer gas is very noxious stuff. I can't count the number of times I
went home after operating our two-stage gasifier with a splitting headache.

Not only is it noxious but, mixed in the right proportions with air, it is
explosive. It may not be politically correct to smoke but many people
still do, particularly in the third world. Lighting a cigarette around a
leaky bag of producer gas can produce disastrous results.

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

From MIHWP at TTACS.TTU.EDU Mon Apr 12 19:41:30 1999
From: MIHWP at TTACS.TTU.EDU (Harry W. Parker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gasification-A Bridge to the Coming Sustainable World
In-Reply-To: <d7a424c4.24434da5@cs.com>
Message-ID: <3712661E.3B9279F5@ttacs.ttu.edu>

Hello Tom and all,

Gasification is the bridge between two worlds as observed by Tom..

Gasification is also a common ground for fossil fuel (coal) and
biofuels to meet since the intermediate product is always CO and H2.
>From this synthesis gas all "petrochemicals" and fuels are possible!!

Gasification of coal is already commercial in the US. The Tenn Eastman
Plant in Knoxville Tenn. It was build and then expanded. This facility
is a large scale operation! Does biomass gasification compete??

I will be very pleased to work with firms who desire to make biomass
gasification compete as per the RFP that has been posted to this same
group from SERI.

Harry

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

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

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

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

From tomb at snowcrest.net Mon Apr 12 20:08:47 1999
From: tomb at snowcrest.net (Tom Blackburn)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Producer gas storage
Message-ID: <001a01be8541$f1dfd860$860466d8@tomblack>

Hello everyone,

First time for me.
What happens to producer gas when it is compressed? Does it decompose,
heat, or desiccate?

Tom Blackburn
----- Original Message -----
From: <Reedtb2@cs.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>; <akraj@pn2.vsnl.net.in>;
<costich@pacifier.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 1999 9:06 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Producer gas storage

>Anil, Dale, and all...
>
>It is generally accepted that it is not possible to store significant
>quantities of producer gas.
>
>However,
>1 m3 gas (@5 MJ/nm3) will produce about
>1.5 kWh th;
>300 Wh power;
>½ hr of cooking (@ 3kW);
>6 hr light (50 W mantle lamp equivalent):
>? refrigeration using Servel cycle
>
>so there is a lot of incentive to store a few m3. Also it is found
that
>storing the gas helps clean it. Also decouples gasifier operation from
gas
>use.
>
>Dale Costich(@pacifier.com) has been using an "ag bag" for storing
producer
>gas from his gasifier for 5 years. It is monstrous. Tell us more,
Dale.
>
>Anil Rajvanshi has developed a mantle lamp for operation on ethanol and
>cooking. Tell us more, Anil. I presume we could more easily make a
mantle
>lamp for producer gas. I once had a travel trailer with a neat ~50W
mantle
>lamp running on propane.
>
>Does anyone know the gas consumption of the gas refrigerators such as
we had
>in our trailer?
>
>Does anyone have improved ways of storing gas???
>
>Just asking,
> 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 LINVENT at aol.com Mon Apr 12 20:31:14 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: accordian gas bags
Message-ID: <535420ef.2443e9fb@aol.com>

Dear gasbaggers,
It seems to me that an efficient, promptly responding, properly sized
gasifier would produce the required amount of gas for matching demand changes
and the use of gas bags is not only dangerous, but large, expensive and ill
suited for a properly engineered facility.
For operations where the demand may fluctuate and the supply is less
than optimum or steady and not responsive to demand such as in biogas
processes from anerobic digestion, it would be appropriate.
Southern California and other areas use large tanks which "float" on
a water seal to provide surge natural gas supplies. These large tanks can be
seen from the freeways near Southern Los Angeles and in Eastern Cities.
One way to adjust the demand requirements is to use larger vessels
for the producer gas and operate under slightly higher pressure than the
normal demand rate and then allow a pressure regulator to drop the pressure
upon demand. We are doing that on the present engine operation which will be
starting up in a few days.
The vessels will contain adequate volumes under pressure to supply the surge
requirements.

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

From jllinsley at hotmail.com Mon Apr 12 23:09:02 1999
From: jllinsley at hotmail.com (justin linsley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gasification-A Bridge to the Coming Sustainable World
Message-ID: <199904130309.XAA14510@solstice.crest.org>

Hi Tom and Harry,
This is Justin Linsley. I am trying to find all the info I can on
methane digesters for hog and chiken litter. I am hoping to help
farmers in my area begin taking advantage of this technology, but I
have to find the info 1st.

P.S. I Have seen in a Popular Mechanics Magazine an article about
power cells for residential use that run on methane that may provide
cleaner power. The question now lies with it's efficientcy rating???

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

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

From costich at pacifier.com Tue Apr 13 10:23:41 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: accordian gas bags
Message-ID: <005901be85b9$6377eb80$9f8941d8@compaq>

Alan: If you were to think of a 10 diameter "slinkey" with a round wire
instead of the flat wound wire and it expanded out into the PVC ag-bag it
would need a silo to contain it but it would not touch the walls as it
collapsed and "accordian rippled". Problem is additive weight! Design in
"nasa" lightness and you will still wish for lighter, The PVC ag-bag seems
to be the "only" choice at this time. 1000 cu ft is a minimum volume to
realistically run in a batch...there are superior materials. If your design
criteria demands that the bellows work in reverse to provide suction for the
aspiration of the gasifier...the membrane must be stable in both in and out
gas pressure forces and not abrade from many hundreds of excursions.
Further, think of being able to tie off the line that controls the "down"
pully that in effect puts your pressure pump "in neutral". (the nature of
the bag is there are pin holes). I think I paid 200 bucks for a 100'
cylinder--contact AG-Bag corp, Oregon.
The perfect way to utilize this would be to run up the temperature of the
gasifier with a small permanent magnet blower until you have good stable
Flare then trip the trigger on the "slinky" 20' up and it will slowly fill
as it descends (like a huge cancerous lung) with nice cool wood-gas. when
the bottom touches down shut of the gasifier. Then its miller time. good
luck, Dale Costich

-----Original Message-----
From: fractional@willmar.com <fractional@willmar.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 9:39 AM
Subject: GAS-L: accordian gas bags

>Dale and List,
>
> Had not thought of flex duct even though I can obtain it wholesale
>where I work as even then it is very expensive. Using 16" material will
>hold more for the dollar and make for fewer connections. The stuff is
>available in aluminum, aluminized plastic, vinyl, and tough but brittle
>and tear-able clear plastic that resembles acetate. The vinyl would
>certainly hold up to repeated expansions even in cold weather, but it is
>the material that seams to LEAK a lot. Not a problem for a forced air
>heating but not good for fuel.
>
> After hearing of Dale's vertical bag idea, a 12' x 12' x20'
>ventilated pole barn seamed like an excellent way to protect such a bag
>from the elements. My thinking was to put the skin on the inside (poles
>outside) and tape the lap joints for a 'smooth' interior for the
>accordion. While originally presuming frames to support a squared-up
>bag to keep things orderly and prevent rubbing on the enclosure, perhaps
>a round simple bag with end plates attached for seals and taps would
>save a lot of work. It could then ride in a round inside out pole
>building. If frames were still desired, hoops made of 1/2" electrical
>conduit with alternating bungee cords would be fast to construct and
>easy on bag. This could be hung in anything.
> There are some old feed hoppers in the area and I just might grab two
>of them and line them plastic. Paint the exteriors and cover with vines.
>
> The local dealer Ag bag dealer has polyethylene and a 'silage' bag
>which is a multi-laminate of undeclared construction. Would this silage
>bag be PVC? Just curious if the hydrogen was hard on the PP and PVC was
>resistant to this, or if PVC bags are less permeable than others for
>this purpose.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alan
>
>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 Apr 13 10:43:14 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: accordian gas bags
Message-ID: <006a01be85bc$1f4f7740$9f8941d8@compaq>

Alan: Another approach that would work is from the square or rectangle.
Suppose an elevator shaft finished inside taped and spackled and painted
sheetrock! Then construct two "cars" that are ultra-light with guide wheels
that rise and fall in the shaft. There edges would be fitted with supple
labrinth seals and there would be soft/complient ball bearing wheels to
assure guidence. This could put the ag-bag thing second? Its really a
large ultra-light grease gun. Dale Costich
-----Original Message-----
From: fractional@willmar.com <fractional@willmar.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 9:39 AM
Subject: GAS-L: accordian gas bags

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

From dfknowles at bigfoot.com Tue Apr 13 10:46:53 1999
From: dfknowles at bigfoot.com (Dave Knowles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: accordian gas bags
In-Reply-To: <37119815.EAC6B821@willmar.com>
Message-ID: <199904131446.KAA07923@solstice.crest.org>

The use of "ag bags" to store combustible gases is highly dangerous.
The reasons are numerous. It is impossible to detect and repair any
pinhole leaks. Remember that this gas has a high carbon monoxide
content. The gas also contains hydrogen, which has a wide flamibility
range and a very fast flame speed. These bags provide no protection
against static electricity, lightning strikes or other unanticipated
ignition sources.

What you do in your own backyard I guess is your own business. But if
an accident occurs, I doubt your insurance will cover your losses (well,
maybe your life). The use of such means for the storage of gaseous
fuels is strictly against codes. These codes, while expensive to comply
with, are meant to protect life and property. Do a little research into
the accidents that occurred when producer (aka, town gas) was widely
used.

You would be much better off to match your production to consumption.

David Knowles, P.E.
Antares Group

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

From tmiles at teleport.com Tue Apr 13 10:53:40 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: accordian gas bags
In-Reply-To: <37119815.EAC6B821@willmar.com>
Message-ID: <199904131453.HAA17093@mail.easystreet.com>

Membrane storage bags for combustible gas and liquid storage are
commercially available. In 1997 we purchased a 2,000 ft3 bag for inert gas
use for $10,000.

Tom

At 10:46 AM 4/13/99 -0400, Dave Knowles wrote:
>The use of "ag bags" to store combustible gases is highly dangerous.
>The reasons are numerous. It is impossible to detect and repair any
>pinhole leaks. Remember that this gas has a high carbon monoxide
>content. The gas also contains hydrogen, which has a wide flamibility
>range and a very fast flame speed. These bags provide no protection
>against static electricity, lightning strikes or other unanticipated
>ignition sources.
>
>What you do in your own backyard I guess is your own business. But if
>an accident occurs, I doubt your insurance will cover your losses (well,
>maybe your life). The use of such means for the storage of gaseous
>fuels is strictly against codes. These codes, while expensive to comply
>with, are meant to protect life and property. Do a little research into
>the accidents that occurred when producer (aka, town gas) was widely
>used.
>
>You would be much better off to match your production to consumption.
>
>David Knowles, P.E.
>Antares Group
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
T.R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
1470 SW Woodward Way http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles
Portland, OR 97225
Tel 503-292-0107 Fax 503-605-0208
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From tmiles at teleport.com Tue Apr 13 14:15:03 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Dynamotive Website
Message-ID: <199904131815.OAA22501@solstice.crest.org>

For those interested in pyrolysis and bio-oils, Dynamotive Technologies now
has a website at http://www.dynamotive.com

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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Apr 13 16:12:19 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Producer gas storage
Message-ID: <2c2ce959.2444ff0d@cs.com>

Tom Blackburn asks:

<< First time for me.
What happens to producer gas when it is compressed? Does it decompose,
heat, or desiccate?
>>
There is no problem associated with compression of CLEAN producer gas
(except cost, since it is 50% nitrogen). However, it is necessary to make it
very clean or the compressor will soon sieze.

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

From jim.birse at dial.pipex.com Wed Apr 14 04:42:49 1999
From: jim.birse at dial.pipex.com (Jim Birse)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gasification-A Bridge to the Coming Sustainable World
Message-ID: <013c01be8651$cb53eae0$244d95c1@jims>

Dear Mr Linsley,

We have a number of members offering turnkey digestor packges for pig slurry
and poultry litter.

Deatails may be found in the Anearobic Digestion section of our online
members directory at:

www.britishbiogen.co.uk.

Best Regards,

Jim Birse

====================================
British BioGen
Trade Association to the UK Bioenergy Industry
7th Floor, 63-66 Hatton Garden,
London EC1N 8LE, UK
Tel: +44 171 831 7222
Fax: +44 171 831 7223
www.britishbiogen.co.uk
jim@britishbiogen.co.uk
====================================

-----Original Message-----
From: justin linsley <jllinsley@hotmail.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: 13 April 1999 04:10
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gasification-A Bridge to the Coming Sustainable World

>Hi Tom and Harry,
>This is Justin Linsley. I am trying to find all the info I can on
>methane digesters for hog and chiken litter. I am hoping to help
>farmers in my area begin taking advantage of this technology, but I
>have to find the info 1st.
>
>P.S. I Have seen in a Popular Mechanics Magazine an article about
>power cells for residential use that run on methane that may provide
>cleaner power. The question now lies with it's efficientcy rating???
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.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 english at adan.kingston.net Wed Apr 14 07:35:47 1999
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: accordian gas bags
In-Reply-To: <006a01be85bc$1f4f7740$9f8941d8@compaq>
Message-ID: <199904141132.HAA20295@adan.kingston.net>

Dale and all,
Have you built a gas turbine to run off your stored producer gas? It
seems a suitable addition to your portfolio of home made technology.

How far fetched is it to run turbine generators like IC
generators? While we are discussing the small fringes of
gasification; I have been dreaming of a simple batch fed turbine
based on Tom Reed's Top Down Pyrolysis. Perhaps this is just another
middle of the night, bright idea that pails in the light of day.

Alex

> Alan: Another approach that would work is from the square or rectangle.
> Suppose an elevator shaft finished inside taped and spackled and painted
> sheetrock! Then construct two "cars" that are ultra-light with guide wheels
> that rise and fall in the shaft. There edges would be fitted with supple
> labrinth seals and there would be soft/complient ball bearing wheels to
> assure guidence. This could put the ag-bag thing second? Its really a
> large ultra-light grease gun. Dale Costich
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fractional@willmar.com <fractional@willmar.com>
> To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
> Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 9:39 AM
> Subject: GAS-L: accordian gas bags
>
>
> >Dale and List,
> >
> > Had not thought of flex duct even though I can obtain it wholesale
> >where I work as even then it is very expensive. Using 16" material will
> >hold more for the dollar and make for fewer connections. The stuff is
> >available in aluminum, aluminized plastic, vinyl, and tough but brittle
> >and tear-able clear plastic that resembles acetate. The vinyl would
> >certainly hold up to repeated expansions even in cold weather, but it is
> >the material that seams to LEAK a lot. Not a problem for a forced air
> >heating but not good for fuel.
> >
> > After hearing of Dale's vertical bag idea, a 12' x 12' x20'
> >ventilated pole barn seamed like an excellent way to protect such a bag
> >from the elements. My thinking was to put the skin on the inside (poles
> >outside) and tape the lap joints for a 'smooth' interior for the
> >accordion. While originally presuming frames to support a squared-up
> >bag to keep things orderly and prevent rubbing on the enclosure, perhaps
> >a round simple bag with end plates attached for seals and taps would
> >save a lot of work. It could then ride in a round inside out pole
> >building. If frames were still desired, hoops made of 1/2" electrical
> >conduit with alternating bungee cords would be fast to construct and
> >easy on bag. This could be hung in anything.
> > There are some old feed hoppers in the area and I just might grab two
> >of them and line them plastic. Paint the exteriors and cover with vines.
> >
> > The local dealer Ag bag dealer has polyethylene and a 'silage' bag
> >which is a multi-laminate of undeclared construction. Would this silage
> >bag be PVC? Just curious if the hydrogen was hard on the PP and PVC was
> >resistant to this, or if PVC bags are less permeable than others for
> >this purpose.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Alan
> >
> >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
>
>
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Apr 14 08:17:45 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: accordian gas bags
Message-ID: <66a54189.2445e157@cs.com>

Tom:

Can you give me an address where to find these bags?

Thanks,
TOM

In a message dated 4/13/99 8:05:50 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
tmiles@teleport.com writes:

<< Membrane storage bags for combustible gas and liquid storage are
commercially available. In 1997 we purchased a 2,000 ft3 bag for inert gas
use for $10,000.
>>

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

From costich at pacifier.com Wed Apr 14 10:05:05 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: accordian gas bags
Message-ID: <004701be867f$f6723140$c28d41d8@compaq>

Alex : Micro-turbines (the size of a dentists drill) would be great to
have. I believe scaling down is achievable. I concentrate on Stirling
engines--only simple and low-tech stuff. I built my gasifier
(semi-combustor) in a vain attempt to "fast track" H2 collection. Someday
flash pyrolysis will come to home power enthusiasts. The best battery is a
chunk of wood and if god had intended for it to give us electricity he'd
have had wires sticking out of it. no such luck! Dale

-----Original Message-----
From: *.English <english@adan.kingston.net>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 4:37 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: accordian gas bags

Dale and all,
Have you built a gas turbine to run off your stored producer gas? It
seems a suitable addition to your portfolio of home made technology.

Alex

> Alan: Another approach that would work is from the square or rectangle.
> Suppose an elevator shaft finished inside taped and spackled and painted
> sheetrock! Then construct two "cars" that are ultra-light with guide
wheels
> that rise and fall in the shaft. There edges would be fitted with supple
> labrinth seals and there would be soft/complient ball bearing wheels to
> assure guidence. This could put the ag-bag thing second? Its really a
> large ultra-light grease gun. Dale Costich
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fractional@willmar.com <fractional@willmar.com>
> To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
> Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 9:39 AM
> Subject: GAS-L: accordian gas bags
>
>
> >Dale and List,
> >
> > Had not thought of flex duct even though I can obtain it wholesale
> >where I work as even then it is very expensive. Using 16" material will
> >hold more for the dollar and make for fewer connections. The stuff is
> >available in aluminum, aluminized plastic, vinyl, and tough but brittle
> >and tear-able clear plastic that resembles acetate. The vinyl would
> >certainly hold up to repeated expansions even in cold weather, but it is
> >the material that seams to LEAK a lot. Not a problem for a forced air
> >heating but not good for fuel.
> >
> > After hearing of Dale's vertical bag idea, a 12' x 12' x20'
> >ventilated pole barn seamed like an excellent way to protect such a bag
> >from the elements. My thinking was to put the skin on the inside (poles
> >outside) and tape the lap joints for a 'smooth' interior for the
> >accordion. While originally presuming frames to support a squared-up
> >bag to keep things orderly and prevent rubbing on the enclosure, perhaps
> >a round simple bag with end plates attached for seals and taps would
> >save a lot of work. It could then ride in a round inside out pole
> >building. If frames were still desired, hoops made of 1/2" electrical
> >conduit with alternating bungee cords would be fast to construct and
> >easy on bag. This could be hung in anything.
> > There are some old feed hoppers in the area and I just might grab two
> >of them and line them plastic. Paint the exteriors and cover with vines.
> >
> > The local dealer Ag bag dealer has polyethylene and a 'silage' bag
> >which is a multi-laminate of undeclared construction. Would this silage
> >bag be PVC? Just curious if the hydrogen was hard on the PP and PVC was
> >resistant to this, or if PVC bags are less permeable than others for
> >this purpose.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Alan
> >
> >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
>
>
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211

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

From zebley1 at email.com Thu Apr 15 00:04:37 1999
From: zebley1 at email.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Biomass: Is it "green"?
In-Reply-To: <61BCB4275920D211AA5700A0C9DB18FB0265D226@BVMAIL02>
Message-ID: <199904150404.AAA03803@solstice.crest.org>

Hello?! Is biomass "green"?

