BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

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

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

August 1999 Gasification Archive

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

From onar at netpower.no Mon Aug 2 13:12:28 1999
From: onar at netpower.no (=?iso-8859-1?B?T25hciDFbQ==?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: SOx in gasification
Message-ID: <199908021712.NAA10466@solstice.crest.org>

id AAA12615
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification

 

I seem to remember that SOx emissions are much lower in gasification
technologies than in combustion technologies. I like to imagine that in the
reducing environment of a hot coal bed you get the following reaction: SO2
+ 2C --> S + 2CO, i.e. that oxygen prefers carbon over sulfur. Sulfur is
further down and rightward in the periodic table which suggests to me that
carbon is preferred. Anyone? Also, what is the heating values (kJ/mol) of
Sulfur and SO2 are? I know that CO is 282 kJ/mol and C is 393 kJ/mol, but
the sulfur figures escapes me. This is important in determining whether the
above reaction is endothermal or exothermal.
If my hunch is correct then gasification processes produce virtually
no SOx. I hope someone can answer this for me.

Onar.

 

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

 

From dharding at carms52.freeserve.co.uk Mon Aug 2 14:46:52 1999
From: dharding at carms52.freeserve.co.uk (dan harding)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: biomass dissertation
Message-ID: <003101bedd18$90cc1500$022e883e@default>

 

Hi,

My name is Ben Harding and I am an Environmental science
student at Plymouth University.  I am just about to start my final year
dissertation on the promotion and use of Biomass for energy.  I would be
most grateful for any information you could give on this subject.

Thanks,
Ben Harding
<A
href="mailto:DHARDING@CARMS52.FREESERVE.COM">mailto:DHARDING@CARMS52.FREESERVE.COM.UK

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Aug 6 08:30:31 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: SOx in gasification
Message-ID: <4f1d2216.24dc2fdf@cs.com>


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

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Aug 6 08:30:45 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: SOx in gasification
Message-ID: <95ad7d97.24dc2fe0@cs.com>

Dear Onar:

Nice try, but in fact in a reducing atmosphere the sulfur goes to H2S and
COS, both as bad or worse then SOX.

However, Gasification produces a much smaller and therefore more easily
cleaned quantity of fuel gas at a much lower temperature than combustion, so
the sulfur compounds can be eliminated BEFORE combustion.

FORTUNATELY most BIOMASS has very little sulfur anyway, so the problem is
MOOT for biomass MASSIVE for many coals.

Nice try...

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

 

I seem to remember that SOx emissions are much lower in gasification
technologies than in combustion technologies. I like to imagine that in the
reducing environment of a hot coal bed you get the following reaction: SO2
+ 2C --> S + 2CO, i.e. that oxygen prefers carbon over sulfur. Sulfur is
further down and rightward in the periodic table which suggests to me that
carbon is preferred. Anyone? Also, what is the heating values (kJ/mol) of
Sulfur and SO2 are? I know that CO is 282 kJ/mol and C is 393 kJ/mol, but
the sulfur figures escapes me. This is important in determining whether the
above reaction is endothermal or exothermal.
If my hunch is correct then gasification processes produce virtually
no SOx. I hope someone can answer this for me.

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

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Sat Aug 7 16:04:48 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: SOx in gasification
In-Reply-To: <95ad7d97.24dc2fe0@cs.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19990807130311.01c03390@mail.teleport.com>

This message had probelms so I'm forwarding it to the list for Onar.
Tom Miles
================
From: <onar@netpower.no>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Subject: SV: GAS-L: SOx in gasification
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 14:59:22 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by solstice.crest.org id JAA24175

>Nice try, but in fact in a reducing atmosphere the sulfur goes to H2S and
>COS, both as bad or worse then SOX.

 

But aren't these more handlable (especially H2S) than SOx ? Also, if there is about 1% sulfur content, how much of that comes out as ash, and how much comes out as H2S,COS and CS2 ?

 

>However, Gasification produces a much smaller and therefore more easily
>cleaned quantity of fuel gas at a much lower temperature than combustion, so
>the sulfur compounds can be eliminated BEFORE combustion.