After visiting the web site referenced below I called and spoke with the
author
of the web site.

I explained that I had visited his web site and was intrigued by the opinions
expressed. I then ask the one question I ask of all organizations which
purport
to represent "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" when
disseminating information, "Where do your funds to operate originate?".

Although he became a little defensive, he declared that they received no
assistance from ANY corporate entities but were supported by local
environmental
groups in Pennsylvania. I take him at his word. As evidenced by the attached
member list, I believe you will find that the majority of these groups are
NIMBY's fighting everything from nuclear to incinerators to hydro to
landfills.

With such a diverse support structure I'm sure PEN is collecting AND
disseminating all information provided by experts with real life experience in
our industries.

My opinion: Until groups such as PEN return to the real world and offer
economically viable alternatives to the way things are currently done, they
are
full of hot air. In the mean time we could stop installing biomass equipment,
stop generating revenues and stop doing research to improve our
technologies (in
deference to groups like PEN and the petroleum industries' Senatorial
lackeys).
I think not.

If we did my questions then becomes, "Would they mind if we used their back
yard
to store all the waste that is generated in the production of their homes,
furniture, foods and paper products? Or will they dig another hole
(landfill) in
their poor neighbors back yard?".

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Come on PEN, we can
handle
it.

Best regards,
Gene

PEN Member Groups

Northwest

Allegheny Defense Project Clarion/Warren/Elk/McKean/Forest Counties
CASE - 219 Jefferson County (Washington)
Citizens Advocating a Safe Environment (CASE) Elk
County
Communities Against Radioactive Pollution (CARP) Crawford / Erie Counties
Cooper Township Citizens Concerned for the Environment Clearfield County
McKean County Citizens Against Nuclear Dumps McKean
County

Mosquito Creek Sportsmens Association
Clearfield County
People Against Sewage Sludge (PASS) Jefferson County
(Timblin)
Protect Environment And Children Everywhere(PEACE) Clarion County
Protecting Property Rights of all Citizens in the Township
(PROACT)
McKean County
Stop The Organizations Raping Mankind (STORM) Venango County (Oil City)

Southwest

Alternative Living Technology and Energy Research (ALTER) Butler County
Citizens Against
Sludge Washington
County
Concerned About Water Loss due to Mining (CAWLM) Indiana County
Residents Advocating Good Environment (RAGE) Indiana
County
Tri-State Concerned
Citizens Beaver
County

Tri-State Citizens Mining Network
Washington County

Northcentral

Arrest the Incinerator Remediation (AIR)
Clinton County
Organizations United for the Environment (OUE) Union
County
Pine Creek Headwaters Protection Group
Tioga
County
Tiadagthon Audubon
Society Tioga County
Vanguard of God's
County Potter
County

Southcentral

Citizens Environmental Organization (CEO)
Bedford County
Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety
Bedford County

Northeast

Return the Environment of Susquehanna Country Under Ecology
(RESCUE)
Susquehanna County
Area Citizens To Initiate Opposition Now Against Local Landfills (ACTION
ALL)
Carbon County

Southeast

Alliance for a Clean Environment (ACE)
Montgomery
County
Bucks People United to Restore the Environment (B-PURE) Bucks County
Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living (CRCQL)

Delaware County (Chester City)
Drexel University E.Y.E. Openers (Ethics, You and the Environment)

Philadelphia County
Lancaster
Greens
Lancaster County
Local Environmental Awareness Development (LEAD)

Berks County (Reading)
Saucon Association for a Viable Environment (SAVE) Northampton County
Three Mile Island Alert (TMIA) Dauphin
County
(Harrisburg)
Upper Dauphin Area Citizens Action Committee Dauphin County
York
Greens
York County

"Pletka, Ryan J." wrote:

> The Pennsylvania Environmental Network's Series on Green Energy has an
> interesting perspective on biomass as "non-green" energy. The writer views
> biomass combustion as incineration, with all its negative connotations. See
> the articles at http://www.penweb.org/issues/energy/index.html.
> Ryan Pletka
> Black & Veatch
> 913-458-8222; 913-458-2934 (fax)
> pletkarj@bv.com

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

From Alex.English at adan.kingston.net Thu Apr 15 00:04:41 1999
From: Alex.English at adan.kingston.net (*.english)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pictures of Producer Gas Storage, Dale Costich
Message-ID: <199904150404.AAA03813@solstice.crest.org>

There has been a discussion on the Gasification List about storing
producer gas in an Ag Bag. Dale has used it for cooking among other
things. Some pictures of his set up can be viewed on the Stoves
Webpage. At http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
The link is under the NEW section. Or link directly to

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

Alex
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa, Ontario, Canada
K0H2H0 613-386-1927
Fax 613-386-1211

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Apr 15 08:34:00 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Micro turbines...
Message-ID: <47ac449e.24473699@cs.com>

Dale, Mike et al:

Micro turbines the size of dentist drills need to have tolerances of a few
microinches or they loose their efficiency and the combustor can will be
larger than the turbine. The military has slowly been improving motive
turbines to the point where a few hundred HP on helicopters is practical if
someone else pays the fuel bills. So, you toss off dentist sized turbines
and let the rest of us work out the details.

Happy machining.

TOM REED

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

From willy at sltnet.lk Thu Apr 15 10:19:27 1999
From: willy at sltnet.lk (W.B.Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <199904160115.UAA03794@laknet.slt.lk>

Subj.: Gas Storage.

It's good to see the interest in gas storage. That's an aspect of
"appropriate" scale gasification that is generally overlooked. I agree with
the safety concerns. Here's an alternative approach, that should be quite
safe, more durable and probably at least as cheap. It is presently coming
into use in Sri Lanka for storing 60/40 methane /CO2 gas from biodigestors.

This storage scheme consists of any number of old 55 gal drums,
lashed together and floating in a shallow pond, of slightly more than the
volume of the drums. The drums are connected to each other and the biogas
source by plastic tubes. All have an open bung in the bottom. The gas in,
minus gas used, displaces water in the drums, which float at a level
determined by the gas in them. What could be simpler? However, the gas is
provided at slight pressure from the biodigestors, which is enough to
displace water and raise the drums.

For gas from gasifiers, pressurization will require a bit of
ingenuity. One crude but quick solution that comes to mind - about as fast
as I write this - is a big rock on a pulley, trying to rais the drums,
applying a slight vacuum to the gas source. This weight would have to e
released when one wants to draw gas out of te drums. Some simple check
valves will be needed. There must be better control schemes. Think it over.

W.B.Hauserman
willy@sltnet.lk

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

From willy at sltnet.lk Thu Apr 15 10:37:23 1999
From: willy at sltnet.lk (W.B.Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <199904160133.UAA04107@laknet.slt.lk>

Gubject: Sawdust power.

I'm looking for a quick lead on a simple,
reasonably-well-demonstrated suspension-fired combustor OR gasifier to use
sawdust as a boiler fuel, for power generation. Possible output range: 1/2
to several MW, to be determined.

Does anyone out there know of such a beast on the market??

Thanks.
W.B.Hauserman
willy@sltnet.lk

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

From rabello at uniserve.com Thu Apr 15 10:46:25 1999
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:
In-Reply-To: <199904160115.UAA03794@laknet.slt.lk>
Message-ID: <3715FC2B.94E4D355@uniserve.com>

"W.B.Hauserman" wrote:

> Subj.: Gas Storage.
>
> It's good to see the interest in gas storage. That's an aspect of
> "appropriate" scale gasification that is generally overlooked. I agree with
> the safety concerns. Here's an alternative approach, that should be quite
> safe, more durable and probably at least as cheap. It is presently coming
> into use in Sri Lanka for storing 60/40 methane /CO2 gas from biodigestors.
>
> This storage scheme consists of any number of old 55 gal drums,
> lashed together and floating in a shallow pond, of slightly more than the
> volume of the drums. The drums are connected to each other and the biogas
> source by plastic tubes. All have an open bung in the bottom. The gas in,
> minus gas used, displaces water in the drums, which float at a level
> determined by the gas in them. What could be simpler? However, the gas is
> provided at slight pressure from the biodigestors, which is enough to
> displace water and raise the drums.

I have used this technique to store hydrogen from an electrolyzer.
(Actually, a variation on the theme, using two drums in which gas displaces
water in a lower drum. The water from the lower drum displaces water and air in
the upper drum.) It is quite simple and safe, so long as leaks are prevented
and gases are not mixed. Old drums offer a low-tech and inexpensive solution to
the gas storage problem, it would also serve to cool the gas (though that energy
would then be wasted) but I wonder what effect wood gas would have on the
water/propylene glycol mix. Perhaps others would be able to comment on the
potential chemistry.

robert luis rabello
VisionWorks Communications

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Apr 15 10:48:40 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Biomass: Is it "green"?
Message-ID: <1a5430ed.24475635@aol.com>

Re: Against technical progress.
A friend of mine toured the parts of Europe which are now being
bombed. She had left there as a child with her family 50 years ago on an
oxcart. She came there and left there last summer on an oxcart. This is
typical of the lack of progress and the "dark ages" mentality expressed by
the radical groups which you had listed in your communications on "green
biomass".
It is unfortunate that our civilization is permeated with these
backwards types. Your analogy of disposing of their housewastes in their own
backyards is very good, as this would also apply to the liquid wastes which
they generate. "People Against Sewage Sludge" must be a very elite group as
they must never have to use a toilet or else it doesn't have a high aroma.
Any civilization has the same problems and the manner of how they
address them determines the quality of life they experience. If automobiles
were not present, the smell of animal wastes on the streets as experienced in
the past would be horrendous, unless all of the animals belonged to the same
elite "PASS" group. Our method of technically improving our solutions allows
for a higher quality of life, achieving higher goals, evolving intellectually
and dealing with issues differently as we proceed. If we had to get up every
morning and bucket out the outhouse and spread it on our yard, it would not
allow us to read the paper, watch the international crises unfold on TV or
other more interesting things. If PASS were asked to set up a demonstration
community to live this way, they may find some volunteers, but not many.
It is always interesting to ask these radical groups for solutions.
Their answers are always subject to the same limiting factors which they are
trying to prevent, or the solution is worse than the problem.
Many of them are so rabid that having an intelligent conversation
with them is a waste of time. We have run into them when we had a meeting
with the New Mexico Environment Department on a solid waste permit exemption,
although the permit dealt only with solids and their handling, the
environmental wackos kept bringing up air issues from conversion of solid MSW
wastes, an entirely separate issue addressed by other permits. Luckily, the
NMED decided that the solid waste issues were not significant and a language
of change in the regulations was issued exempting certain classes of
facilties from the permitting process, allowing experimental, non-economic
processes to be exempt from the permitting process, allowing research into
this field.
We recommend direct confrontation of these groups and contesting
their recommended solutions to expose their weaknesses. They are guerilla
fighters and when a direct battle ensues, they cannot cope.
Sincerely,

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

From jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com Thu Apr 15 12:11:53 1999
From: jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com (Jane Turnbull)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Biomass: Is it "green"?
In-Reply-To: <61BCB4275920D211AA5700A0C9DB18FB0265D226@BVMAIL02>
Message-ID: <371480DB.6305@ix.netcom.com>

Thanks for doing this homework, Gene, and for your comments. You
certainly have made it evident that there is minimal (at best)
understanding of biomass energy on the part of the general public. It
also is evident that whatever efforts DOE and existing trade groups
have made to provide good information about biomass options haven't
reached the desired audience. What should be the next step?

Jane

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

From antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br Thu Apr 15 19:24:32 1999
From: antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br (Antonio G. P. Hilst)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Micro turbines...
In-Reply-To: <47ac449e.24473699@cs.com>
Message-ID: <371674FE.7EC5FA53@merconet.com.br>

What about the Tomahawk Turbines? Maybe you'll find them in war surpplus shop at
very convenient price.

Antonio

Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:

> Dale, Mike et al:
>
> Micro turbines the size of dentist drills need to have tolerances of a few
> microinches or they loose their efficiency and the combustor can will be
> larger than the turbine. The military has slowly been improving motive
> turbines to the point where a few hundred HP on helicopters is practical if
> someone else pays the fuel bills. So, you toss off dentist sized turbines
> and let the rest of us work out the details.
>
> Happy machining.
>
> TOM REED
>
> Alex : Micro-turbines (the size of a dentists drill) would be great to
> have. I believe scaling down is achievable. I concentrate on Stirling
> engines--only simple and low-tech stuff. I built my gasifier
> (semi-combustor) in a vain attempt to "fast track" H2 collection. Someday
> flash pyrolysis will come to home power enthusiasts. The best battery is a
> chunk of wood and if god had intended for it to give us electricity he'd
> have had wires sticking out of it. no such luck! Dale
> >>
>
> 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 fractional at willmar.com Thu Apr 15 22:18:45 1999
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: lower drum displaces water...Rabello
In-Reply-To: <199904160115.UAA03794@laknet.slt.lk>
Message-ID: <37132356.1FD7A355@willmar.com>

Hello Robert and List,

55 gallon drums make for secure storage of hydrogen perhaps but it takes an
excessive amount of drums to store what a 10' x 20' ag bag will store. Thats 1570
cubic feet or 11,700 gallons which would require over 200 55 gallons drums to equal
the bag, plus another 200 drums to hold the displaced water/glycol mix. $20,000
worth of glycol is out of the question of course.
The use of these drums to hold the electrolysis products is interesting though,
did You use them for a Oxy/Hydrogen welding torch? I'd like to use it for that and
was curious if anyone could suggest pumps to get the gasses up to the torch?
40ounces is insufficient.
The TV news recently showed a Malaysian(?) farm family happily using their
methane gas for cooking. The bag was suspended from the kitchen ceiling and the
stove was right below! Thats what I call over the safety line.
A big fuel stuffed ag-bag would have to be behind a line of evergreens to shield
against 2'x10' sheets of shrapnel for certain. If you can live without gas lights
and gas refrigeration
life would be safer. Though I understand Dale is still alive.

Thanks,

Alan

robert luis rabello wrote:

> "W.B.Hauserman" wrote:
>
> > Subj.: Gas Storage.
> >
> > It's good to see the interest in gas storage. That's an aspect of
> > "appropriate" scale gasification that is generally overlooked. I agree with
> > the safety concerns. Here's an alternative approach, that should be quite
> > safe, more durable and probably at least as cheap. It is presently coming
> > into use in Sri Lanka for storing 60/40 methane /CO2 gas from biodigestors.
> >
> > This storage scheme consists of any number of old 55 gal drums,
> > lashed together and floating in a shallow pond, of slightly more than the
> > volume of the drums. The drums are connected to each other and the biogas
> > source by plastic tubes. All have an open bung in the bottom. The gas in,
> > minus gas used, displaces water in the drums, which float at a level
> > determined by the gas in them. What could be simpler? However, the gas is
> > provided at slight pressure from the biodigestors, which is enough to
> > displace water and raise the drums.
>
> I have used this technique to store hydrogen from an electrolyzer.
> (Actually, a variation on the theme, using two drums in which gas displaces
> water in a lower drum. The water from the lower drum displaces water and air in
> the upper drum.) It is quite simple and safe, so long as leaks are prevented
> and gases are not mixed. Old drums offer a low-tech and inexpensive solution to
> the gas storage problem, it would also serve to cool the gas (though that energy
> would then be wasted) but I wonder what effect wood gas would have on the
> water/propylene glycol mix. Perhaps others would be able to comment on the
> potential chemistry.
>
> robert luis rabello
> VisionWorks Communications
>
> 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 p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Fri Apr 16 04:02:36 1999
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Onsite gas storage
Message-ID: <01be87d3$9eb58ce0$LocalHost@hers>

Hello gasification list members,

W.B.Hauserman comments are interesting. Here in Oz I live in a bushfire and
lightning strike prone area (and I use to think people who live along active
earthquake fault lines have got rocks in their head!) The idea of a mini
Hindenburg in my backyard does not appeal.

There was a chap in South Africa in the early seventies who did a lot of
work with methane digestors on his piggery. He use to store his gas in a
galvanised rainwater tank inverted inside a slightly larger tank filled with
water (similar to the drums in pond approach). He had a vent valve at the
top to sink the tank and remove all oxygen (he had a fear of explosion from
methane oxygen mixes in confined spaces) and used bricks on top to adjust
gas pressure. Gas was then piped over considerable distances in poly pipe
to run generators and pumps around the farm ( I think he ran a ford V8 motor
for his electrical power).

This approach gives power on demand for small IC engines running generators
for homes and other small scale applications, something that is definetly
needed to make a gasification system whole family friendly.

I am yet to get any hands on experience with gasification but my intention
is to make our farm energy self sufficient and possibly supply to some of
our neighbours as well. Fuel source would be wood chips and/or pellets
sourced from our own property as part of our timber business (we have @3000
m3/year sustainable yield).

The CSIRO over here have been studying gasification since the early
seventies and are well advanced with adaptation to gas turbines. On their
figures around 13 kgs of wood chips a day would (or is that wood) meet the
daily energy requirements of the average home or around 5 tonnes a year.

Regards,

Peter M Davies
p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au

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

From apchick at dmu.ac.uk Fri Apr 16 04:38:08 1999
From: apchick at dmu.ac.uk (Andrew P Chick)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Onsite gas storage
Message-ID: <3716F6E7.57F16F4B@dmu.ac.uk>

Hi all,

What Peter Davies say is right, this is the commonest method for storing
methane from digesters. However, we use a 50m3 'gas bag', and I see no
reason why this could not be used for producer gas, except it might have
to be a lot larger for a gasifier?

This gas bag can be seen on http://www.dmu.ac.uk/ln/itc/ad.htm (look
about halfway down this page)

The bag was initially not surrounded by a fence, and it survived some
pretty heavy winds, we only really put a fence up to make it look nice
for an open day!

All the best

Andrew
--
=======================================================================================

Andrew P Chick
DeMontfort University
School of Agriculture
Caythorpe Campus
Caythorpe
Grantham
NG32 3LB
UK.

Tel: +44 (01400) 275625
Fax: +44 (01400) 275656
Email apchick@dmu.ac.uk
http://www.dmu.ac.uk/ln/itc/

=======================================================================================

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

From fractional at willmar.com Fri Apr 16 12:25:55 1999
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Onsite gas storage
In-Reply-To: <3716F6E7.57F16F4B@dmu.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <37176D72.16BBB9E4@willmar.com>

Hello Andrew and list,

Is this bag constructed of butyl (or EPDM) rubber roofing membrane? It appears to be
assembled from gores (wedges) glued or vulcanized together. What do they cost? 50 cubic
meters is about the size we were talking about.

Thanks,

Alan

Andrew P Chick wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> What Peter Davies say is right, this is the commonest method for storing
> methane from digesters. However, we use a 50m3 'gas bag', and I see no
> reason why this could not be used for producer gas, except it might have
> to be a lot larger for a gasifier?
>
> This gas bag can be seen on http://www.dmu.ac.uk/ln/itc/ad.htm (look
> about halfway down this page)
>
> The bag was initially not surrounded by a fence, and it survived some
> pretty heavy winds, we only really put a fence up to make it look nice
> for an open day!
>
> All the best
>
> Andrew
> --
> =======================================================================================
>
> Andrew P Chick
> DeMontfort University
> School of Agriculture
> Caythorpe Campus
> Caythorpe
> Grantham
> NG32 3LB
> UK.
>
> Tel: +44 (01400) 275625
> Fax: +44 (01400) 275656
> Email apchick@dmu.ac.uk
> http://www.dmu.ac.uk/ln/itc/
>
> =======================================================================================
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

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

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Sat Apr 17 03:48:57 1999
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Onsite gas storage
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199904170748040673@classic.msn.com>

Another way to store gas, and scrub the co2 at the same time is to let water
absorb it. I know, at first this sounds crazy, but I remember working at a
winery and putting so2, co2 and other gasses into the tank that had about 10
lbs of head pressure. The gas stays in naturally.

It may take a lot of water, but water is cheap, easy to work with and store.
Why don't you folks quit chasing that bag rabbit and experiment on just how
much gas can be stored in water?

As an aside, couldn't certain minerals be added to the water that could react
or absorb certain gasses more readily? The idea being to grab more hydrogen
or esters and ignore the co2.

Humbly you'ins,
Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam
www.sensiblesteam.com

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Sat Apr 17 04:34:31 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Onsite gas storage
Message-ID: <caa068c.2449a18c@aol.com>

Gas Storage in water, mineralized water and other methods which may separate
or enhance the quality is dependent upon several factors for efficiency of
storage or separation.
Solubility of various gases at various temperatures and pressures in
water is the primary driving variable. If CO, CO2, H2 all have the same
solubility factors, there would be no separation. I doubt if they do, but it
would also be doubtful if there would be much economic or engineering merit
to this method. This should be easy to look up. Certain metals will form
hydrides with hydrogen and as such, can be stored in a solid form and used as
a method of separation, however, if CO interferes with this process, would
reduce the effectiveness of this process.
I met a few days ago with a gentleman who built a downdraft several
megawatt gasifier which operated on sawdust and ran his engine on the output
gas. He visited our operating gasifier. He currently has a natural
gas/combined cycle facility for manufacturing activated charcoal and drying
lumber at a lumber mill he owns. Very interesting young entrepeneur.
Tom Taylor
Thermogenics Inc.
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Apr 17 18:25:32 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Onsite gas storage
Message-ID: <afbfac19.244a6449@cs.com>

Dear Peter Davies and all Responders:

I (and Community Power and the Biomass Energy Foundation) appreciate all the
great comments and suggestions for gas storage that have appeared this week.

I have been very actively building gasifiers and stoves and generators this
last year with BEF and CPC. Last week I suggested to my wife, Vivian, that
we buy or build an alternate energy cabin close to our home in Colorado,
probably in the mountains and close to our home in Golden, and not requiring
a so called Sport Utility Vehicle, (SUV = Silly, Ugly Vanity) to access.

Gas is capable of supplying all my needs, as witness any Motorhome or house
trailer operating with propane.

I plan to install a 1 day gas storage unit that I would fill daily from a
small gasifier before breakfast. It would then run cooking, mantle lamps, a
micro generator for communication and a gas refrigerator.

Gasification of 1 kg of biomass will generate 2.5 m3 of gas or 1 kWh of power
or 5 kWh of heat. How much energy will I need for the good life in the
woods?

~~~~~~

I have been storing up all these comments on gas storage and web pages on gas
storage in my email directory. Isn't it marvellous that the whole world has
become a connected community of ideas. After all, behind every detail of our
current civilization lies plans, testing etc.

It crossed my mind that we could even have a world conference on GAS STORAGE.
We might get a budget of $100K from NREL or DOE. Lots of people would like
to travel to Colorado to yak about the commercial and environmental and
efficiency aspects of gas energy storage.

But then, by Email we have already had that conference. Keep the ideas
flowing,....

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Apr 17 18:25:43 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: More gas storage...
Message-ID: <3738942.244a645c@cs.com>

Dear Storage:

Hausserman writes....
<<
For gas from gasifiers, pressurization will require a bit of
ingenuity. One crude but quick solution that comes to mind - about as fast
as I write this - is a big rock on a pulley, trying to rais the drums,
applying a slight vacuum to the gas source. This weight would have to e
released when one wants to draw gas out of te drums. Some simple check
valves will be needed. There must be better control schemes. Think it over.
>>
I had come to the same conclusion for my house in the woods. Try this:

1 55 gallon drum
1 22 inch diameter ag bag type sleeve tightly taped to drum, variable
length as required for max storage. Sleeve collapses into drum when not
in use
1 drum lid taped to top of sleeve
1 Tree
2 pulleys leading to tree and back down to platform at ground level when
drum is full.
Rocks on top of drum lid and on platform

If there is more net weight on drum lid, gas supplied under pressure as
required. If there is more weight on platform, bag supplies vacuum to run
gasifier.

~~~~~~
The "Hindenberg" Danger

1) Gas explosions, even when stoichiometric produce a 4-1 increase in volume
or pressure, and usually give more of a whoosh (as in lighting the oven) than
a bang. As long as gas in bag is not mixed with air it will only burn where
leaks occur if ignited.

2) The Hindenberg was 100 ft above ground when it caught fire. Hydrogen
leaks up, not down. I think most people fell to their death but were not
roasted.