 

The amount I see due to the N2, but I don't see why the temperature should be so much
lower for gasification. Are you saying that combustion gases must be cleaned (of H2S, SOx and COS)
before they are used in e.g. a boiler or a gas turbine of some sort? After such a process the gases come out at very benign temperatures, so I don't see why that should be a problem.

>FORTUNATELY most BIOMASS has very little sulfur anyway, so the problem is
>MOOT for biomass MASSIVE for many coals.

 

But sulfur does exist in e.g. solid waste in some quantities.

 

Onar.

At 08:32 AM 8/6/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Onar:
>
>Nice try, but in fact in a reducing atmosphere the sulfur goes to H2S and
>COS, both as bad or worse then SOX.
>
>However, Gasification produces a much smaller and therefore more easily
>cleaned quantity of fuel gas at a much lower temperature than combustion, so
>the sulfur compounds can be eliminated BEFORE combustion.
>
>FORTUNATELY most BIOMASS has very little sulfur anyway, so the problem is
>MOOT for biomass MASSIVE for many coals.
>
>Nice try...
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED BEF
>
>
>
>I seem to remember that SOx emissions are much lower in gasification
>technologies than in combustion technologies. I like to imagine that in the
>reducing environment of a hot coal bed you get the following reaction: SO2
>+ 2C --> S + 2CO, i.e. that oxygen prefers carbon over sulfur. Sulfur is
>further down and rightward in the periodic table which suggests to me that
>carbon is preferred. Anyone? Also, what is the heating values (kJ/mol) of
>Sulfur and SO2 are? I know that CO is 282 kJ/mol and C is 393 kJ/mol, but
>the sulfur figures escapes me. This is important in determining whether the
>above reaction is endothermal or exothermal.
> If my hunch is correct then gasification processes produce virtually
>no SOx. I hope someone can answer this for me.
>
>
>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 VHarris001 at aol.com Sun Aug 8 00:04:11 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: SV: GAS-L: Request for Electrostatic Precipitator Info
Message-ID: <6b269617.24de5c1f@aol.com>

Dear Onar,

I looked up the information on the web site about Applied Plasma Physics
(APP) ESP. While most of it is greek to me, I took note of the following
passage:

>>>THE APP CORONA REACTOR

The APP Corana Reactor is a discharge-based device in which high-voltage is
applied to a thin metal wire located coaxially within a metal tube. Applying
high voltage to this geometry generates a discharge within the gas volume
that emanate from the wire to the cylinder. Once generated, the plasma
electrons collide with the background gas molecules, creating chemically
active species known as radicals. It is well known that such discharges in
humid air generate large quantities of both atomic oxygen (O3P) and hydroxyls
(OH), and for many air pollution control applications these radicals are
ideally suited to oxidize air contaminants. The addition of fuel or oxidants
are not required as the non-thermal plasma (NTP) uses the oxygen and hydrogen
already present in the offgas as the raw materials for radical production. <<<

Since gasification's off-gas is optimally oxygen starved, would there still
be sufficient oxygen present for NTP operation? Also, while it may be
beneficial to oxidize air contaminants in many off-gas streams, would
oxidizing pyrolysis gases be wise?

Have you any experience with this technology? I have a new issue of an
incinerator book and it makes no mention of this technology in the ESP
section.

Anyone else up to speed on this ESP?

Thanks,
Vern Harris
VHarris001@aol.com

 

In a message dated 7/25/99 1:02:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, onar@netpower.no
writes:

> Tom, I believe that Applied Plasma Physics (APP) has the cheapest ESP
technology available. Go to www.app.no to find out more about their products.

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

 

From onar at netpower.no Sun Aug 8 08:49:47 1999
From: onar at netpower.no (=?iso-8859-1?B?T25hciDFbQ==?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: SV: SV: GAS-L: Request for Electrostatic Precipitator Info
Message-ID: <002601bee19c$35eb1860$c38321d4@oemcomputer>

>Since gasification's off-gas is optimally oxygen starved, would there still
>be sufficient oxygen present for NTP operation? Also, while it may be
>beneficial to oxidize air contaminants in many off-gas streams, would
>oxidizing pyrolysis gases be wise?

The process doesn't require any oxydants of any kind. It is only if you have contaminants that need to be oxydized that this is necessary. Ash (especially at high temps) and soot are easily picked up, and so should tar, at least at small quantities.

>Have you any experience with this technology? I have a new issue of an
>incinerator book and it makes no mention of this technology in the ESP
>section.
>
>Anyone else up to speed on this ESP?

I have visited them and discussed their technology for my own gasification project. Basically these guys are doing the same thing as other ESPs, they are just achieving it a lot cheaper than their competitors.

Onar.

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Sun Aug 8 08:56:59 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: SV: GAS-L: Request for Electrostatic Precipitator Info
Message-ID: <ee951ec8.24ded91d@aol.com>

Dear Mr. Harris,
The introduction of a plasma or corona discharge to a gas has many
effects upon it. In the presence of Oxygen, ti creates some O3 and other
gases will have other effect. This area of work has never been fully
explored. It has gone as far as EPRI building a linear accelerator to
introduce highly charged ions into an exhaust stream from a combustor such as
turbine or boiler to assist in the conversion of NOx compounds.
Introducton of single wire corona charging to a cylinder is very old.
There are much more effective and higher power density configurations to do
this. I tried this method and modifications to is 15 years ago and moved on
to other procedures.
Introducing ozone to the gasifier gas stream will do a myriad of chemical
reactions. Many are very detrimental to the gas stream and very energy
costly. Oxygen and the gas stream should only be mixed under carefully
controlled conditions or in a combustion device.
Ozone does have uses in treating some of the hydrocarbon wastes from a
gasification system and as such has a place in gasification.

Sincerely,

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

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Aug 8 09:10:55 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: SOx in gasification
Message-ID: <60d7c64d.24dedc66@cs.com>

Dear ONAR et al:

I said...

<< ...Gasification produces a much smaller and therefore more easily
>cleaned quantity of fuel gas than combustion and at a much lower
temperature , so
>the sulfur compounds can be eliminated BEFORE combustion.

You said...

The amount I see due to the N2, but I don't see why the temperature should
be so much
lower for gasification. Are you saying that combustion gases must be cleaned
(of H2S, SOx and COS)
before they are used in e.g. a boiler or a gas turbine of some sort? After
such a process the gases come out at very benign temperatures, so I don't see
why that should be a problem.

>>
The amount is MUCH smaller because it only takes 1.5 kg of air to gasify one
kG of biomass to form about 2.5 m3 at NTP. It takes 6 kg for complete
combustion, generating about 6 m3 of combustion products.

The temperature is lower because gasification terminates at about 700 C so
the gas can be easily cooled and scrubbed. Combustion terminates at
1200-1700C, depending on excess air.

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

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Aug 8 09:11:11 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: OIL ARMAGEDDON
Message-ID: <1ae0de20.24dedc6c@cs.com>

Dear CREST friends and Petroholics:

While there have been many false warnings about oil depletion in the world,
we all recognize that there is a finite quantity of oil in the ground and
that eventually the demand will overtake the supply. M. King Hubbert
correctly predicted 10 years in advance when US oil production would peak
(1973) from his criterion of Bbl oil/ft drilled.

The M. King Hubbert center at the Colorado School of Mines
(http:/hubbert.mines.edu) makes it their business to keep track of the most
responsible estimates of remaining oil . In their latest newsletter, J. F.
(Buzz) Ivanhoe summarizes world oil supplies as follows:

FORESEEABLE PERMANENT GLOBAL CRUDE OIL SHORTAGE

A critical date for U.S. and global oil consumption will be when the world's
oil demand exceeds the global supply. This watershed will occur when the
world's oil production reaches the "Hubbert Peak", i.e. when the world's oil
is HALF GONE - NOT when all the earth's oil has been consumed. The question
is NOT WHETHER, but WHEN this foreseeable event will occur.