3) We definitely want these bags out of doors for aesthetic and safety
reasons.

~~~~~~
Any opinions on the degree to which the bag cleans and cools the gas - and
whether minor tars will bother it?

Glad to see someone recommending the tar/water slurry for an
herbicide/insecticide. That's what I call positive thinking. (The char ash
from gasifiers is also a good soil additive but don't tell the EPA.)

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Apr 17 18:25:58 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Biomass: Is it "green"?
Message-ID: <2700abbb.244a6464@cs.com>

Dear TOM TAYLOR:

Right on! We are in the minority between the troglodites and the dreamers.

TOM REED

In a message dated 4/15/99 9:25:37 AM Mountain Daylight Time, LINVENT@aol.com
writes:

<<
Re: Against technical progress.
A friend of mine toured the parts of Europe which are now being
bombed. She had left there as a child with her family 50 years ago on an
oxcart. She came there and left there last summer on an oxcart. This is
typical of the lack of progress and the "dark ages" mentality expressed by
the radical groups which you had listed in your communications on "green
biomass".
It is unfortunate that our civilization is permeated with these
backwards types. Your analogy of disposing of their housewastes in their own
backyards is very good, as this would also apply to the liquid wastes which
they generate. "People Against Sewage Sludge" must be a very elite group as
they must never have to use a toilet or else it doesn't have a high aroma.
Any civilization has the same problems and the manner of how they
address them determines the quality of life they experience. If automobiles
were not present, the smell of animal wastes on the streets as experienced
in
the past would be horrendous, unless all of the animals belonged to the same
elite "PASS" group. Our method of technically improving our solutions allows
for a higher quality of life, achieving higher goals, evolving
intellectually
and dealing with issues differently as we proceed. If we had to get up every
morning and bucket out the outhouse and spread it on our yard, it would not
allow us to read the paper, watch the international crises unfold on TV or
other more interesting things. If PASS were asked to set up a demonstration
community to live this way, they may find some volunteers, but not many.
It is always interesting to ask these radical groups for solutions.
Their answers are always subject to the same limiting factors which they are
trying to prevent, or the solution is worse than the problem.
Many of them are so rabid that having an intelligent conversation
with them is a waste of time. We have run into them when we had a meeting
with the New Mexico Environment Department on a solid waste permit
exemption,
although the permit dealt only with solids and their handling, the
environmental wackos kept bringing up air issues from conversion of solid
MSW
wastes, an entirely separate issue addressed by other permits. Luckily, the
NMED decided that the solid waste issues were not significant and a language
of change in the regulations was issued exempting certain classes of
facilties from the permitting process, allowing experimental, non-economic
processes to be exempt from the permitting process, allowing research into
this field.
We recommend direct confrontation of these groups and contesting
their recommended solutions to expose their weaknesses. They are guerilla
fighters and when a direct battle ensues, they cannot cope.
Sincerely,

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

>>

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

From fractional at willmar.com Sat Apr 17 20:47:57 1999
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Acids in tar?, Gas bag options.
Message-ID: <371881C6.E4A77B1F@willmar.com>

Greetings Gasifiers,

Are there any components in the tars produced by the gasification of
pine, cedar, oak or ash which would be harmful to EPDM rubber (roofing
membrane)?

Dales idea of an accordion for suction and pressure appeals greatly
to me but feel a 6 to 10 mil plastic bag might leak excessively.
Whereas there is some comfort in the sealing and flexing qualities of
roofing rubber, especially in the cold (-30 F*). Short of any better
ideas for filling the bag and supplying positive pressure to appliances
without the endless need for electrically driven pumps, this is the
best idea yet.

Tom states that a cubic meter of gas is sufficient for a six hour
burn with single element gas lamp. It really takes two elements to
adequately read or do visually demanding work comfortably. Since Dales
lives the life thats probably why he has such a good sized bag.
A single light source of two elements would consume a 22" diameter
tube 20' long in an evening, being about two cubic meters.

For pressure only, an overgrown toothpaste tube (6' dia, 20' long) of
roofing membrane
laying on the ground could be squeeze pressurized with a heavy roller,
activated with a rock strung through a pulley. An oak tree trunk
covered with rubber would suffice for rolling it up over a bed of
sand. Alternately, a large spool (10' long, 2' core, 4' spool wheels),
would roll over snow covered ground nicely. With the axis of the tube
aligned with tall spool wheels, creases (stresses) could be eliminated
also, so 8' wheels might be a better choice. Natural gas pipe and
utility cable comes on some 6' and bigger ready made spools, the wood
ones are quite heavy.

Thanks,

Alan

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

From SHGOLDT0 at urscorp.com Sun Apr 18 02:12:08 1999
From: SHGOLDT0 at urscorp.com (SHGOLDT0@urscorp.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Gas storage in water
Message-ID: <199904180612.CAA11319@solstice.crest.org>

Additional Header Information:
Received: from bo.nznet.gen.nz ([203.167.232.34]) by
mail.ursgreiner.com (Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998))
with SMTP id 85256756.006DC4A2; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 15:58:58 -0400

Received: from THEFAMIL (ms2-09.nznet.gen.nz [203.167.232.139])

by bo.nznet.gen.nz (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA22860
for <Steve_Goldthorpe@URScorp.com>; Sun, 18 Apr 1999
08:04:18 +1200
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 08:04:18 +1200
Message-Id: <199904172004.IAA22860@bo.nznet.gen.nz>
X-Sender: gldthrp@nznet.gen.nz
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Steve_Goldthorpe@URScorp.com
From: The Goldthorpes <gldthrp@nznet.gen.nz>
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Re: Onsite gas storage

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

The solubilities of CO2, H2 and CO in pure water (at 1 atmosphere and
0 C) are

3.346 grams per litre for Carbon dioxide

0.044 grams per litre for Carbon monoxide

0.002 grams per litre for Hydrogen

The solubility is, according to Henry's law, proportional to the
partial pressure of the gas. The solubilities of gases decrease as
the temperature increases and the solubility of CO2 deviates from
Henry's Law at high pressure.

A quick calculation on the back of an envelope will show that the
amount of fuel gas (CO+H2) that can be stored in solution in a
reasonable amount of water is tiny, even at high pressure.

However, the amount of CO2 that dissolves in water under pressure is
significant. That is why they put champagne in strong bottles.

Pressurised water is quite an effective solvent for removing CO2 from
fuel gases. However, in commercial systems its solubility is usually
enhanced by adding chemicals such as amines to the mix.

Food for thought?

Steve Goldthorpe

You wrote:-
>Gas Storage in water, mineralized water and other methods
which may separate
>or enhance the quality is dependent upon several factors for
efficiency of
>storage or separation.
> Solubility of various gases at various temperatures and
pressures in
>water is the primary driving variable. If CO, CO2, H2 all
have the same
>solubility factors, there would be no separation. I doubt if
they do, but it
>would also be doubtful if there would be much economic or
engineering merit
>to this method. This should be easy to look up. Certain
metals will form
>hydrides with hydrogen and as such, can be stored in a solid
form and used as
>a method of separation, however, if CO interferes with this
process, would
>reduce the effectiveness of this process.
> I met a few days ago with a gentleman who built a downdraft
several
>megawatt gasifier which operated on sawdust and ran his engine
on the output
>gas. He visited our operating gasifier. He currently has a
natural
>gas/combined cycle facility for manufacturing activated
charcoal and drying
>lumber at a lumber mill he owns. Very interesting young
entrepeneur.
>Tom Taylor
>Thermogenics Inc.
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From eta-pet at eta-team.com Sun Apr 18 02:12:10 1999
From: eta-pet at eta-team.com (Albrecht Kaupp)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Onsite gas storage
In-Reply-To: <afbfac19.244a6449@cs.com>
Message-ID: <199904180612.CAA11322@solstice.crest.org>

Tom, you have a point here. Looking at the major bottle neck of
commercalisation
of small scale gasification- the difficulties to keep the process continously
going due to little control over the fuel quality- the best would be gas
storage
(for small consumption only). A recent pretty frank discussion about the
ongoing
commercialisation of process heat gasifiers for the silk industry in India
showed
the usual difficulties that have been well known over the last 60 years:
Without
control over the fuel quality and its preparation there will be no
commercialisation, not even of process heat gasifiers.Users don't put up with
flames going on and off several times a day or hour, just because the fuel
preparation is insufficient. Not to mention the extrem health hazard
cerated by
this on and off operations. In the case of gas storage there will be an
average
gas quality from on and off "good" gas generation.
How much energy do you need.??? Well, we still own our paradise in Boracay
in the
Philippines. If there, we live on 250 Wh of electricty a day from PV. Most
of it
goes to the laptop and pumping rain water that has been collected in a 50 cbm
storage tank to the top of the hill to get 3 bar pressure on the water supply
line. The 30 litre gas refrigiator consumes 1 bottle of LPG (15 kg) per
month,
and keeps the beer cold. Considering a cold wave of 25 C during winter time
(September to January) space heating is less important. Cheers A.Kaupp

Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:

> Dear Peter Davies and all Responders:
>
> I (and Community Power and the Biomass Energy Foundation) appreciate all the
> great comments and suggestions for gas storage that have appeared this week.
>
> I have been very actively building gasifiers and stoves and generators this
> last year with BEF and CPC. Last week I suggested to my wife, Vivian, that
> we buy or build an alternate energy cabin close to our home in Colorado,
> probably in the mountains and close to our home in Golden, and not requiring
> a so called Sport Utility Vehicle, (SUV = Silly, Ugly Vanity) to access.
>
> Gas is capable of supplying all my needs, as witness any Motorhome or house
> trailer operating with propane.
>
> I plan to install a 1 day gas storage unit that I would fill daily from a
> small gasifier before breakfast. It would then run cooking, mantle lamps, a

> micro generator for communication and a gas refrigerator.
>
> Gasification of 1 kg of biomass will generate 2.5 m3 of gas or 1 kWh of
power
> or 5 kWh of heat. How much energy will I need for the good life in the
> woods?
>
> ~~~~~~
>
> I have been storing up all these comments on gas storage and web pages on
gas
> storage in my email directory. Isn't it marvellous that the whole world has
> become a connected community of ideas. After all, behind every detail of
our
> current civilization lies plans, testing etc.
>
> It crossed my mind that we could even have a world conference on GAS
STORAGE.
> We might get a budget of $100K from NREL or DOE. Lots of people would like
> to travel to Colorado to yak about the commercial and environmental and
> efficiency aspects of gas energy storage.
>
> But then, by Email we have already had that conference. Keep the ideas
> flowing,....
>
> TOM REED

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Sun Apr 18 11:47:00 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Gas storage in water
Message-ID: <49b0ad06.244b585a@aol.com>

Dear Jim Goldthorpe,
Thank you for the specific gas solubilities in water which certainly
makes the separation of CO2 feasible in a water system.
There are farmers who put water towers on the exhaust of the
irrigation engines to pull the CO2 from the exhaust and use it in the
irrigation water. The introduction of CO2 into the ground appears to assist
plants in the growth of a root system and increases productivity reducing the
dependency upon atmospheric CO2 conversion by photosynthesis.
This would be an appropriate use for the CO2 removal by water without
the cost or expense of compression, separation and other processes needed to
produce commercial valued materials.
One of our objectives is to produce a small system which would power
irrigation engines using biomass residues and with a CO2 removal process,
introduce a very usable form of carbon back into the carbon chain for plant
usage and reduce atmospheric production of CO2.
Other uses of CO2 in this form would include greenhouse applications
either water borne or air introduced. Once again, if CO2 levels are
increased, the plant growth increases dramatically up to a certain point
where some other limiting factor becomes involved.
Of course these processes all depend upon various forms of support
and ongoing interests, but certainly expand the various applications of the
gasifier.

Sincerely,

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

From SHGOLDT0 at urscorp.com Sun Apr 18 17:01:12 1999
From: SHGOLDT0 at urscorp.com (SHGOLDT0@urscorp.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Gas storage in water
Message-ID: <199904182101.RAA06427@solstice.crest.org>

Additional Header Information:
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com ([198.81.17.67]) by
mail.ursgreiner.com (Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998))
with SMTP id 85256757.00569E93; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 11:46:07 -0400

Received: from LINVENT@aol.com
by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.11) id 6STNa26017;
Sun, 18 Apr 1999 11:46:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: LINVENT@aol.com
Message-ID: <49b0ad06.244b585a@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 11:46:34 EDT
Subject: Re: GAS-L: RE: Gas storage in water
To: gasification@crest.org, SHGOLDT0@urscorp.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189
Reply-To: LINVENT@aol.com

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

Tom,

Thanks for your further ideas about carbon recycling and potential to
enhance what Mother Nature does naturally.

However, the effects are small. The solubilities are proportional to
the PARTIAL pressure of the gas. That means that an exhaust gas with
5% CO2 at atmospheric pressure would have an initial solubility of 5%
of the value for pure CO2. As the CO2 dissolved the CO2 content of
the exhaust would reduce and so would the solubility.

Another issue which may or may not be of benefit to plants is that CO2
dissolved in water becomes weak carbonic acid. Good for alkaline soils
up to a point.

I think that the principal environmental benefit of biomass
gasification is the production of energy without the release of carbon
from fossil fuels into the environment. In comparison other impacts
on the natural recycling of carbon that is already in the environment
are very trivial.

Regards

Steve Goldthorpe

______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: GAS-L: RE: Gas storage in water

Author: LINVENT@aol.com at URSGREINER
Date: 4/18/99 3:46 PM

Dear Jim Goldthorpe,
Thank you for the specific gas solubilities in water which
certainly
makes the separation of CO2 feasible in a water system.
There are farmers who put water towers on the exhaust of
the
irrigation engines to pull the CO2 from the exhaust and use it
in the
irrigation water. The introduction of CO2 into the ground
appears to assist
plants in the growth of a root system and increases
productivity reducing the
dependency upon atmospheric CO2 conversion by photosynthesis.
This would be an appropriate use for the CO2 removal by
water without
the cost or expense of compression, separation and other
processes needed to
produce commercial valued materials.
One of our objectives is to produce a small system which
would power
irrigation engines using biomass residues and with a CO2
removal process,
introduce a very usable form of carbon back into the carbon
chain for plant
usage and reduce atmospheric production of CO2.
Other uses of CO2 in this form would include greenhouse
applications
either water borne or air introduced. Once again, if CO2
levels are
increased, the plant growth increases dramatically up to a
certain point
where some other limiting factor becomes involved.
Of course these processes all depend upon various forms of
support
and ongoing interests, but certainly expand the various
applications of the
gasifier.

Sincerely,

Tom Taylor

From LINVENT at aol.com Sun Apr 18 20:08:45 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Gas storage in water
Message-ID: <97f0757a.244bcdfa@aol.com>

I agree with your comments. Trying to educate the average media reading
knee-jerk about the differences between useful conversion of carbon and
leaving wood to rot on the forest floor is the objective and this is the
political and technical problem. A house represents a much better use for
carbon (wood) as it removes a significant amount of carbon for up to several
hundred years which would otherwise be given to the atmosphere. I do not
believe we should leave any forests unmanaged or "wilderness" for this and
other reasons.
Carbonic acid in the soil has some benefit, but it requires other components
to make it useful. I manage thousands of acres of western and some eastern
farmlands which are alkaline and any acid will help the plants out. Clients
of mine have taken the engine exhaust and fed the water with the CO2 and said
they have seen results in the crops. They also burn sulfur to do the same,
acidify the soil. I cannot quantify the benefits from engine exhaust CO2, but
the grower liked it until the engine quit pump ran backwards and the valving
filled the engine with water. A $15,000 repair bill. His soil pH is 7.5-8.5.
If you have a gasifier stream of 15% CO2, removing some of it will certainly
increase the heating efficiency. We have a bit of this process with a high
velocity cleaning train where the water is circulated through the gas stream
at high velocity and we have not measured the CO2 removal, but it may be
substantial.
I look forward to visiting with you more.
Sincerely,

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

From snkm at btl.net Sun Apr 18 20:12:13 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990418161428.0071cd88@wgs1.btl.net>

>From one lurker --

>
> I think that the principal environmental benefit of biomass
> gasification is the production of energy without the release of carbon
> from fossil fuels into the environment. In comparison other impacts
> on the natural recycling of carbon that is already in the environment
> are very trivial.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Steve Goldthorpe

How do you figure that Steve?? I mean how does gasification release less
CO2?? All carbon that is gasified results in the same CO2 emission levels
when the gas produced is burned. CO burns to CO2. There is no magic here --

Gasification simply "stores" the carbon in another form until "burned" to
produce CO2. Am I missing something here??

To stop CO2 emissions means not burning anything that is carbon based. Like
in nuclear energy -- and electricity produced from such making H2 -- Then
you would have a gas that can "burn" without CO2 emissions. Ergo in
"powering" vehicles as example.

Using any of the gases produced by gasification of any carbon based
material results in that carbon being converted to CO2 when combusted.

Sorry -- no solution to global warming here.

Peter Singfield
Belize
Central America
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From mlefcort at compuserve.com Sun Apr 18 21:33:53 1999
From: mlefcort at compuserve.com (Malcolm D. Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2
Message-ID: <199904182133_MC2-727C-E314@compuserve.com>

Peter Singfield,

What is so terrible about gasifying biomass, burning the producer gas and
releasing CO2 to atmosphere? The CO2 is recycled into new biomass in the
form of trees, plants or agricultural plants. Is that bad?

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

From phoenix at transport.com Sun Apr 18 23:22:07 1999
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2
Message-ID: <199904190322.UAA20253@mail3.transport.com>

To Gasification net,

The confusion here should not be whether biomass combusts to CO2 but rather
which carbon cycle fuels our energy needs. The biomass carbon cycle from
gas to storage may last an average of 80-120 years, the high power density
petroleum cycle however, lasts 80-120 MILLION years. The net accumulation
in the atmosphere results from mixing the cycles to meet our needs. It
serves no purpose to be a part of an integrated, high energy consuming
society and beating on your chest, claiming that your CO2 is preferentially
going into trees. Actually, the coral reef system of the oceans is
probably the largest, long term CO2 storage system on the earth and should
collect CO2 for many thousands of years if it can survive the disruption.

What it reveals to me is that unlimited consumption of fossil fuels to meet
our energy needs can overload some of the more fragile CO2 sequestering
systems such as the oceans. If this happens in a grand way, the net effect
will be to put more bullets in the six shooter as we continue playing
Russian Roulette with our environment.

An integrated modern society has many high energy needs which would
outstrip local biomass supplies to be able to provide the energy necessary
for it to function. A radical change in lower energy lifestyles or much
more extensive conservation methods head us in that direction

Art Krenzel

----------
> From: Malcolm D. Lefcort <mlefcort@compuserve.com>
> To: INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: CO2
> Date: Sunday, April 18, 1999 6:33 PM
>
> Peter Singfield,
>
> What is so terrible about gasifying biomass, burning the producer gas and
> releasing CO2 to atmosphere? The CO2 is recycled into new biomass in
the
> form of trees, plants or agricultural plants. Is that bad?
>
> Malcolm Lefcort
> 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 snkm at btl.net Mon Apr 19 00:30:40 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Steam Reforming and CO2
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990418221613.00f465e8@wgs1.btl.net>

Hmm -- All I'm saying is that the same amount of C02 is produced if the
biomass rots, is burned or is gasified. While doing a search on
gasification I noticed a few sites claiming lower emissions of CO2 when
gasifying biomass. This just does not add up.

As for CO2 balance and planet earth -- we seem to have a few problems
presently. But nothing that can be proven -- as yet.

I believe a simple rule would be to sharply reduce the burning of fossil
fuels. Biomass does not really count because it reverts to CO2 one way or
the other in most cases.

Ergo -- a good argument for nuclear generation of power where possible.
Rather unfortunate that the "Greens" will not "tolerate" this as a solution
to the CO2 and other harmful emissions from fossil fuel burning.

However, utilizing all the biomass available would amount to only a small
fraction of the energy needs of North America presently being supplied by
fossil fuels.

Producer gas certainly makes more CO2 per unit of biomass for the energy
supplied than water gas. And much greater nitrogen based emissions!

>From my old Eshbach -- Hand Book of Engineering Fundamentals:

Typical Composition Ranges of Fuel Gases - % by volume

H2 CH4 CO CO2 O2 N2 BTU/ft(3)

Producer Gas 10-19 .3-6.3 17-30 2.5-7.3 .3-.7 49-58 135-170

Water Gas 45-70 0-4.5 32-41 3.0-5.0 .2-.7 4-10 290-320

So the same amount of biomass will produce roughly twice the energy if
gasified in a steam atmosphere instead of air. Now that can be claimed as a
reduction in CO2 emissions!

It would appear for a number of reasons that one should be interested in
steam reforming of biomass. Substituting H2 for N2 makes for a cleaner
emission as well as much more energy.

I noticed in my lurking that there is a strong interest in producer gas
from biomass but little interest in Water gas from biomass.

Why?

My interest is due to the local sugar factory -- where 335,000 tons of