Current estimates of when the Hubbert Peak will occur range from year 2005 by
the most bearish to 2020 for more bullish petroleum geologists. The
potential for economic dislocations and societal upheaval is enormous and
frightening. Serious planning by all governments for the foreseeable energy
crisis should be started immediately.

~~~~~~
I Talked to Buzz Ivanhoe today. He is Hubbert's heir apparent in oil
reserve prediction, having spent a lifetime exploring for oil. He can be
reached at 805-646-8620 >805 646 5506FX. Or mail to 1217 Gregory St., Ojai,
CA 93012-3038. (No Email please). Visit the web page (above) and place your
bets.

Some of us are seeking viable alternatives for our current oil based world.
Better get cracking....

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

 

From onar at netpower.no Sun Aug 8 10:57:17 1999
From: onar at netpower.no (=?iso-8859-1?B?T25hciDFbQ==?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: SV: GAS-L: SOx in gasification
Message-ID: <001701bee1ae$076b8a80$878321d4@oemcomputer>

> The amount I see due to the N2, but I don't see why the temperature should
>be so much
> lower for gasification. Are you saying that combustion gases must be cleaned
>(of H2S, SOx and COS)
> before they are used in e.g. a boiler or a gas turbine of some sort? After
>such a process the gases come out at very benign temperatures, so I don't see
>why that should be a problem.
>
> >>
>The amount is MUCH smaller because it only takes 1.5 kg of air to gasify one
>kG of biomass to form about 2.5 m3 at NTP.

And in some gasifiers the process is oxygen blown, reducing the amount of gas even more. (This is e.g. true for coal gasification combined cycles)

>The temperature is lower because gasification terminates at about 700 C so
>the gas can be easily cooled and scrubbed. Combustion terminates at
>1200-1700C, depending on excess air.

But my question was: why does it need to be cleaned at 1200-1700 C? The exhaust is e.g. used in a boiler to create steam and then it becomes much cooler and more easily handlable.

 

Onar.

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

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sun Aug 8 21:14:52 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Membrane Separation Question
Message-ID: <2e8ce33f.24df860e@aol.com>

I just read in Waste News that several landfill gas projects are using
membrane separation technology to separate carbon dioxide from the methane in
LFG.

Does anyone know if membrane technology can separate the CO2 fraction from
the other pyrolysis gases? If so, what are other drawbacks that keep it from
being widely used? Cost? Size? Reliability? Others?

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

 

From onar at netpower.no Sun Aug 8 22:10:32 1999
From: onar at netpower.no (=?iso-8859-1?B?T25hciDFbQ==?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: SV: GAS-L: OIL ARMAGEDDON
Message-ID: <001201bee20c$0ba06ae0$888321d4@oemcomputer>

>Current estimates of when the Hubbert Peak will occur range from year 2005 by
>the most bearish to 2020 for more bullish petroleum geologists. The
>potential for economic dislocations and societal upheaval is enormous and
>frightening. Serious planning by all governments for the foreseeable energy
>crisis should be started immediately.

Let's not exaggerate the problem. Yes, the peak for conventional oil will probably come
somewhere around 2010-2020, but so what? The biggest oil deposits haven't even been
touched yet, namely the tar sands. Canada alone has more tar sand the current remaining
conventional oil resources, so it's not like we're going to run out any time soon. I'm sorry,
but the pending economic disaster has been cancelled due to plentiful resources.

Besides, 20-30 years is a very long time technologywise. I predict that when the crisis were to
occur there is either 1) a new technology at hand to extract tar sands dirt cheap or 2) a brilliant
new el-car technology which will replace the ICE car. My prediction is that all the oil companies
are already secretely working on 1 in their basements (well, it's not really much of a secret now,
is it. Look at the oil price -- a mere 20 dollar or so. If the market truly believed that we would run
into a massive oil crisis in just 2 decades there is no way that the oil price would be so low. This
strongly suggests that the market is collectively aware that the oil companies are up to something
in their basements, which will be announced just in time to prevent the pending crisis you refer to.)
AND that the oil companies will be caught somewhat by surprise that 2 emerges from nowhere.
Hence, there's a much greater possibility that there will be TOO MUCH oil available and that we get
an oil crash. But most likely nothing exciting will happen. (apart from the fact that in 2030 there may
be billions of el-cars around the globe)

 

Onar.

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

 

From phoenix at transport.com Sun Aug 8 22:28:23 1999
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: OIL ARMAGEDDON
Message-ID: <001a01bee20f$0639f140$7418fea9@j5h5r8>

Onar,

I don't know who you are but hearing upon your conclusion, I get the vision
of an ostrich in that Canadian tar sand.

Art Krenzel

-----Original Message-----
From: Onar Åm <onar@netpower.no>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Sunday, August 08, 1999 7:15 PM
Subject: SV: GAS-L: OIL ARMAGEDDON

>>Current estimates of when the Hubbert Peak will occur range from year 2005
by
>>the most bearish to 2020 for more bullish petroleum geologists. The
>>potential for economic dislocations and societal upheaval is enormous and
>>frightening. Serious planning by all governments for the foreseeable
energy
>>crisis should be started immediately.
>
>
>Let's not exaggerate the problem. Yes, the peak for conventional oil will
probably come
>somewhere around 2010-2020, but so what? The biggest oil deposits haven't
even been
>touched yet, namely the tar sands. Canada alone has more tar sand the
current remaining
>conventional oil resources, so it's not like we're going to run out any
time soon. I'm sorry,
>but the pending economic disaster has been cancelled due to plentiful
resources.
>
>
>Besides, 20-30 years is a very long time technologywise. I predict that
when the crisis were to
>occur there is either 1) a new technology at hand to extract tar sands dirt
cheap or 2) a brilliant
>new el-car technology which will replace the ICE car. My prediction is that
all the oil companies
>are already secretely working on 1 in their basements (well, it's not
really much of a secret now,
>is it. Look at the oil price -- a mere 20 dollar or so. If the market truly
believed that we would run
>into a massive oil crisis in just 2 decades there is no way that the oil
price would be so low. This
>strongly suggests that the market is collectively aware that the oil
companies are up to something
>in their basements, which will be announced just in time to prevent the
pending crisis you refer to.)
>AND that the oil companies will be caught somewhat by surprise that 2
emerges from nowhere.
>Hence, there's a much greater possibility that there will be TOO MUCH oil
available and that we get
>an oil crash. But most likely nothing exciting will happen. (apart from the
fact that in 2030 there may
>be billions of el-cars around the globe)
>
>
>
>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 p.m.davies at mail.bigpond.com.au Sun Aug 8 23:25:56 1999
From: p.m.davies at mail.bigpond.com.au (Peter M Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: OIL ARMAGEDDON
In-Reply-To: <1ae0de20.24dedc6c@cs.com>
Message-ID: <03055234305958@domain0.bigpond.com>

Dear Tom & Others,

> Current estimates of when the Hubbert Peak will occur range from year 2005
> by the most bearish to 2020 for more bullish petroleum geologists. The
> potential for economic dislocations and societal upheaval is enormous and
> frightening. Serious planning by all governments for the foreseeable
> energy crisis should be started immediately.

I think serious planning started at least 30 years ago but basically
new technologies etc has made it, if not redundant, invisible.

Other environmental drivers will force a switch in transport modes
long before an oil shortage.

Given the current state of fast pyrolisis processes just now being
commercialised for deriving liquid fuels, plastics feedstocks (and
other more valuable products) from cellulose material (not to
mention coal). I can't see a crisis emerging from this issue. In fact
the petroleum price is probably at least partly pegged by these and
other biomass fuel sources (both ancient & new) which require
slightly better returns to be "viable". Which in itself is a good
justification for continuing research.

I have been reviewing biomass power opportunities here in OZ and
my conclusion is technology or resources are not the primary
issue. Government policy and market economies dominated by
centralised PC plants located on top of energy dense sites (coal)
are the determinants here.

Where "waste" or negative value feedstocks are available alternate
energy sources are both desirable and competative. Beyond that it
is a matter of building capacity slowly as markets for "greenpower"
as a consumer preference grow (currently only about 0.7% of the
market here).

Don't get me wrong I am all for renewable sources of energy but
looming oil shortages is not the reason for this choice. (I'm just an
independent soul).