bagasse "waste" are produced per year.

Presently 4 meg watts of electricity are being produced by simple boiler to
steam to steam turbine route. Yet still, a 15 ton per hour incinerator
cannot handle what is left over -- the surplus ending in a refuse pile.

Now here is the question -- would it pay to gasify the balance or simply
increase the boiler capacity and add another steam turbine gen set?

As for CO2 emissions -- as I demonstrate above -- what is really important
is the amount of energy one can recover from this conversion of carbon to
CO2 process.

One must always remember what the end product is to be. If it is the
generation of electrical power -- does gasification and then feeding a gas
turbine, realize higher over all efficiencies than burning the bagasse
directly in a boiler and powering a steam turbine?

Further -- what would be the capital cost comparisons and the cost of
maintenance over expected life of respective systems?

Dry bagasse has the same value as dry woods -- 8700 B.T.U. per pound. But
normal "fresh" bagasse (43% moisture) is 4139 BTU.

I am under the impression that wet stock is not to great for producer gas
production. But it would be of no problem for water gas production through
steam reforming.

Personally, I am swayed to a greater study of steam reformation as an
alternative to simple burning.

However, I have a long way to go before finishing this study.

Peter Singfield
Xaibe Village
Belize Central America

At 09:33 PM 4/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Peter Singfield,
>
>What is so terrible about gasifying biomass, burning the producer gas and
>releasing CO2 to atmosphere? The CO2 is recycled into new biomass in the
>form of trees, plants or agricultural plants. Is that bad?
>
>Malcolm Lefcort
>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 snkm at btl.net Mon Apr 19 01:09:54 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990418231007.00f4e7c0@wgs1.btl.net>

>To Gasification net,

>The confusion here should not be whether biomass combusts to CO2 but rather
>which carbon cycle fuels our energy needs. The biomass carbon cycle from
>gas to storage may last an average of 80-120 years, the high power density
>petroleum cycle however, lasts 80-120 MILLION years. The net accumulation
>in the atmosphere results from mixing the cycles to meet our needs. It
>serves no purpose to be a part of an integrated, high energy consuming
>society and beating on your chest, claiming that your CO2 is preferentially
>going into trees. Actually, the coral reef system of the oceans is
>probably the largest, long term CO2 storage system on the earth and should
>collect CO2 for many thousands of years if it can survive the disruption.

>Art Krenzel

----------

As was so well put to this list just a short period back -- colder water
can hold more CO2 than warmer water.

We are very worried here in the tropics over coral reef bleaching. A
report, as yet unconfirmed, is pointing the finger at ocean temperature
increases. This causes less CO2 to be "held" by the oceans. Coral is
calcium carbonate and needs carbon in the form of Carbonic Acid to "create"
itself. As the oceans heat up they must lose some of their CO2 and this
means less carbonic acid. The older coral locks carbon very well -- so well
that it is no longer available for new coral growth.

It also means more CO2 in the atmosphere adding a further burden to global
warming. A very neat "snow-ball" effect that will result in a great loss of
sea life.

Maybe we should be watching this very closely as a possible example as to
what is in store for us air breathers -- ultimately.

One would expect an intelligent society to embark on either a crash energy
conservation course or a massive construction of nuclear power generation
or both. But then we now face the very real possibility that it is already
to late to stop the events triggered by the massive fossil fuel burning
accomplished to date.

I believe this bidirectional chemical reaction (that is the fixing of CO2
in coral due to high levels of CO@ in the oceans) will reverse itself once
the next ice age is precipitated.

How can an ice age be precipitated by global warming. Several ways. H20
vapor is another fantastic heat absorber and as global warming proceeds,
ever more is added to our atmosphere -- changing the thermodynamic
characteristics into a greater heat absorber that allows a hotter air add
more H20 to the equation. Snow balled again!

One hypothesis -- waiting to be proven -- is that a great drought occurs
causing excessive drying of all biomass. This eventually burns producing
copious quantities of smoke that shield the sun from the earth's surface,
allowing a drop in temperature. Now the reaction reverses with a vengeance
as H2O passes through it's dew point, condenses on all that smoke particle
material, and great clouds/rains, later snow, occur. This total shielding
from solar energy quickly plummets the temperatures to very low levels --
bingo! -- instant ice age.

Later, much later, cold rains dissolve the excess CO2 and the oceans are
replenished as the earth slowly, oh, ever so slowly, warms back up. The
reefs "fix" the carbon from this last cycle of ignorance and the entire
dance begins anew.

Gee -- I wonder how many times this has occurred in the past few million
years?

Maybe this next turn of the wheel will not have to deal with the Greens --
and their continuous efforts to stop the building of alternate to fossil
fuel burning generation methods -- as in this turn -- nuclear energy.

The Greens will blame everyone but their selves -- of course.

But I am side tracking this list greatly -- please accept my apologies.

Peter Singfield
Xaibe Village
Belize, Central America
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From vvnk at teri.res.in Mon Apr 19 01:40:50 1999
From: vvnk at teri.res.in (V V N Kishore)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Onsite gas storage
Message-ID: <s71b0fa6.067@dakghar.teri.res.in>

I do not agree that the commercialisation problem could be solved by providing on-line gas storage,mainly because of space requirements and the additional costs.The discussion I had with Al Kaupp some months ago was useful and subsequently one of our users solved the problem of fuel quality by tying up with an agent for supply of cut wood.Of course, there is a small additional price to pay,but this more than offsets the 60% fuel saving he has with the gasifier.By the way,if the flame keeps going on and off for whatever reason,then the gasifier is obviously a hoax.Commercialisation is a far cry for the supplier or developer of such a gasifier system.
The problems associated with commercialisation of gasifiers are far from over.However,our experience showed that there is more than one way of solving these problems,and the solution does not (and should not) always come from the academic circles .

>>> Albrecht Kaupp <eta-pet@eta-team.com> 04/18/99 11:42AM >>>
Tom, you have a point here. Looking at the major bottle neck of
commercalisation
of small scale gasification- the difficulties to keep the process continously
going due to little control over the fuel quality- the best would be gas
storage
(for small consumption only). A recent pretty frank discussion about the
ongoing
commercialisation of process heat gasifiers for the silk industry in India
showed
the usual difficulties that have been well known over the last 60 years:
Without
control over the fuel quality and its preparation there will be no
commercialisation, not even of process heat gasifiers.Users don't put up with
flames going on and off several times a day or hour, just because the fuel
preparation is insufficient. Not to mention the extrem health hazard
cerated by
this on and off operations. In the case of gas storage there will be an
average
gas quality from on and off "good" gas generation.
How much energy do you need.??? Well, we still own our paradise in Boracay
in the
Philippines. If there, we live on 250 Wh of electricty a day from PV. Most
of it
goes to the laptop and pumping rain water that has been collected in a 50 cbm
storage tank to the top of the hill to get 3 bar pressure on the water supply
line. The 30 litre gas refrigiator consumes 1 bottle of LPG (15 kg) per
month,
and keeps the beer cold. Considering a cold wave of 25 C during winter time
(September to January) space heating is less important. Cheers A.Kaupp

Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:

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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Apr 19 07:48:37 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Gas storage in water
Message-ID: <f1c337e3.244c7202@cs.com>

Dear Goldthorpe and all:

Thanks for the hard info on CO2.

3.346 grams per litre for Carbon dioxide

However, that is only 0.33% by weight, and that is at 0 C. I believe it
decreases monotonically to 0% at the boiling point so room temperature might
be 0.2%.

So, Tom Talor and all, it takes a LOT of water to remove a little CO2 from
producer gas. If you are serious you will have to use the amine system or
maybe lime....

Intersting that carbonated water is good for the plants. Is that why they
are always throwing their drinks into the rubber plants when their dates
aren't looking in movies?

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

From onar at con2.com Mon Apr 19 10:05:29 1999
From: onar at con2.com (Onar Aam)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2
Message-ID: <007c01be8a6d$a6f51320$da52c3d0@z9c9t4>

>What it reveals to me is that unlimited consumption of fossil fuels to meet
>our energy needs can overload some of the more fragile CO2 sequestering
>systems such as the oceans.

This is not true. Increased CO2 has beneficial effects on 90% of all plants
on earth. What you are talking about is the climate change induced by CO2.
First of all: only global circulation models show that dramatic changes
should have been happening, reality itself has not displayed such dramatic
change. Second, coral bleaching is associated with fast *changes* in
temperature not with the absolute temperature itself. Thus during rapid (as
in a few days/weeks) warming or cooling is the only time bleaching occurs.
Thus, long term climate change is not hazardous to coral reefs. Third, the
most important CO2 sink in the world is the ocean itself, not coral reefs.

>If this happens in a grand way, the net effect
>will be to put more bullets in the six shooter as we continue playing
>Russian Roulette with our environment.

This is the scaremonger version of the story. The more realistic one is that
as we put out more fossil CO2 into the atmosphere the climate changes only
slightly and the CO2 fertilization effect leads to a significant greening of
the earth, both below and above water. So as someone who is very concerned
about the future of life on earth, I think our current fossil fuel emissions
probably are one of the best things we can do for the ecosystems. For more
on the beneficial effects of CO2 on biomass see www.co2science.org.

>An integrated modern society has many high energy needs which would
>outstrip local biomass supplies to be able to provide the energy necessary
>for it to function.

But fossil fuel emissions are changing that. Increased CO2 content increases
the amount of carbon stored per plant and the speed at which trees grow.
Apart from the obvious benefits to the third world this will also have
significant impact on the forestry industries. Less areas needs to be
devoted to getting out the same amount of cellulose/fuel.

Since this is somewhat offtopic I will not push this thread further,
although it is very, very tempting. :-)

Onar.

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

From tissads at sri.lanka.net Mon Apr 19 12:36:04 1999
From: tissads at sri.lanka.net (Tissa de Silva)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <199904191636.MAA01721@solstice.crest.org>

Owner-gasification
Bill Hauseman gave your Email. We need a storage system for Bio gas. At
present we store bio gas at about 4 inches water pressure in a floting steel
drums. also We store under a floting fiberglass hood with a water seal .
Bill sugeseted that We contact you to find out the membranes system you
offer to store Bio Gas. Can bio gas be bottled.?.
We produce bio gas by using market vegitable waste and water hysin .
Regards Tissa De Silva
South Assian Regional development consultants

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

From antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br Mon Apr 19 17:47:47 1999
From: antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br (Antonio G. P. Hilst)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:
In-Reply-To: <199904160115.UAA03794@laknet.slt.lk>
Message-ID: <37169619.6EA0BD43@merconet.com.br>

Dear Nets and Tom:

Carbon steel drums immersed in water will corrode, more quickly in presence of
traces of H2S. I suggest you paint all metal parts careffuly with a good paint.

For your list of reference books:

Griswold - Fuel, Combustion, and Furnaces - McGraw
Wilson and Wells - Coal, Coke, and Coal Chemicals - McGraw
Gumz - Gas Producers and Blast Furnaces - John Wiley
Meunier - Gazeification et Oxydation des Combustibles - Masson & Cie, in French
Hyde and Jones - Gas Calorimetry - Ernest Benn - London

They are old but very compreensive and they go from the fundamentals to
applications; see for instance Wilson and Wells on gasholders.

Antonio

robert luis rabello wrote:

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

From snkm at btl.net Mon Apr 19 20:09:33 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990419173848.00df7338@wgs1.btl.net>

Onar -- very well put -- I do believe I will continue my plans to make a
gasifier after all.

Peter Singfield
Belize

At 10:05 AM 4/19/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>What it reveals to me is that unlimited consumption of fossil fuels to meet
>>our energy needs can overload some of the more fragile CO2 sequestering
>>systems such as the oceans.
>
>This is not true. Increased CO2 has beneficial effects on 90% of all plants
>on earth. What you are talking about is the climate change induced by CO2.
>First of all: only global circulation models show that dramatic changes
>should have been happening, reality itself has not displayed such dramatic
>change. Second, coral bleaching is associated with fast *changes* in
>temperature not with the absolute temperature itself. Thus during rapid (as
>in a few days/weeks) warming or cooling is the only time bleaching occurs.
>Thus, long term climate change is not hazardous to coral reefs. Third, the
>most important CO2 sink in the world is the ocean itself, not coral reefs.

********snipped**************
>Onar.
>
>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 tk at tke.dk Tue Apr 20 04:42:26 1999
From: tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Sv:
Message-ID: <001801be8b01$c076ec80$048744c0@image.image.dk>

Dear Tissa De Silva

Thank you very much for your e-mail.

We work with reactor design where the gas storage is integratedf in the reactor.
The storage consist of a PVC membrane that is covered by a structure of PVC tubes.
This design is very suitable for manuretanks from 15 to 40 meters in diameter. (99 % of the
danish manure is stored in such tanks) This gives a tank capacity of about 0,3-0,6 m3 pr m2
tanksurface, depending of the design of the top of the reactor.
You can as well use a steel top but it is much more expensive and heavy.
An other system that is used i Denmark is storage in large plastic bags with 20-100 m3 with no pressure in.

Biogas can be compressed. It takes 3-4 % of the lower heating value to compress it to 200 bar.
I New Zealand they operate truck on CNG (Compressec Natural Gas)

You are very welcome to contact me again if you need more information or want to discus about biogas.

Yours sincerely

Thomas Koch

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Tissa de Silva <tissads@sri.lanka.net>
Til: undisclosed-recipients:; <undisclosed-recipients:;>
Dato: 19. april 1999 19:37

>Owner-gasification
>Bill Hauseman gave your Email. We need a storage system for Bio gas. At
>present we store bio gas at about 4 inches water pressure in a floting steel
>drums. also We store under a floting fiberglass hood with a water seal .
>Bill sugeseted that We contact you to find out the membranes system you
>offer to store Bio Gas. Can bio gas be bottled.?.
>We produce bio gas by using market vegitable waste and water hysin .
>Regards Tissa De Silva
>South Assian Regional development consultants
>
>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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Apr 20 08:58:14 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Steam Reforming and CO2
Message-ID: <66ba42bc.244dd3da@cs.com>

Dear Peter:

You are tuning in late to endless debates on world climate here at
www.Crest.org (see archives), and I hope your comments don't start another
deluge.

Your water gas analysis is interesting but incomplete. The water gas has
indeed a higher energy content, but since making it is endothermic, a great
deal of external combustion is required to support the process. No free
lunches here.

To summarize my global warming position, most of the things recommended to
reduce CO2 emissions - higher efficiency, renewable energy, etc. should also
be done in the name of preserving our birthright fossil fuel reserves for a
longer time and a higher use. So, in a practical sense I support these
measures. However, I don't think the scientific case for GW is very sound if
global warming can bring on global cooling as some maintain.

I spent a while in Belize trying to revive a Bagasse to Charcoal process for
WHO. Too little effort, but a good bagasse charcoal process could benefit a
lot of people in the developing processes. Belize is a lovely country. What
do you do there?

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 4/18/99 7:07:24 PM Mountain Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

<<
Hmm -- All I'm saying is that the same amount of C02 is produced if the
biomass rots, is burned or is gasified. While doing a search on
gasification I noticed a few sites claiming lower emissions of CO2 when
gasifying biomass. This just does not add up.

As for CO2 balance and planet earth -- we seem to have a few problems
presently. But nothing that can be proven -- as yet.

I believe a simple rule would be to sharply reduce the burning of fossil
fuels. Biomass does not really count because it reverts to CO2 one way or
the other in most cases.

Ergo -- a good argument for nuclear generation of power where possible.
Rather unfortunate that the "Greens" will not "tolerate" this as a solution
to the CO2 and other harmful emissions from fossil fuel burning.

However, utilizing all the biomass available would amount to only a small
fraction of the energy needs of North America presently being supplied by
fossil fuels.

Producer gas certainly makes more CO2 per unit of biomass for the energy
supplied than water gas. And much greater nitrogen based emissions!

From my old Eshbach -- Hand Book of Engineering Fundamentals:

Typical Composition Ranges of Fuel Gases - % by volume

H2 CH4 CO CO2 O2 N2 BTU/ft(3)

Producer Gas 10-19 .3-6.3 17-30 2.5-7.3 .3-.7 49-58 135-170

Water Gas 45-70 0-4.5 32-41 3.0-5.0 .2-.7 4-10 290-320

So the same amount of biomass will produce roughly twice the energy if
gasified in a steam atmosphere instead of air. Now that can be claimed as a
reduction in CO2 emissions!

It would appear for a number of reasons that one should be interested in
steam reforming of biomass. Substituting H2 for N2 makes for a cleaner
emission as well as much more energy.

I noticed in my lurking that there is a strong interest in producer gas
from biomass but little interest in Water gas from biomass.

Why?

My interest is due to the local sugar factory -- where 335,000 tons of
bagasse "waste" are produced per year.

Presently 4 meg watts of electricity are being produced by simple boiler to
steam to steam turbine route. Yet still, a 15 ton per hour incinerator
cannot handle what is left over -- the surplus ending in a refuse pile.

Now here is the question -- would it pay to gasify the balance or simply
increase the boiler capacity and add another steam turbine gen set?

As for CO2 emissions -- as I demonstrate above -- what is really important
is the amount of energy one can recover from this conversion of carbon to
CO2 process.

One must always remember what the end product is to be. If it is the
generation of electrical power -- does gasification and then feeding a gas
turbine, realize higher over all efficiencies than burning the bagasse
directly in a boiler and powering a steam turbine?

Further -- what would be the capital cost comparisons and the cost of
maintenance over expected life of respective systems?

Dry bagasse has the same value as dry woods -- 8700 B.T.U. per pound. But
normal "fresh" bagasse (43% moisture) is 4139 BTU.

I am under the impression that wet stock is not to great for producer gas
production. But it would be of no problem for water gas production through
steam reforming.

Personally, I am swayed to a greater study of steam reformation as an
alternative to simple burning.

However, I have a long way to go before finishing this study.

Peter Singfield
Xaibe Village
Belize Central America
>>

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Apr 20 09:58:23 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: GAS storage
Message-ID: <d8cb2be4.244de1ed@aol.com>

To gas storers:
Have any of you seen the buses with large bags on top of them filled
with Natural gas? Asian countries have used this as opposed to CNG for
storage. I have no idea how many miles per bag they get, but it is
interesting looking.

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

From snkm at btl.net Tue Apr 20 13:09:10 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Steam Reforming and CO2
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990420110814.011c48cc@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Tom;

>You are tuning in late to endless debates on world climate here at
>www.Crest.org (see archives), and I hope your comments don't start another
>deluge.

So do I!!

>
>Your water gas analysis is interesting but incomplete. The water gas has
>indeed a higher energy content, but since making it is endothermic, a great
>deal of external combustion is required to support the process. No free
>lunches here.

Less than 20% and the higher BTU value of the gas produced more than makes
up for it. It is the high temperatures and the fact that the endothermic
reaction keeps cooling it down below its "reaction" point that make it
problematic. I am hoping I have a unique solution for this.

As one can imagine -- operating at 1600 plus F under pressure has certain
mechanical problems. Mind you, I solved this with some "trickery" many
years ago. The trick being to keep part of your structural integrity at
"room" temperature. I called it thermal barrier engineering.

>To summarize my global warming position, most of the things recommended to
>reduce CO2 emissions - higher efficiency, renewable energy, etc. should
also
>be done in the name of preserving our birthright fossil fuel reserves for a
>longer time and a higher use. So, in a practical sense I support these
>measures. However, I don't think the scientific case for GW is very sound
if
>global warming can bring on global cooling as some maintain.

Hard to say in these matters. We will only know for sure after the event.
In the meantime we must continue in our day to day attempt to increase
efficiencies -- if not in the name of stopping a hypothetical global
warming -- at least to conserve our resources for supplying an ever
increasing world population.

>I spent a while in Belize trying to revive a Bagasse to Charcoal process for
>WHO. Too little effort, but a good bagasse charcoal process could benefit a
>lot of people in the developing processes.

In the water gas production from Bagasse -- the first stage is pyrolizing
it to charcoal. Is there any special benefit to bagasse charcoal?? For
instance -- during WW1 they produced the activated charcoal for gas masks
from the cohune palm found so much here.

Belize is a lovely country. What
>do you do there?

I "retired" here (to live permanently) at a very young age (42) and have
become a rather famous medicine man. Presently am 52 and very far from
retirement. Actually, busier than I have ever been in my life before -- 18
hrs a day seven days per week.

You can see some examples of what I do at:

http://www.wireworm.com/snkm/index.htm

A further venture of mine -- mostly as an excuse for me to "escape" is at:

http://www.ambergriscaye.com/reefcrawl/

But in my previous life I did a stint with the Canadian National Research
council and was heavily involved in thermodynamics. Especially in very high
temp/pressure steam generation. I was also very advanced in control
instrumentation and rode that first wave of micro controllers.

Strangely, when visited a couple months back by the Chief engineer of Coors
Brewery, it appears that I am still rather ahead of present day technology
when it comes to signal conditioning, micro processors, data logging etc.
Apparently people buy these units over the shelf -- not realizing how easy
and very economic they are to create.

My forte is liquid metal boilers and the "Heat Capacitor". All these things
are presently in the process of being implemented, with the help of Dale,
into a very high tech gasifier -- using the water gas method.

If my thinking is correct in this matter -- you are soon to witness a
revolution in home gas production.

What turns Dale on is I can out put the gas at any pressure you want --
5000 PSI being OK. I was working on systems to 15,000 PSI. Though for
prototyping I figure 300 PSI and still "bunker" the surroundings -- just in
case.

It would be very easy to produce 2000 PSI gas to charge an Oxygen tank.

This of course is one method to win back part of that 20% --

I am using some technology that is hard to custom build -- such a fin
tubing. But I know of a commercial company in Quebec Canada (Sorel) that
does this very well using a focussed induction furnace and for very
reasonable cost.

More on all this some later date -- I always jump to far ahead and confuse
my listener.

As some point (probably after Dale and I have built a small prototype to
prove the feasibility) -- we'll get the whole list into this.

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

From antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br Tue Apr 20 16:29:15 1999
From: antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br (Antonio G. P. Hilst)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Acids in tar?, Gas bag options.
In-Reply-To: <371881C6.E4A77B1F@willmar.com>
Message-ID: <371BA72E.1F01F421@merconet.com.br>

Does "big-bag"(1 m3 = 37 cu ft) in polipropilene fit the job?

Antonio

fractional@willmar.com wrote:

> Greetings Gasifiers,
>
> Are there any components in the tars produced by the gasification of
> pine, cedar, oak or ash which would be harmful to EPDM rubber (roofing
> membrane)?
>
> Dales idea of an accordion for suction and pressure appeals greatly
> to me but feel a 6 to 10 mil plastic bag might leak excessively.
> Whereas there is some comfort in the sealing and flexing qualities of
> roofing rubber, especially in the cold (-30 F*). Short of any better
> ideas for filling the bag and supplying positive pressure to appliances
> without the endless need for electrically driven pumps, this is the
> best idea yet.
>
> Tom states that a cubic meter of gas is sufficient for a six hour
> burn with single element gas lamp. It really takes two elements to
> adequately read or do visually demanding work comfortably. Since Dales
> lives the life thats probably why he has such a good sized bag.
> A single light source of two elements would consume a 22" diameter
> tube 20' long in an evening, being about two cubic meters.
>
> For pressure only, an overgrown toothpaste tube (6' dia, 20' long) of
> roofing membrane
> laying on the ground could be squeeze pressurized with a heavy roller,
> activated with a rock strung through a pulley. An oak tree trunk
> covered with rubber would suffice for rolling it up over a bed of
> sand. Alternately, a large spool (10' long, 2' core, 4' spool wheels),
> would roll over snow covered ground nicely. With the axis of the tube
> aligned with tall spool wheels, creases (stresses) could be eliminated
> also, so 8' wheels might be a better choice. Natural gas pipe and
> utility cable comes on some 6' and bigger ready made spools, the wood
> ones are quite heavy.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alan
>
> 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 tmiles at teleport.com Wed Apr 21 17:09:16 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Quick Power, Inc.
Message-ID: <199904212109.RAA23130@solstice.crest.org>

I received an inquiry today about a company called Quick Power, Inc.
(California) that purports to offer a 200 kW remote power generation system
based on a fluidized bed combustor with a combustion turbine.

I would appreciate any information about the development, installed
systems, or operating history, etc. of this system. It is being considered
for use in Latin America.

Thanks

From willy at sltnet.lk Thu Apr 22 00:51:30 1999
From: willy at sltnet.lk (W.B.Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Quick Power, Inc.
Message-ID: <199904221547.KAA17857@laknet.slt.lk>

I too would like to know more about this Quick Power thing. If proven
reliable, there may be a market for it in Sri Lanka.
Thanks W.B.Hauserman

At 02:12 PM 4/21/99 -0700, you wrote:
>I received an inquiry today about a company called Quick Power, Inc.
>(California) that purports to offer a 200 kW remote power generation system
>based on a fluidized bed combustor with a combustion turbine.
>
>I would appreciate any information about the development, installed
>systems, or operating history, etc. of this system. It is being considered
>for use in Latin America.
>
>Thanks
>
>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
>
>

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

From neeft at ecn.nl Thu Apr 22 05:39:18 1999
From: neeft at ecn.nl (J. Neeft)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Size of tar aersosols
Message-ID: <09061760707168@ecnpdc.ecn.nl>

Dear Tom Reed and Gasification,

In modelling and experimental programmes towards tar removal from
producer gases, the size of tar aerosols that form upon cooling of the
gas is an important parameter. So far, I have not found any data in
literature, nor could any tar expert I contacted in the last months
provide me with such data.

Is there anyone who has data on the sizes or size distributions of tar
aerosols?
I am well aware that sizes of tar aerosols might depend on the
concentration and composition of tars, and on the cooling trajectory of
the gas (e.g. heat exchanger, water injection). However, any data would
be very helpfull.

With regards,

John Neeft
Netherlands Energy Research Foundation ECN
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Apr 22 07:24:28 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:
Message-ID: <1c2cfbd7.245060e1@cs.com>

Dear Antonio:

I am very glad to have your recommended bibliography on "oldie but goodie"
books. We think we're so smart at the end of the 20th Century that we can't
leard from the past. WRONG, particularly in gasification and gas storage. I
will take the list to CSM Library and see what I can find.

I would add to the list

Rambush, N. E., Modern Gas Producers, Benn Bros. Ltd., London, 1923

(and of course our BEF list of 14 books on biomass and gasification which I
have published here too often, but am adding to as we speak.)

antonio.hilst@merconet.com.br writes:

<< Dear Nets and Tom:

Carbon steel drums immersed in water will corrode, more quickly in presence
of
traces of H2S. I suggest you paint all metal parts careffuly with a good
paint.

For your list of reference books:

Griswold - Fuel, Combustion, and Furnaces - McGraw
Wilson and Wells - Coal, Coke, and Coal Chemicals - McGraw
Gumz - Gas Producers and Blast Furnaces - John Wiley
Meunier - Gazeification et Oxydation des Combustibles - Masson & Cie, in
French
Hyde and Jones - Gas Calorimetry - Ernest Benn - London

They are old but very compreensive and they go from the fundamentals to
applications; see for instance Wilson and Wells on gasholders.

Antonio

robert luis rabello wrote:
>>

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Apr 22 22:13:00 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tar Dewpoint
Message-ID: <4bab1979.24513121@cs.com>

Dear Gasers:

What is the "tar dewpoint". By analogy with water behavior, if the tar
concentration is high, as in fast pyrolysis where concentration can exceed
50%, the dewpoint will be high (but variable). John Scahill at NREL
speculates that it is above 350C. When it is low, like occasionally < 100
ppm (Bangalore gasifiers), I would speculate that the dewpoint is <100 C, and
all the tar nuclei could co-condense with the water in the system.

I have long dreamt of a "tar dewpoint" meter - a mirror of controlled
temperature located in the gas stream and visible through a window.
Initially it is above the dewpoint, then is cooled slowly until the first fog
appears. Reheat and you have a clean mirror again.
I also dream that someone else will try it, but I may have to do it myself.

Speculation is a good beginning. Facts, anyone????

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Apr 22 22:13:20 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Size and dewpoint of tar aersosols
Message-ID: <4268d877.24513120@cs.com>

Dear John Neeft et al:

Tar aerosol size is an excellent question and one that I have been pondering
in out gasifier design. I hope we get some answers coming back as we float
it to the gasification group. We certainly got a great response on gas
storage.

The size certainly depends on the temperature and time cycle during which the
"tar" particulate forms. Much of this information would be destroyed then as
the tar is collected and further agglomerates. We know that even after
scrubbing there is usually a visible "mist" of tar, so these particles are
probably <10 microns or they would have been filtered/settled.

Hub Stassen (at Twente Univ.) brings up the question of water mist
co-condensation with tars. Does water condense on the tar particles when the
temperature falls below the water dewpoint (40-80 C depending on fuel water
content)?

A closely related question is what is the "tar dewpoint". By analogy with
water behavior, if the tar concentration is high, as in fast pyrolysis where
concentration can exceed 50%, the dewpoint will be high (but variable). John
Scahill at NREL speculates that it is above 350C. When it is low, like
occasionally < 100 ppm (Bangalore gasifiers), I would speculate that the
dewpoint is <100 C, and all the tar nuclei could co-condense with the water
in the system.

I have long dreamt of a "tar dewpoint" meter - a mirror of controlled
temperature located in the gas stream and visible through a window. Initially
it is above the dewpoint, then is cooled slowly until the first fog appears.
Reheat and you have a clean mirror again.

Please separate responses to this message into tar size and tar dewpoint. I
will re-send the dewpoint part as a separate "thread nucleus".

Speculation is a good beginning. Facts, anyone????

Yours truly, TOM REED, BEF

In a message dated 4/22/99 2:15:10 AM Mountain Daylight Time, neeft@ecn.nl
writes:

<<
Dear Tom Reed and Gasification,

In modelling and experimental programmes towards tar removal from
producer gases, the size of tar aerosols that form upon cooling of the
gas is an important parameter. So far, I have not found any data in
literature, nor could any tar expert I contacted in the last months
provide me with such data.

Is there anyone who has data on the sizes or size distributions of tar
aerosols?
I am well aware that sizes of tar aerosols might depend on the
concentration and composition of tars, and on the cooling trajectory of
the gas (e.g. heat exchanger, water injection). However, any data would
be very helpfull.

With regards,

John Neeft
Netherlands Energy Research Foundation ECN
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive >>

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Apr 23 01:47:07 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tar Dewpoint
Message-ID: <2bbf39a3.2451634d@aol.com>

Dear Gassers,
Tar dew point is even more complex than just temperature. Paart of
the factor is the issue with decomposition at or above it's "dewpoint". Like
petroleum vapors, the hydrocarbons may coke at temperatures above the
dewpoint and appear as though it was depositing as a condensate.
I currently have plastic windows in pipes on the gasifier which we
are operating. There is condensation at various temperatures and the
moisture is coalescing the tars on to the surface. The temperatures are away
from the gasifier and as such, are in the less than 200F temperature region
where the moisture condensed. I may be running the unit at above boiling and
see if tars still collect.
Any particulate present in a tar stream makes this question more
difficult to answer as the particulates act as a point of nucleation and also
will foul any measuring system.
I would like the see the results of trying to boil tars after
condensed. They appear to be somewhat unstable and merely break down and
char upon heating. Vapors evolved may be water mixed with the tars.
Tom Taylor

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

From paisley at BATTELLE.ORG Fri Apr 23 07:30:47 1999
From: paisley at BATTELLE.ORG (Paisley, Mark A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Size and dewpoint of tar aerosols
Message-ID: <11C72E011E30D111B13D00A0C98439DF80B018@ns-bco-mse5.im.battelle.org>

Tom, et al,

Tar aerosols tend to be not discrete tar with water "on top" but rather
something akin to an emulsion of tar (heavy hydrocarbon) and water. For
this reason, your statement about the time temperature history being
important is quite correct. The specific "dewpoint" will therefore vary
significantly with the conditions under which the tar aerosols are formed.

This water emulsion character helps to explain, along with the chemical
reaction of the hydrocarbons why tars cannot be cooled, collected, then
reheated for study. As we all have found out, tars tend to "polymerize"
thus making heavier molecular weight materials (and therefore higher boiling
point) the longer they exist at elevated temperatures. This polymerization
will also take place at room temperature.

Mark Paisley

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reedtb2@cs.com [SMTP:Reedtb2@cs.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 10:13 PM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Size and dewpoint of tar aersosols
>
> Dear John Neeft et al:
>
> Tar aerosol size is an excellent question and one that I have been
> pondering
> in out gasifier design. I hope we get some answers coming back as we
> float
> it to the gasification group. We certainly got a great response on gas
> storage.
>
> The size certainly depends on the temperature and time cycle during which
> the
> "tar" particulate forms. Much of this information would be destroyed then
> as
> the tar is collected and further agglomerates. We know that even after
> scrubbing there is usually a visible "mist" of tar, so these particles are
>
> probably <10 microns or they would have been filtered/settled.
>
> Hub Stassen (at Twente Univ.) brings up the question of water mist
> co-condensation with tars. Does water condense on the tar particles when
> the
> temperature falls below the water dewpoint (40-80 C depending on fuel
> water
> content)?
>
> A closely related question is what is the "tar dewpoint". By analogy with
>
> water behavior, if the tar concentration is high, as in fast pyrolysis
> where
> concentration can exceed 50%, the dewpoint will be high (but variable).
> John
> Scahill at NREL speculates that it is above 350C. When it is low, like
> occasionally < 100 ppm (Bangalore gasifiers), I would speculate that the
> dewpoint is <100 C, and all the tar nuclei could co-condense with the
> water
> in the system.
>
> I have long dreamt of a "tar dewpoint" meter - a mirror of controlled
> temperature located in the gas stream and visible through a window.
> Initially
> it is above the dewpoint, then is cooled slowly until the first fog
> appears.
> Reheat and you have a clean mirror again.
>
> Please separate responses to this message into tar size and tar dewpoint.
> I
> will re-send the dewpoint part as a separate "thread nucleus".
>
> Speculation is a good beginning. Facts, anyone????
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED, BEF
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 4/22/99 2:15:10 AM Mountain Daylight Time, neeft@ecn.nl
>
> writes:
>
> <<
> Dear Tom Reed and Gasification,
>
> In modelling and experimental programmes towards tar removal from
> producer gases, the size of tar aerosols that form upon cooling of the
> gas is an important parameter. So far, I have not found any data in
> literature, nor could any tar expert I contacted in the last months
> provide me with such data.
>
> Is there anyone who has data on the sizes or size distributions of tar
> aerosols?
> I am well aware that sizes of tar aerosols might depend on the
> concentration and composition of tars, and on the cooling trajectory of
> the gas (e.g. heat exchanger, water injection). However, any data would
> be very helpfull.
>
> With regards,
>
> John Neeft
> Netherlands Energy Research Foundation ECN
> 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 gaspro at inet.uni-c.dk Fri Apr 23 08:25:27 1999
From: gaspro at inet.uni-c.dk (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Halmfortet_p=E5_server?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: Fw: GAS-L: Size of tar aersosols
Message-ID: <01be8d83$681fcfa0$0a00a8c0@flis.halmfortet.dk>

Hi John,

I may have some results, you can use.

I did some investigations on particles from the two-stage (separate pyrolysis to minimize tar-production) pilot gasifier on DTU, Denmark. I made some measurements on particle sizes using a Pilat Mark III cascade impactor. In this device particles of progressively smaller sizes are forced to impact on filter surfaces in several stages in the device. I found that approx. 85% of the particles went right through indicating that they were smaller than 0.2 microns. This was confirmed in an electron microscope, where it was identified as soot (primary particles with diameters of 70nm inclusive potential tar-coating).
The particle sampling was made after a cyclone and cooler, so the temperature in the pipe was 40C and the sample stream was heated to ~70C.

Tar contents in the particles were determined to approx 8% extractable with dichloromethane after drying the particles at 120C. This corresponds well with our experience of low tar contents in our gas.

I expect that ALL of the tar contents in the gas have condensed on the soot particles during cooling.

Later work using TEM-matrixes on the same particle stream suggests that the particles travel in clusters of approx. 0.1 micron sizes.

Probably your soot-contents and tar-contents are different, but I hope you can use my clues. My thesis is available as a zipped postscript-file at:

http://www.image.dk/~claus_h/thesis.zip

Cheers,

Claus Hindsgaul Hansen
Halmfortet - DTU, Område 120 - DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
Phone: (+45) 4525 4174 - FAX: (+45) 4593 5761
claus_h@image.dk

>Is there anyone who has data on the sizes or size distributions of tar
>aerosols?
>I am well aware that sizes of tar aerosols might depend on the
>concentration and composition of tars, and on the cooling trajectory of
>the gas (e.g. heat exchanger, water injection). However, any data would
>be very helpfull.

Claus Hindsgaul Hansen
Halmfortet - DTU, Område 120 - DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
Phone: (+45) 4525 4174 - FAX: (+45) 4593 5761
claus_h@image.dk

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

From snkm at btl.net Fri Apr 23 08:28:06 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Size and dewpoint of tar aerosols
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990423062804.0071a820@wgs1.btl.net>

Question;

Do tars steam reform? Say as in water gas production from Coke -- 1600 DEG
F steam.

Peter Singfield
Belize

At 07:31 AM 4/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Tom, et al,
>
>Tar aerosols tend to be not discrete tar with water "on top" but rather
>something akin to an emulsion of tar (heavy hydrocarbon) and water. For
>this reason, your statement about the time temperature history being
>important is quite correct. The specific "dewpoint" will therefore vary
>significantly with the conditions under which the tar aerosols are formed.
>
>This water emulsion character helps to explain, along with the chemical
>reaction of the hydrocarbons why tars cannot be cooled, collected, then
>reheated for study. As we all have found out, tars tend to "polymerize"
>thus making heavier molecular weight materials (and therefore higher boiling
>point) the longer they exist at elevated temperatures. This polymerization
>will also take place at room temperature.
>
>Mark Paisley

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

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Apr 23 08:49:03 1999
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: forgasser
In-Reply-To: <199904160133.UAA04107@laknet.slt.lk>
Message-ID: <37208647.14ED35E8@c2i.net>

W.B.Hauserman wrote:

> Gubject: Sawdust power.
>
> I'm looking for a quick lead on a simple,
> reasonably-well-demonstrated suspension-fired combustor OR gasifier to use
> sawdust as a boiler fuel, for power generation. Possible output range: 1/2
> to several MW, to be determined.
>
> Does anyone out there know of such a beast on the market??
>
> Thanks.
> W.B.Hauserman
> willy@sltnet.lk
>
> 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 Fri Apr 23 10:57:00 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tar Dewpoint
Message-ID: <003301be8d99$bd6247c0$4a8941d8@compaq>

Dear Tom and all: If I grasp your tar subject, from my practical
observation the best "tar dewpoint" meter exists already! There is a point
where wood gas being formed in the plumbing circuitry will combust at the
opening of a 3 inch pipe with ambient air with a zero opacity "heat wave"
when lit. This is when storable gas is then able to be diverted to storage
and/or use! I don't need to know anything else. If there is tar or not
tar, or steam or not steam before this occurance is of no consequence. Dale
-----Original Message-----
From: Reedtb2@cs.com <Reedtb2@cs.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Thursday, April 22, 1999 7:24 PM
Subject: GAS-L: Tar Dewpoint

>Dear Gasers:
>
>What is the "tar dewpoint". By analogy with water behavior, if the tar
>concentration is high, as in fast pyrolysis where concentration can exceed
>50%, the dewpoint will be high (but variable). John Scahill at NREL
>speculates that it is above 350C. When it is low, like occasionally < 100
>ppm (Bangalore gasifiers), I would speculate that the dewpoint is <100 C,
and
>all the tar nuclei could co-condense with the water in the system.
>
>I have long dreamt of a "tar dewpoint" meter - a mirror of controlled
>temperature located in the gas stream and visible through a window.
>Initially it is above the dewpoint, then is cooled slowly until the first
fog
>appears. Reheat and you have a clean mirror again.
>I also dream that someone else will try it, but I may have to do it myself.
>
>Speculation is a good beginning. Facts, anyone????
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED, BEF
>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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Apr 23 11:13:59 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Size and dewpoint of tar aerosols
Message-ID: <d400c1a7.2451e81c@cs.com>

Mark Paisley et al:

You said >> This water emulsion character helps to explain, along with the
chemical
reaction of the hydrocarbons why tars cannot be cooled, collected, then
reheated for study. As we all have found out, tars tend to "polymerize"
thus making heavier molecular weight materials (and therefore higher boiling
point) the longer they exist at elevated temperatures. This polymerization
will also take place at room temperature.

Mark Paisley
>>

Right on, Mark. While we are at it, it is important to differentiate between

o Tars formed below about 600C. These are the monomers, oligomers and
fragments of the lignin, hemicellulose and cellulose that constitute the
original biomass. So it is no suprise that they polymerize easily in
storage. If they are quenched fast enough, they form the "bio-oil" fast
pyrolysis oil that is being studied so extensively and hopefully in the
biomass community. I like to call these light weight tars "wood oil" (by
analogy to coal oil, produced in same temp range from coal). Mike Antal
likes to call them "wood syrup".

and

o Tars formed above about 700C, containing mostly polynuclear aromatics,
"chicken wire" compounds. These are very close in character to the tars
formed from coal or in cracking furnaces, and represent a hindered
thermodynamic equilibrium along the road to soot. I would call these "wood
tars" by analogy to coal tars.

For the gory details on tars, see among others, "Biomass Gasifier "Tars":
Their Nature, Formation, and Conversion", T. Milne, N. Abatzoglou and R. J.
Evans, NREL/TP 570 25357. Should I publish this in the BEF Press?

Yours for truth in tars,
TOM REED BEF
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From gaspro at inet.uni-c.dk Fri Apr 23 11:24:45 1999
From: gaspro at inet.uni-c.dk (Claus Hindsgaul)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Size of tar aersosols (Thesis access details)