Cheers,

Peter M Davies
"Neikah"
Colinton NSW Australia 2626
Ph: 02 64 544 009
Email: p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Aug 9 02:14:43 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: OIL ARMAGEDDON
Message-ID: <cda9cb66.24dfcc4d@aol.com>

Dear Mr. Davies,
I concur with your comments about the petroleum production and the
economics of alternative energy sources.
The major factor in petroleum pricing and availability is not the value
of energy, but the political policies which tag along with it. There have
been several major wars fought over petroleum such as the Kuwait event.
Unfortuantely, the United States has seen fit to sacrifice the long term
economic and political security for cheap Mideast oil. If the US were to
abandon or restrict the Mideast oil for domestic sources of petroleum and
alternatives as you described, our financial and political future would be
much brighter and intelligent. Cheap oil keeps politicans in office at least
those who live by the sound bite mentality.
It is interesting that the US has abandoned two major industries for
either present import dependency, oil and upcoming agricultural. The
policies of cheap food have virtually destroyed the agricultural sector of
our economy and we may very well be importing our basic foodstuffs in the
future such as grains. We now import many fruits and vegetables because of
cheap overseas labor and to some extent climate, but labor and other factors
have displaced many US farmers.
How long an economy can survive the depletion of monetary value as we
have been doing is questionable. Up to a few years ago, agricultural exports
counted for 40% of our balance of trade benefit. Now it is much less.
I am not sure what the Oz mentality is, but if it is the same as our
short sighted politicans, the same will occur there.
Even though the gasification or flash pyrolysis processes will contribute
significantly to the production of replacement petrochemical processes, the
basic market value of petroleum replacements will have to be higher to see a
rapid deployment as the financial world will not recognize the problem now
and lacking this motivation, will not move in this direction.

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

 

From DAVID.DALTON at cpmx.saic.com Mon Aug 9 10:39:49 1999
From: DAVID.DALTON at cpmx.saic.com (Dalton, David)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Membrane Separation Question
Message-ID: <9F6D42A6EC36D211B3D700805F95087E92EF9A@cp-its-exs01.mail.saic.com>

Can you provide a complete reference to the article that discussed the use
of membranes for separation of CO2 from CH4 in landfill gas?

Thanks,
Dave Dalton
> -----Original Message-----
> From: VHarris001@aol.com [SMTP:VHarris001@aol.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 1999 7:17 PM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Membrane Separation Question
>
> I just read in Waste News that several landfill gas projects are using
> membrane separation technology to separate carbon dioxide from the methane
> in
> LFG.
>
> Does anyone know if membrane technology can separate the CO2 fraction from
>
> the other pyrolysis gases? If so, what are other drawbacks that keep it
> from
> being widely used? Cost? Size? Reliability? Others?
>
> Thanks,
> Vern Harris
> VHarris001@aol.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 p.m.davies at mail.bigpond.com.au Mon Aug 9 22:25:57 1999
From: p.m.davies at mail.bigpond.com.au (Peter M Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Membrane Separation Question
Message-ID: <199908100225.WAA04174@solstice.crest.org>

<9F6D42A6EC36D211B3D700805F95087E92EF9A@cp-its-exs01.mail.saic.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d)
Message-Id: <00190582820385@domain6.bigpond.com>
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification

Hello Dave,

DOE has a document on carbon sequestration which refers to
membrane technology.

http://apis.fetc.doe.gov/publications/press/1999/tl_seqrpt.html

It is in Section 2. if you don't want the whole report.

2. SEPARATION AND CAPTURE OF CARBON DIOXIDE
2.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF CARBON FLOWS (SOURCE
TERMS)
2.2 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
REQUIREMENTS
2.3 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
CAPABILITIES
2.3.1 Chemical and Physical Absorption
2.3.2 Physical and Chemical Adsorption
2.3.3 Low-temperature Distillation
2.3.4 Gas-Separation Membranes

Cheers,

Peter Davies
>
> Can you provide a complete reference to the article that discussed the use
> of membranes for separation of CO2 from CH4 in landfill gas?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave Dalton

Peter M Davies
"Neikah"
Colinton NSW Australia 2626