Message-ID: <01be8d9c$ce3ef680$0a00a8c0@flis.halmfortet.dk>

I guess, I should give some more details to people, who wants to read my thesis, since J. Neeft just pointed out to me, that Adobe's Acrobats Reader cannot read my postscript file. This may have caused trouble for those of you trying to read it.

Fortunately, the free program, ghostview does correctly read and print the thesis. It is available for most platforms at:

http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/

The full thesis is 135 pages. Appendices start at page 80, so you may only want to make hard copies of pages up to 79.

Sincerly,
Claus

Claus Hindsgaul Hansen
Halmfortet - DTU, Område 120 - DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
Phone: (+45) 4525 4174 - FAX: (+45) 4593 5761
claus_h@image.dk

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

From achen at max.state.ia.us Fri Apr 23 12:31:49 1999
From: achen at max.state.ia.us (Angela Chen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Rules of thumb
In-Reply-To: <199807161030_MC2-534D-311A@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <3720BD6F.D06A25BB@max.state.ia.us>

Does any one have emission rate data for switchgrass when it is co-fired
with coal for power generation? How much (in tons or pounds) CO2, NOx,
SOx, and particulate will be emitted from burning one ton of
switchgrass?

Thanks.

Thomas Reed wrote:

> Dear Bill and all:
>
> Bill MacTaggart asked about estimating gas and energy production from
> biomass.
>
> As a good rule of thumb
>
> The energy content of typical biomass is 18 MJ/kg (8,000 Btu/lb)
> Gasification of 1 kg of biomass makes 3 m3 of gas
> The energy in 1 kg of biomass can generate 5 kWh(thermal) or 1 kWh of
> electric power (20% eff)
> 1 m3 of gas weighs 1 kg
>
> Hope this helps -
>
> TOM REED

begin: vcard
fn: Angela Chen
n: Chen;Angela
org: IDNR
adr: Energy Bureau, IDNR;;Wallace State Office Building;Des Moines;IA ;50319;USA
email;internet: achen@max.state.ia.us
title: Executive Officer
tel;work: (515)281-4736
tel;fax: (515)281-6794
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
end: vcard

From VHarris001 at aol.com Fri Apr 23 23:00:17 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tar Dewpoint
Message-ID: <7a1232fb.24528cb3@aol.com>

Dale, how do you find where that "best tar dewpoint" is and how do you draw
the gas out of the system for combustion?

Regards,
Vernon Harris

In a message dated 4/23/99 11:07:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
costich@pacifier.com writes:

> Dear Tom and all: If I grasp your tar subject, from my practical
> observation the best "tar dewpoint" meter exists already! There is a point
> where wood gas being formed in the plumbing circuitry will combust at the
> opening of a 3 inch pipe with ambient air with a zero opacity "heat wave"
> when lit. This is when storable gas is then able to be diverted to storage
> and/or use! I don't need to know anything else. If there is tar or not
> tar, or steam or not steam before this occurance is of no consequence.
Dale

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

From willy at sltnet.lk Sat Apr 24 01:35:24 1999
From: willy at sltnet.lk (W.B.Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Chippers/choppers?
Message-ID: <199904241631.LAA25861@laknet.slt.lk>

I am looking for wood chippers or speciallized hammer mills, capable
of reducing 8"-10" logs to (1) Coarse chips, in the 1"-4" range, with a
minimum of fines, and (2) Finer chips - say 1/4"-1" - with very lttle
undersize. Multi-pass systems with oversize recycle OK. Capacities of 1-2 MT
(Tonnes) per hour OK. Higher also probably acceptable. Potential market
location: Sri Lanka. Local representation/service organization preferred, if
possible.

If you have such a product, please let me know, and send specs and
infobundle to following, where I'll be home to start digesting it in a
couple of weeks. (Meanwhile, please, no attachments to this - above -
e-mail address. It can't handle them.)

Many thanks.
W.B.Hauserman, PE
Hauserman
Associates, Inc.
868 Westview Dr.
Shoreview, Minnesota
55126 USA
+1-651-490-3091
(Fax -490-3122)
hauserman@corpcomm.net

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

From parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in Sat Apr 24 05:45:07 1999
From: parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Size and dewpoint of tar aerosols
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990423062804.0071a820@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.990424152339.28207E-100000@agni.me.iitb.ernet.in>

Yes Tars do steam reform. The effect is masurable. I refer you to the PhD
work of Dr. Channiwala. A copy is available with Dr. TOM Reed.
Design of the water seal plays an important role in making the tar
reformation effective. Reasonable R&D results available on this topic.
Mrs Parikh

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prof. (Mrs.) P.P.Parikh Phone Office : 5783496, 5767548
Dept. of Mechanical Engg. 5782545 Ext. 7548 / 8385
I.I.T. Bombay Home : 5704646
Mumbai 400 076 INDIA Fax Office : 5783496, 5783480

email : parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Peter Singfield wrote:

> Question;
>
> Do tars steam reform? Say as in water gas production from Coke -- 1600 DEG
> F steam.
>
> Peter Singfield
> Belize
>
>
> At 07:31 AM 4/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >Tom, et al,
> >
> >Tar aerosols tend to be not discrete tar with water "on top" but rather
> >something akin to an emulsion of tar (heavy hydrocarbon) and water. For
> >this reason, your statement about the time temperature history being
> >important is quite correct. The specific "dewpoint" will therefore vary
> >significantly with the conditions under which the tar aerosols are formed.
> >
> >This water emulsion character helps to explain, along with the chemical
> >reaction of the hydrocarbons why tars cannot be cooled, collected, then
> >reheated for study. As we all have found out, tars tend to "polymerize"
> >thus making heavier molecular weight materials (and therefore higher boiling
> >point) the longer they exist at elevated temperatures. This polymerization
> >will also take place at room temperature.
> >
> >Mark Paisley
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

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

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Sat Apr 24 08:20:56 1999
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Size and dewpoint of tar aerosols/hydrogenation
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199904241220140646@classic.msn.com>

It was explained to me long ago that steam at 1600 degrees is 'process steam'
and is commonly used for HYDROGENATION.
Vegg oil is the most common organic compound to get this and you know the end
result a margarine.
Perhaps this line of thought should be applied to tar-talk.
skip

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Apr 24 08:45:48 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Size and dewpoint of tar aerosols
Message-ID: <1a74aa88.245316ea@cs.com>

Dear Peter et al:

In 1980 I thought that a bed of hot charcoal would be the best tar cracker
available.

Unfortunately, the tar vapor is in a gas containing CO2 and H2O and within
2-4 particle diameters the temperature drops to <800 C due to the endothermic
Boudouard and Water gas reactions.

A number of gasifiers were built in the early '80s which tried cracking tars
by increasing the temperature with a little combustion air. It takes an
extended period above 1200 C to crack the tars. And then they make soot.

Sorry about that, ....... TOM REED

In a message dated 4/23/99 5:03:27 AM Mountain Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

<<
Question;

Do tars steam reform? Say as in water gas production from Coke -- 1600 DEG
F steam.

Peter Singfield
Belize

>>

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

From tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net Sat Apr 24 09:17:10 1999
From: tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net (Tvoivozhd)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Chippers/choppers?
In-Reply-To: <199904241631.LAA25861@laknet.slt.lk>
Message-ID: <3721CF85.E68F0CAF@roanoke.infi.net>

"W.B.Hauserman" wrote:

> I am looking for wood chippers or speciallized hammer mills, capable
> of reducing 8"-10" logs to (1) Coarse chips, in the 1"-4" range, with a
> minimum of fines, and (2) Finer chips - say 1/4"-1" - with very lttle
> undersize. Multi-pass systems with oversize recycle OK. Capacities of 1-2 MT
> (Tonnes) per hour OK. Higher also probably acceptable. Potential market
> location: Sri Lanka. Local representation/service organization preferred, if
> possible.
>
> If you have such a product, please let me know, and send specs and
> infobundle to following, where I'll be home to start digesting it in a
> couple of weeks. (Meanwhile, please, no attachments to this - above -
> e-mail address. It can't handle them.)
>
> Many thanks.
> W.B.Hauserman, PE
> Hauserman
> Associates, Inc.
> 868 Westview Dr.
> Shoreview, Minnesota
> 55126 USA
> +1-651-490-3091
> (Fax -490-3122)
> hauserman@corpcomm.net
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

>>>tvoivozhd: Morbark makes big wood chippers. The type equipment you need is
called granulators in the plastic recycling business. There are single-stage
reduction machines, but twenty years ago I set up a two-stage system to reduce
polycarbonate clumps the size of Volkswagons to 3/8 inch. Used a Mitts Merrill
"hog" followed by a Cumberland secondary reduction. As far as I know it is still
working well. Used about two hundred horsepower electric motor on the Mitts, one
hundred on the Cumberland---bigger motors could have been used for more
production.

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

From snkm at btl.net Sat Apr 24 09:34:11 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Size and dewpoint of tar aerosols
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990424073422.00debb1c@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Folks;

I have combined the two responses to my enquiry regarding steam reforming
tars.

Prof. Parikh appears to believe such is the case.

Yet Tom sure comes up with a convincing argument that this is to no avail.

Guess I should rephrase this enquiry at this point.

Is it possible that less tars are created in a water gas reaction -- say at
1600 Deg. F. operation -- when gasifying biomass?

How ever -- I must point out that Tom is referring to air combustion while
the subject was steam reforming.

Peter Singfield
Belize, C.A.

>Yes Tars do steam reform. The effect is masurable. I refer you to the PhD
>work of Dr. Channiwala. A copy is available with Dr. TOM Reed.
>Design of the water seal plays an important role in making the tar
>reformation effective. Reasonable R&D results available on this topic.
>Mrs Parikh

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~
>Prof. (Mrs.) P.P.Parikh

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

At 08:45 AM 4/24/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Peter et al:
>
>In 1980 I thought that a bed of hot charcoal would be the best tar cracker
>available.
>
>Unfortunately, the tar vapor is in a gas containing CO2 and H2O and within
>2-4 particle diameters the temperature drops to <800 C due to the
endothermic
>Boudouard and Water gas reactions.
>
>A number of gasifiers were built in the early '80s which tried cracking
tars
>by increasing the temperature with a little combustion air. It takes an
>extended period above 1200 C to crack the tars. And then they make soot.
>
>Sorry about that, ....... TOM REED
>
>In a message dated 4/23/99 5:03:27 AM Mountain Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
>writes:
>
><<
> Question;
>
> Do tars steam reform? Say as in water gas production from Coke -- 1600 DEG
> F steam.
>
> Peter Singfield
> Belize
>
> >>
>
>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 fractional at willmar.com Sat Apr 24 10:12:54 1999
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Chipper Designs
Message-ID: <371F5B78.667E4279@willmar.com>

Hello List,

Does anyone have designs or information on the construction of a
medium sized chipper with its own feed mechanism? Something on the
scale of a tree removal service might use. Most of the product from
these machines are slivers I believe. Can they be set to 1/2", or would
that take to much power?
A friend had suggested using corn stalk choppers as they already have
a feed mechanism and a nice heavy flywheel to attach cutters to.
The feed rollers are not usable as they are, and would not accept a
large branch.

Thanks for any info,

Alan

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Apr 24 17:53:36 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fwd: Charcoal Patent Search
Message-ID: <fee2e466.2453974b@cs.com>

Here is a message on charcoal and charcoal-cofiring that I have been asked to
pass on.....

TOM REED

In a message dated 4/23/99 11:43:07 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
arcate@email.msn.com writes:

<< Hello Tom Reed:

Please see update on my Charcoal Technology page.
http://www.techtp.com/biocoal/charcoal.htm
I added a patent search results.

Maybe you could send a message to Bioenergy, Gasification, etc. telling them
about my web page and requesting people submit charcoal process & project
info to me at arcate@msn.com

thank you, Jim Arcate

PS: Here is a interesting message I rec'd today from Herman den Uil, at the
Netherlands Energy Research Foundation:

Dear Mr. Arcate:

I have already seen your concept for co-firing charcoal and coal at your
website some time ago. Generally, co-processing is very interesting because
it partially uses existing facilities and thereby reduces investments
required for biomass conversion. Furthermore, co-processing allows a gradual
transition to a renewable fuels based society.

Your proposal for co-firing charcoal and coal seems to be a very interesting
option. Since a large part of the world's electricity production is based on
coal combustion, co-firing biomass with coal offers an enormous market for
biomass conversion. However, directly co-firing of biomass and coal is
rather difficult because of the biomass size reduction required.

In the Netherlands there is one large-scale plant (EPON-plant Nijmegen)
where waste wood and coal are co-fired. They have had a lot of start-up and
operational problems in the pre-treatment section for waste wood (especially
size reduction). In a 2nd initiative for large-scale co-firing in the
Netherlands wood will be gasified before co-firing (EPZ-plant
Geeertruidenberg). The plant (A Lurgi CFB-gasifier) is expected to be
operational at the beginning of 2000. Furthermore, 2 research institutes
(KEMA&BTG) in the Netherlands also considered co-firing charcoal and coal.
Since biomass supply potential in the Netherlands is relatively small,
biomass import will be required in the future to achieve a considerable
contribution of biomass to energy supply. Since biomass transportation costs
for biomass are relatively high charcoal production before import seems to
be an interesting option.

Charcoal production is an interesting alternative pre-treatment step before
co-firing, circumventing problems with size reduction of biomass. I didn't
have a detailed look into your comparisons between co-firing biomass&coal
and charcoal&coal, but I think rather high charcoal yields are required to
compete with co-firing biomass&coal. In your Bioenergy '98 paper you give an
advanced co-firing scheme where volatiles evolved from charcoal production
are used in a 'topping' combustor. This option might not be as simple as you
presented it. Probably partial oxidation/gasification of the volatiles and
succecssive gas-cleanup will be required before combustion. Furthermore, by
co-firing charcoal&coal ash components from biomass are still introduced
into coal combustion plant, possibly giving ash related problems.
Gasification as pre-treatment step circumventes ash related problems.

I presume that Mr. Antal draw your attention to the paper we present at the
Olle Lindstrom Symposium and that you have already read our paper. One of
the topics in our paper is a new process for biomass gasification. One step
in this new process is charcoal production. Therefore, we share interest in
charcoal production. I have a few questions to you:

Can you tell somewhat more about Transnational Technology?

Are you employing activities for implementing your concept for co-firing
charcoal and coal. Research programs, demonstration plants?

You have based your process on high-pressure charcoal production technology
being developed at University of Hawaii. Do you have any information on
costs and efficiences of commercial continuous charcoal production
processes?

Are you attending the symposium in Stockholm?

Best regards,

Herman den Uil

>>

To: "Tom Reed" <Reedtb2@cs.com>
Subject: Charcoal Patent Search
From: "Jim Arcate" <arcate@email.msn.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:04:57 -1000
Reply-To: arcate@email.msn.com

Hello Tom Reed:

Please see update on my Charcoal Technology page.
http://www.techtp.com/biocoal/charcoal.htm
I added a patent search results.

Maybe you could send a message to Bioenergy, Gasification, etc. telling them
about my web page and requesting people submit charcoal process & project
info to me at arcate@msn.com

thank you, Jim Arcate

PS: Here is a interesting message I rec'd today from Herman den Uil, at the
Netherlands Energy Research Foundation:

Dear Mr. Arcate:

I have already seen your concept for co-firing charcoal and coal at your
website some time ago. Generally, co-processing is very interesting because
it partially uses existing facilities and thereby reduces investments
required for biomass conversion. Furthermore, co-processing allows a gradual
transition to a renewable fuels based society.

Your proposal for co-firing charcoal and coal seems to be a very interesting
option. Since a large part of the world's electricity production is based on
coal combustion, co-firing biomass with coal offers an enormous market for
biomass conversion. However, directly co-firing of biomass and coal is
rather difficult because of the biomass size reduction required.

In the Netherlands there is one large-scale plant (EPON-plant Nijmegen)
where waste wood and coal are co-fired. They have had a lot of start-up and
operational problems in the pre-treatment section for waste wood (especially
size reduction). In a 2nd initiative for large-scale co-firing in the
Netherlands wood will be gasified before co-firing (EPZ-plant
Geeertruidenberg). The plant (A Lurgi CFB-gasifier) is expected to be
operational at the beginning of 2000. Furthermore, 2 research institutes
(KEMA&BTG) in the Netherlands also considered co-firing charcoal and coal.
Since biomass supply potential in the Netherlands is relatively small,
biomass import will be required in the future to achieve a considerable
contribution of biomass to energy supply. Since biomass transportation costs
for biomass are relatively high charcoal production before import seems to
be an interesting option.

Charcoal production is an interesting alternative pre-treatment step before
co-firing, circumventing problems with size reduction of biomass. I didn't
have a detailed look into your comparisons between co-firing biomass&coal
and charcoal&coal, but I think rather high charcoal yields are required to
compete with co-firing biomass&coal. In your Bioenergy '98 paper you give an
advanced co-firing scheme where volatiles evolved from charcoal production
are used in a 'topping' combustor. This option might not be as simple as you
presented it. Probably partial oxidation/gasification of the volatiles and
succecssive gas-cleanup will be required before combustion. Furthermore, by
co-firing charcoal&coal ash components from biomass are still introduced
into coal combustion plant, possibly giving ash related problems.
Gasification as pre-treatment step circumventes ash related problems.

I presume that Mr. Antal draw your attention to the paper we present at the
Olle Lindstrom Symposium and that you have already read our paper. One of
the topics in our paper is a new process for biomass gasification. One step
in this new process is charcoal production. Therefore, we share interest in
charcoal production. I have a few questions to you:

Can you tell somewhat more about Transnational Technology?

Are you employing activities for implementing your concept for co-firing
charcoal and coal. Research programs, demonstration plants?

You have based your process on high-pressure charcoal production technology
being developed at University of Hawaii. Do you have any information on
costs and efficiences of commercial continuous charcoal production
processes?

Are you attending the symposium in Stockholm?

Best regards,

Herman den Uil

From tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net Sat Apr 24 23:46:14 1999
From: tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net (Tvoivozhd)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Chipper Designs
In-Reply-To: <371F5B78.667E4279@willmar.com>
Message-ID: <37229B37.7EFF7378@roanoke.infi.net>

fractional@willmar.com wrote:

> Hello List,
>
> Does anyone have designs or information on the construction of a
> medium sized chipper with its own feed mechanism? Something on the
> scale of a tree removal service might use. Most of the product from
> these machines are slivers I believe. Can they be set to 1/2", or would
> that take to much power?
> A friend had suggested using corn stalk choppers as they already have
> a feed mechanism and a nice heavy flywheel to attach cutters to.
> The feed rollers are not usable as they are, and would not accept a
> large branch.
>
> Thanks for any info,
>
> Alan
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

>>>tvoivozhd---they generally produce chips, not slivers---at least if the
knives are sharp. Here's some URL's on various chippers, including one
tub-grinder which will gnaw away on anything you throw in it. I presume it
has a discharge screen, the size of the holes control the final chip-size.
Write them to see if my assumption is correct.
http://www.morbark.com/wtc.htm
http://www.vermeer.com/eq_brush_chippers.html
http://www.vermeer.com/eq_tub_grinders.html#Anchor-TG400A
http://www.forestind.com/northlandchippers/chippers.html#hand_fed_chippers

You can use plastic recycling "granulators"

Here is a used Mitts Merrill 200 hp "hog" producing 1" chips. Feed the
output into a secondary granulator to produce your required final granule or
chip size. http://www.nwmachine.com/inventory/12119.htm
And a 150 hp Cumberland secondary granulator
http://www.nwmachine.com/inventory/12123.htm

A 100 horsepower Mitts Merrill hog in this URL
http://www.norsol.com/glacierintl/prod01.htm

Reduction Technology (successor to Mitts Merrill) for new machines with
staggered knives.
http://reductiontechnology.com/grinders4.html
http://reductiontechnology.com/grinders3.html

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

From costich at pacifier.com Sun Apr 25 00:11:01 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Chipper Designs
Message-ID: <000801be8ed1$d63d4040$8e8a41d8@compaq>

-----Original Message-----
From: fractional@willmar.com <fractional@willmar.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Saturday, April 24, 1999 7:23 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Chipper Designs

>Hello List,
>
> Does anyone have designs or information on the construction of a
>medium sized chipper with its own feed mechanism? Something on the
>scale of a tree removal service might use. Most of the product from
>these machines are slivers I believe. Can they be set to 1/2", or would
>that take to much power?
I was responsible for setting the clearance for all purpose 4 cylinder
air-cooled trailer mounted chippers at a industrial rental yard. seemed
people would feed twigs to tree trunks into them. Clearance=.10 or less.
As a youth on the dairy farm I replaced helical knives and cutter bars and
sharpened "corn heads"
conclusion: for great feedstock size and density range =tiny clearance for=
leafy green plants

helical cutter blades shearing by the cutterbar .050 or closer just as so
not to touch. Dale

> A friend had suggested using corn stalk choppers as they already have
>a feed mechanism and a nice heavy flywheel to attach cutters to.
> The feed rollers are not usable as they are, and would not accept a
>large branch.
>
>Thanks for any info,
>
>Alan
>
>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 Sun Apr 25 00:48:10 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tar Dewpoint
Message-ID: <002001be8ed7$06c15940$8e8a41d8@compaq>

-----Original Message-----
From: VHarris001@aol.com <VHarris001@aol.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Friday, April 23, 1999 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Tar Dewpoint

>Dale, how do you find where that "best tar dewpoint" is and how do you draw
>the gas out of the system for combustion?
>Vern : I use a Fuji ring compressor (turbine like) it acts as a sucker
pulling air down thru the hearth and entirely thru the cooling tower and
precipitate collection tanks and the gas is pushed from it (it is in series)
with the flare and the gas bag. It is powered with a permanent magnet
variable speed dc brush motor. Vary the suction to control reaction rate.
the "best" tar dewpoint is imaginary and imaterial. When the flare supports
itself on the 3" dia horizontal orifice with out blowing off the "seat" or
out, and there is only heat waves visible I am making gas worth storing or
entraining into a engine. Dale
>Regards,
>Vernon Harris
>
>
>
>In a message dated 4/23/99 11:07:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>costich@pacifier.com writes:
>
>> Dear Tom and all: If I grasp your tar subject, from my practical
>> observation the best "tar dewpoint" meter exists already! There is a
point
>> where wood gas being formed in the plumbing circuitry will combust at
the
>> opening of a 3 inch pipe with ambient air with a zero opacity "heat
wave"
>> when lit. This is when storable gas is then able to be diverted to
storage
>> and/or use! I don't need to know anything else. If there is tar or not
>> tar, or steam or not steam before this occurance is of no consequence.
>Dale
>
>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 Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz Mon Apr 26 06:22:28 1999
From: Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz (Dean and Anne)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2 Removal Before Storage
In-Reply-To: <001201be758b$cda06f20$0100007f@localhost>
Message-ID: <37243880.45FE@xtra.co.nz>

Hi All - I know I am a bit late on this thread, but what the hell. For
all of you that use gasifiers I believe you have quite a bit of ash,
this ash contains quite a bit of CaO and other oxides. If you were to
pass your gas though a solution of washed ash you would find that a
great deal of the CO2 will fall out or combined with most of the oxides
to produce carbonates. Just a thought. I have used this method myself in
trying to remove most of the arsinic from coal ash while still retaining
some of the other minerals as carbonates, my dad wanted to use coal ash
in the compost bin. The CO2 removed the caustic nature of the stuff. No
conclusion on the arsinic removal yet, still need to analyse the
residue.

Regards

Dean

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

From support at mathtrek.com Mon Apr 26 08:38:04 1999
From: support at mathtrek.com (W. R. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2 Removal Before Storage
In-Reply-To: <001201be758b$cda06f20$0100007f@localhost>
Message-ID: <4.1.19990426083059.03be8070@mail.sentex.net>

At 09:57 PM 4/26/99 +1200, you wrote:
>Hi All - I know I am a bit late on this thread, but what the hell. For
>all of you that use gasifiers I believe you have quite a bit of ash,
>this ash contains quite a bit of CaO and other oxides. If you were to
>pass your gas though a solution of washed ash you would find that a
>great deal of the CO2 will fall out or combined with most of the oxides
>to produce carbonates.

Anyone who is interested might consider looking at our EQS4WIN software
(URL below). It can do thermodynamic modeling of such systems, to predict
precipitation products as a function of feed compositions; indeed, I
believe that at least one large industrial customer has used it for this
type of purpose in the past.

-- W. R. Smith, PhD, P. Eng., Senior Scientist, Mathtrek Systems --
3-304 Stone Road West, Suite 165, Guelph, Ontario CANADA N1G 4W4
EMail: support@mathtrek.com Tel:519-763-1356,FAX:519-763-4525
--------------------- http://www.mathtrek.com ---------------------
-Mathtrek Systems - Home of EQS4WIN Chemical Equilibrium Software -

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

From loiselle at dinonet1.dinonet.it Mon Apr 26 14:27:30 1999
From: loiselle at dinonet1.dinonet.it (loiselle@dinonet1.dinonet.it)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: removal from distribution list
In-Reply-To: <002001be8ed7$06c15940$8e8a41d8@compaq>
Message-ID: <19990426182739274.AAA67@loiselle>

Dear Gas-L,

thank you for your years of information and interesting discussions,
I am finding that I have less and less time to follow the discussion
list and would therefore like to be removed from the list for now.
thanks

Steven _Loiselle

Dott. STEVEN LOISELLE
Pian dei Mantellini 44
Dept. of Chemical & Biosystem Sciences
UNIV. di SIENA
53100 Siena - Italy
tel +39 0577 232022
fax +39 0577 232004
www.unisi.it/wetland

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

From Eddie.Lim at pp.nsw.gov.au Mon Apr 26 21:05:51 1999
From: Eddie.Lim at pp.nsw.gov.au (Lim, Eddie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Chippers/choppers?
Message-ID: <D750FFBD4936D111842000805F15EFA49B599D@meppb1.pp.nsw.gov.au>

Mr W B Hauserman,

You could try Van Gelder Machines which are mobile Diesel powered units.
Contact: Mr Nev Brownlo Phone 61-0738578400 Fax 61-073858155 in Brisbane,
Australia.

Eddie Lim.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: W.B.Hauserman [SMTP:willy@sltnet.lk]
> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 1999 2:32 AM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Chippers/choppers?
>
>
> I am looking for wood chippers or speciallized hammer mills,
> capable
> of reducing 8"-10" logs to (1) Coarse chips, in the 1"-4" range, with a
> minimum of fines, and (2) Finer chips - say 1/4"-1" - with very lttle
> undersize. Multi-pass systems with oversize recycle OK. Capacities of 1-2
> MT
> (Tonnes) per hour OK. Higher also probably acceptable. Potential market
> location: Sri Lanka. Local representation/service organization preferred,
> if
> possible.
>
> If you have such a product, please let me know, and send specs and
> infobundle to following, where I'll be home to start digesting it in a
> couple of weeks. (Meanwhile, please, no attachments to this - above -
> e-mail address. It can't handle them.)
>
> Many thanks.
> W.B.Hauserman, PE
> Hauserman
> Associates, Inc.
> 868 Westview Dr.
> Shoreview,
> Minnesota
> 55126 USA
> +1-651-490-3091
> (Fax -490-3122)
>
> hauserman@corpcomm.net
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From s354024 at student.uq.edu.au Tue Apr 27 10:45:10 1999
From: s354024 at student.uq.edu.au (Jeremy)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Do you have more figures?
Message-ID: <006001be90b9$0479e740$d48214ac@jeremy>

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a student in university who is = involved in a research project
about an alternative waste treatment of landfill. Do = you have any
information on the energy efficiency and the costing (running cost,
investment,etc) of incineration? Would you say that incineration is more economical and environmentally friendly than the traditional landfill system? What are the ashes of incineration and how much does it cost for
the scrubbing?
Your attention is greatly appreciated!
Jeremy

From staff at powerenergy.com Tue Apr 27 15:51:02 1999
From: staff at powerenergy.com (Power Energy Fuels Inc.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Alchol from landfills.
In-Reply-To: <006001be90b9$0479e740$d48214ac@jeremy>
Message-ID: <199904271951.PAA26054@solstice.crest.org>

Jeremy wrote:
>
> Dear Sir/Madam, I am a student in university who is = involved in a
> research project about an alternative waste treatment of landfill. Do
> = you have any information on the energy efficiency and the costing
> (running cost, investment,etc) of incineration? Would you say that
> incineration is more economical and environmentally friendly than the
> traditional landfill system? What are the ashes of incineration and
> how much does it cost for the scrubbing? Your attention is greatly
> appreciated! Jeremy
Dear Jeremy,
Look us up on www.powerenergy.com and see if that is a better use
for landfills. Thank you.
Gene Jackson

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

From willy at sltnet.lk Tue Apr 27 21:50:16 1999
From: willy at sltnet.lk (W.B.Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Change of address.
Message-ID: <199904280150.VAA17092@solstice.crest.org>

28 April

Change of address.

To: Anyone about to try to send to: willy@sltnet.lk

Please send to hauserman@corpcomm.net

Thanks

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Apr 28 09:41:09 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis, Gasification and Combustion
Message-ID: <4e2e82a.245869d8@cs.com>

Dear Friends in Gasification and Stoves:

I woke up this morning trying to think clearly about some aspects of
gasification and winding up thinking about the words we use. Each of us has
a slightly or very different use for the words on which our thinking is
based. There can be disagreement about facts, but often disagreements come
down to different understanding of the words.

So I have made myself a glossary of our words as intend to use them. I am
also attaching it as a MSWord file. I would appreciate your comments,
agreements, disagreements, suggestions etc. Please bring up new related
words with your definitions....

Yours truly, TOM REED
BEF

GLOSSARY: CLEAR THINKING IN PYROLYSIS, GASIFICATION AND COMBUSTION
(PYROLYSIS, GASIFICATION AND COMBUSTION)

I am convinced that biomass processes are much more complex than
nuclear energy. In a few decades, Einstein, Plank and others formulated all
of modern Physics, based on the clear ideas of classical physics.

In the 10,000 years of the development of civilization Humans have
only begun to understand the processes of pyrolysis, gasification and
combustion, PGC. (I put these important words in this order, because you
can't have combustion without a degree of gasification and you can't have
gasification without pyrolysis.)

Clear thinking is based on an exact understanding and definition of
the words we use. Muddy words lead to muddy thinking. On this basis, I will
here define or re-define the words we need for clear thinking in pyrolysis,
gasification and combustion.

Unfortunately, the definitions of words are in the form of other
words which makes cleaning out the mud difficult and could be circular.
Eventually however, you get down to works that everyone agrees on, physical
referants that we can point to and then the disagreement stops.
· PYROLYSIS: The breaking down of materials by heat, whatever the source, to
yield volatiles and charcoal
· VOLATILES: The vapor and gas that emerges from the biomass (largely
between 200 and 400°C. Note that "volatiles" includes both gas and vapor,
while "vapor" is only the fraction that is liquid at room temperature.
· VAPOR: Chemicals that are liquid at room temperature but gases at higher
temperature. (See Tar, wood oil and wood tar).
· TAR: A pejorative term for the heavier vapor components. I prefer "wood
tar" for the high temperature vapors from processes over 700°C and "wood oil"
for the vapors from processes (fast pyrolysis) operating below 600°C.
· Wood tar (Biomass tar): Polynuclear aromatics (naphthalene, anthracene
etc.) produced from vapors above 700°C. Analogous to coal tar.
· Wood oil (Biomass oil, biocrude): The monomers, oligomers and fragments of
the constituents of biomass cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Analogous
to coal oil.
· GAS (Permanent gas): Chemical compounds that remain in the gas phase below
0°C .
· CHARCOAL: The largely carbon, but some mineral material resulting from
pyrolysis
· XCOAL: A more accurate description of charcoal in which X denotes the
degree of conversion - yet to be more accurately defined
· GASIFICATION: Conversion of biomass to gas (and accidentally ash, char-ash
and vapors (tars) (I have in the past used the terms "gastarifier" for
updraft gasifiers which produce 20% tar; and "gascharifiers" for downdraft
gasifiers, which produce 5-10% unconverted char-ash.
· ASH: The mineral content of biomass, typically silicon dioxide, CaO, Na2O,
K2O, P2O5 etc.
· CHAR-ASH: The material left after high temperature gasification
· COMBUSTION: The conversion of char, tars and gases to heat, CO2 and H2O,
the ultimate fate of most thermal and other energy conversion of biomas.

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

From dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu Wed Apr 28 10:53:28 1999
From: dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis, Gasification and Combustion
Message-ID: <601A55066596D211A7AD00104BC6FB25073390@catalina.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

(just some feed back and commentary)

I like your definitions. It is important to use correct terminology. I
usually refer to your handbook as a guide or use precedent set by coal
gasification. I used to hear the word degasifier used in place of gasifier.
(don't ask why) I think XCOAL could be confusing. For example 40%coal
might be conceived as the definition of how much (fossil) coal exists in the
sample, in this case 40% (mass or volume?). I don't see a need to invent
new words, (gascharifier or gastarifier), that describe the intended purpose
or operational characteristics of the gasifier. Every reactor get it's own
special name from its creator at some point.

-----Original Message-----
From: Reedtb2@cs.com [mailto:Reedtb2@cs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 8:41 AM
To: gasification@crest.org; stoves@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis, Gasification and Combustion

Dear Friends in Gasification and Stoves:

I woke up this morning trying to think clearly about some aspects of
gasification and winding up thinking about the words we use. Each of us has

a slightly or very different use for the words on which our thinking is
based. There can be disagreement about facts, but often disagreements come
down to different understanding of the words.

Yours truly, TOM REED

BEF

GLOSSARY: CLEAR THINKING IN PYROLYSIS, GASIFICATION AND COMBUSTION
(PYROLYSIS, GASIFICATION AND COMBUSTION)

I am convinced that biomass processes are much more complex than
nuclear energy. In a few decades, Einstein, Plank and others formulated all

of modern Physics, based on the clear ideas of classical physics.

Clear thinking is based on an exact understanding and definition of
the words we use. Muddy words lead to muddy thinking. On this basis, I
will
here define or re-define the words we need for clear thinking in pyrolysis,
gasification and combustion.

0°C .
· CHARCOAL: The largely carbon, but some mineral material resulting from
pyrolysis
· XCOAL: A more accurate description of charcoal in which X denotes the
degree of conversion - yet to be more accurately defined
· GASIFICATION: Conversion of biomass to gas (and accidentally ash, char-ash

and vapors (tars) (I have in the past used the terms "gastarifier" for
updraft gasifiers which produce 20% tar; and "gascharifiers" for downdraft
gasifiers, which produce 5-10% unconverted char-ash.
· ASH: The mineral content of biomass, typically silicon dioxide, CaO,
Na2O,
K2O, P2O5 etc.
· CHAR-ASH: The material left after high temperature gasification
· COMBUSTION: The conversion of char, tars and gases to heat, CO2 and H2O,
the ultimate fate of most thermal and other energy conversion of biomas.

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 gurgel at enm.unb.br Wed Apr 28 12:53:01 1999
From: gurgel at enm.unb.br (Carlos Gurgel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis, Gasification and Combustion
In-Reply-To: <4e2e82a.245869d8@cs.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19990428135713.007b7210@enm.unb.br>

I would suggest:

Devolatilization - thermal degradation (coal or wood) where the heat is
supplied by the burning of the emerging gases. This is slightly different
from pyrolysis.

I would appreciate corrections to my English.

At 09:40 AM 4/28/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Friends in Gasification and Stoves:
>
>I woke up this morning trying to think clearly about some aspects of
>gasification and winding up thinking about the words we use. Each of us has
>a slightly or very different use for the words on which our thinking is
>based. There can be disagreement about facts, but often disagreements come
>down to different understanding of the words.
>
>So I have made myself a glossary of our words as intend to use them. I am
>also attaching it as a MSWord file. I would appreciate your comments,
>agreements, disagreements, suggestions etc. Please bring up new related
>words with your definitions....
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED
> BEF
>
>GLOSSARY: CLEAR THINKING IN PYROLYSIS, GASIFICATION AND COMBUSTION
>(PYROLYSIS, GASIFICATION AND COMBUSTION)
>
> I am convinced that biomass processes are much more complex than
>nuclear energy. In a few decades, Einstein, Plank and others formulated all
>of modern Physics, based on the clear ideas of classical physics.
>
> In the 10,000 years of the development of civilization Humans have
>only begun to understand the processes of pyrolysis, gasification and
>combustion, PGC. (I put these important words in this order, because you
>can't have combustion without a degree of gasification and you can't have
>gasification without pyrolysis.)
>
> Clear thinking is based on an exact understanding and definition of
>the words we use. Muddy words lead to muddy thinking. On this basis, I
will
>here define or re-define the words we need for clear thinking in pyrolysis,
>gasification and combustion.
>
> Unfortunately, the definitions of words are in the form of other
>words which makes cleaning out the mud difficult and could be circular.
>Eventually however, you get down to works that everyone agrees on, physical
>referants that we can point to and then the disagreement stops.
>· PYROLYSIS: The breaking down of materials by heat, whatever the source,
to
>yield volatiles and charcoal
>· VOLATILES: The vapor and gas that emerges from the biomass (largely
>between 200 and 400°C. Note that "volatiles" includes both gas and vapor,
>while "vapor" is only the fraction that is liquid at room temperature.
>· VAPOR: Chemicals that are liquid at room temperature but gases at higher
>temperature. (See Tar, wood oil and wood tar).
>· TAR: A pejorative term for the heavier vapor components. I prefer "wood
>tar" for the high temperature vapors from processes over 700°C and "wood
oil"
>for the vapors from processes (fast pyrolysis) operating below 600°C.
>· Wood tar (Biomass tar): Polynuclear aromatics (naphthalene, anthracene
>etc.) produced from vapors above 700°C. Analogous to coal tar.
>· Wood oil (Biomass oil, biocrude): The monomers, oligomers and fragments
of
>the constituents of biomass cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Analogous
>to coal oil.
>· GAS (Permanent gas): Chemical compounds that remain in the gas phase below
>0°C .
>· CHARCOAL: The largely carbon, but some mineral material resulting from
>pyrolysis
>· XCOAL: A more accurate description of charcoal in which X denotes the
>degree of conversion - yet to be more accurately defined
>· GASIFICATION: Conversion of biomass to gas (and accidentally ash, char-ash
>and vapors (tars) (I have in the past used the terms "gastarifier" for
>updraft gasifiers which produce 20% tar; and "gascharifiers" for downdraft
>gasifiers, which produce 5-10% unconverted char-ash.
>· ASH: The mineral content of biomass, typically silicon dioxide, CaO,
Na2O,
>K2O, P2O5 etc.
>· CHAR-ASH: The material left after high temperature gasification
>· COMBUSTION: The conversion of char, tars and gases to heat, CO2 and H2O,
>the ultimate fate of most thermal and other energy conversion of biomas.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
>
Carlos Gurgel, Prof.
Departamento de Engenharia Mecanica
Universidade de Brasilia
Asa Norte, 70910-900
Brasilia - DF

e-mail:gurgel@enm.unb.br
Tel:(061) 307-1776 923-3281 (celular)
fax:(061) 273-4539
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From iti at connect-2.co.uk Thu Apr 29 05:55:44 1999
From: iti at connect-2.co.uk (ITI)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Ignition Systems.
Message-ID: <000e01be9225$9d62dda0$0101a8c0@ian>

Dear All,

I am wondering what recommendations or experience you may have
to share regarding automatic or semi-automatic ignition systems for small
downdraft gasifiers.

Does anyone know of a source for reliable
off-the-shelf commercial units which are small enough for easy access,
adjustable enough to provide a good long flame and also cost-effective overall
?

I look forward to your comments.

BBR.

********

Brian B. Russell esq.,
Innovation Technologies (Ireland) Ltd47
Manse Road, Ballycarry, Co. AntrimBT38 9HP Northern
IrelandTel +44 (0) 1960 373379Fax +44 (0) 1960
378039

From jphillips at alumni.stanford.org Thu Apr 29 12:18:22 1999
From: jphillips at alumni.stanford.org (Jeffrey N. Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Ignition Systems.
In-Reply-To: <000e01be9225$9d62dda0$0101a8c0@ian>
Message-ID: <000901be925c$1673ffe0$b02129d8@jnphatch.gis.net>

I
suggest you contact Hauck Manufacturing Co of Lebanon, PA in the USA: tel.
1-717-272-3051, fax 1-717-273-9882.
Postal address: P.O. Box 90, Lebanon, PA 17042,
USA

They
make oil and gas burners for ignition systems. They have burners of all
sizes and will work with you to provide the flame shape you
need.

Regards,

Dr.
Jeff Phillips
Fern
Engineering, Inc.
P.O. Box 3380
Pocasset, MA 02559
USA
www.capecod.net/ferneng

-----Original Message-----From:
owner-gasification@crest.org [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On
Behalf Of ITISent: Thursday, April 29, 1999 5:49
AMTo: gasification@crest.orgSubject: GAS-L: Gasifier
Ignition Systems.
Dear All,

I am wondering what recommendations or experience you may
have to share regarding automatic or semi-automatic ignition systems for
small downdraft gasifiers.

Does anyone know of a source for reliable
off-the-shelf commercial units which are small enough for easy access,
adjustable enough to provide a good long flame and also cost-effective
overall ?

I look forward to your comments.

BBR.

********

Brian B. Russell esq.,
Innovation Technologies (Ireland) Ltd47
Manse Road, Ballycarry, Co. AntrimBT38 9HP Northern
IrelandTel +44 (0) 1960 373379Fax +44 (0) 1960
378039

From squilbin at term.ucl.ac.be Fri Apr 30 05:31:33 1999
From: squilbin at term.ucl.ac.be (Olivier SQUILBIN)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: JOB OPPORTUNITY
Message-ID: <002801be92eb$f87687c0$2aee6882@ficus.term.ucl.ac.be>

JOB OPPORTUNITY

Location : Universite catholique de Louvain / Groupe Energie Biomasse
(Belgium)
Project-Research Engineer
Duration : 2 years
Starting date : 01/06/1999 or as soon as possible

Job Description :
European funded project consisting in
1) Modelling of biomass gasification in a circulating fluidised bed gasifier
2) Management and coordination tasks

Skills required :
Engineering degree in Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Chemistry, ...
Interest in modelling
knowledge in computational and numerical methods
Good communication and management
Fluent in English

If you're interested, please send your resume, by e-mail, before 07/05 to :

Olivier SQUILBIN
squilbin@term.ucl.ac.be

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

From bourgois at term.ucl.ac.be Fri Apr 30 11:15:44 1999
From: bourgois at term.ucl.ac.be (Frederic Bourgois)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of cotton stalks
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990430171507.00a60570@spot.term.ucl.ac.be>

Dear Gasifiermen,

Does anyone have information (bibliography, laboratory or in situ
experience) about gasification of cotton stalks in down-draft gasifiers ?
Is there technical limitations (size, ash composition or content, ...) ?

It seems that it is an important crops residue in developping countries
which has no real valorisation. If they can be used in gasifiers, cotton
stalks are a low cost biomass which could contribute to rural electrification.

Thanks for informations

Frederic

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Frederic Bourgois
Project engineer

Université catholique de Louvain
Unite TERM - Groupe Energie Biomasse

2, place du Levant
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgique

tel: + 32-(0)10-47.83.98
fax : + 32-(0)10-45.26.92
http://www.meca.ucl.ac.be/term/geb/

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

From terrafuels at cwix.com Fri Apr 30 12:47:25 1999
From: terrafuels at cwix.com (Rick vonHuben)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: new email address and website
Message-ID: <l03130316b34f8d086db4@[166.62.169.198]>

Dear Friends in Gasification:

As of May 3, 1999, TerraFuels, Inc. will launch www.terrafuels.com. There
won't be much, if anything, to look at for a few weeks, but the main impact
is that my email address will change

from: terrafuels@cwix.com
to: rick@terrafuels.com.

There will be no forwarding from my old address.

Best Wishes

Rick vonHuben

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

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

April 1999 Gasification Archive