Ph: 02 64 544 009
Email: p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au

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

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Mon Aug 9 23:56:18 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Membrane Separation Question
Message-ID: <6913b656.24e0fd60@aol.com>

The periodical is Waste News, Aug 2, 1999 issue, article entitled
"DEREGULATION CHALLENGES THE FUTURE OF LANDFILL GAS"

By: Cheryl A. Grinder

Category: Cover story
Issue Date: 08-02-99
Page: 1

Relevant section:

A number of new technologies have been introduced. Most impressive are the
improvements in the technology already in use, Vogt said. There also are some
projects that use membrane technology, which selectively takes methane and
sends the carbon dioxide elsewhere. The technology is coming down in price
and is a little more competitive, Tom Schupt of SCS Field Services said.

Their web site is at:

www.wastenews.com

I'm not sure whether or not you must subscribe to get access to the full text
of this article.

Regards,
Vern Harris
VHarris001@aol.com

In a message dated 8/9/99 10:45:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
DAVID.DALTON@cpmx.saic.com writes:

> Can you provide a complete reference to the article that discussed the use
> of membranes for separation of CO2 from CH4 in landfill gas?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave Dalton
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: VHarris001@aol.com [SMTP:VHarris001@aol.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 1999 7:17 PM
> > To: gasification@crest.org
> > Subject: GAS-L: Membrane Separation Question
> >
> > I just read in Waste News that several landfill gas projects are using
> > membrane separation technology to separate carbon dioxide from the
methane
> > in
> > LFG.
> >
> > Does anyone know if membrane technology can separate the CO2 fraction
from
> >
> > the other pyrolysis gases? If so, what are other drawbacks that keep it
> > from
> > being widely used? Cost? Size? Reliability? Others?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vern Harris
> > VHarris001@aol.com
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Tue Aug 10 01:34:05 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: OIL ARMAGEDDON
Message-ID: <76bf266e.24e11457@aol.com>

Dear Tom Taylor and others,

While I usually avoid chiming in on topics that are not gasification specific
- generally because I have little expertise to contribute anyway - I thought
I might just add one blurb here to (perhaps) demonstrate a genuine lack of
understanding of the facts.

At any rate - politically incorrect though it may be to say - it seems to me
that it is in the overall best interest of the United States to buy and
consume oil from the supplies of other nations while they are willing to sell
their oil cheap. When the US has consumed sufficient foreign oil that
scarcity begins to appear, the price will then rise (regardless of politics)
and money will start to flow to domestic production. It seems that from the
US point of view, this is a preferable scenario to the opposite, where the US
consumes domestic supplies until scarcity begins to occur, then she looks to
foreign countries for crude to supply her voracious appetite. Of course,
this point of view does not address any issues of concern - other than
whether it is in the best interest of the US to first deplete foreign or
domestic reserves.

No doubt, when scarcity begins to be felt in the crude oil markets, the US
will be unprepared. The US would likely be unprepared for scarcity even if
we were drawing from domestic sources. The question then is whether or not
it is in the best interest of the US to be unprepared having consumed foreign
reserves with domestic still in the ground OR to be unprepared having
consumed domestic reserves with foreign still in the ground?

I believe that the governments of many poor, third world countries are
selling the birthright of their citizens to the richest nation on earth - at
a fraction of its true value - in a (mostly) open and highly competitive
market, in large part so that those in control can live lavish lifestyles and
build empires to their glory. However, should the US consume its own
reserves first, the governments of those poor, third world countries would
likely still sell the birthright of their citizens to us. Only it wouldn't
be at such a small fraction of its true value.

Cheap foreign oil does stifle domestic production and increase our dependence
on imports. However, when cheap oil finally goes away, at least I'll have
the satisfaction of knowing that the top dollar(s) I'll be paying for the gas
that I'm waiting in line for will mean party time in Dallas - not Riyadh.

Regards,
Vern Harris
VHarris001@aol.com

In a message dated 8/9/99 2:19:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LINVENT@aol.com
writes:

> The major factor in petroleum pricing and availability is not the value
> of energy, but the political policies which tag along with it. There have
> been several major wars fought over petroleum such as the Kuwait event.
> Unfortuantely, the United States has seen fit to sacrifice the long term
> economic and political security for cheap Mideast oil. If the US were to
> abandon or restrict the Mideast oil for domestic sources of petroleum and
> alternatives as you described, our financial and political future would be
> much brighter and intelligent. Cheap oil keeps politicans in office at
> least
> those who live by the sound bite mentality.
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Aug 10 05:23:05 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: OIL ARMAGEDDON
Message-ID: <c7342bf0.24e149b1@aol.com>

A recent lawsuit filed by a group of independent oil producers against Saudia
Araabia, Mexico, Venezula, called "anti-dumping" may very well make the price
of imported oil much higher. It is based upon a 1930 provision that says
foreign countries cannot sell their products here for cheaper than their real
or domestic value. This type of lawsuit has been used for steel, grains,
computers, and a wide variety of other commodities but never oil.
The intriguing list is the opponents of the lawsuit. American Petroleum
Institute, airlines, AAA, railroads, American Trucking Association, on and
on. Of course, higher oil prices would affect all of these organizations and
the American Consumer. But it would also accelerate the process by which
solutions to the long term energy are found, and not just gummed to death by
lipservers.
My preference if given the choice of buying cheap oil now and more
expensive oil later is to maintain control over my destiny as opposed to
abandoning it to others and having to use military force to protect and
assert it. For that reason any dependence upon external sources is short
sighted and abandons the American Destiny.
In the mid 70's a friend of mine became an undersecretary of the DOE and
I had an opportunity to visit with DOE personnel in biomass, fossil fuel, and
other areas of research work. I was told the technology existed to do all of
the various aspects of liquid fuels, gaseous and other fuels and that the
only concern was the economics. This in it pure forms is true judged by the
existence of SASOL, Plains Gasification Plant and others although primarily
based upon coal. The continuing question is how to reduce the costs through
technical innovation so that we are not put into complete economic shock when
a real upset in our oil supply occurs.
We are still subject to instant loss of oil supply from war between
countries and political forces. When there are alternatives, this is a very
uncomfortable feeling.
Tom Taylor

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

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Aug 10 08:53:59 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: OIL ARMAGEDDON
Message-ID: <4ad409b6.24e17b71@cs.com>

In a message dated 8/9/99 11:40:11 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
VHarris001@aol.com writes:

Dear Vern:

Good points. You are too modest - couldn't do any worse than the so called
(self interested) experts..

TOM REED

<<
Dear Tom Taylor and others,

While I usually avoid chiming in on topics that are not gasification
specific
- generally because I have little expertise to contribute anyway - I thought
I might just add one blurb here to (perhaps) demonstrate a genuine lack of
understanding of the facts.
>>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Aug 10 08:54:05 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: OIL ARMAGEDDON
Message-ID: <25acab4.24e17b71@cs.com>

TOM:

>From my viewpoint it is DONE - the Department of No Energy. A disgrace to
the name of energy and the U.S.

TOM REED

In a message dated 8/10/99 3:28:50 AM Mountain Daylight Time, LINVENT@aol.com
writes:

<< My preference if given the choice of buying cheap oil now and more
expensive oil later is to maintain control over my destiny as opposed to
abandoning it to others and having to use military force to protect and
assert it. For that reason any dependence upon external sources is short
sighted and abandons the American Destiny.
In the mid 70's a friend of mine became an undersecretary of the DOE and
I had an opportunity to visit with DOE personnel in biomass, fossil fuel,
and
other areas of research work. I was told the technology existed to do all
of
the various aspects of liquid fuels, gaseous and other fuels and that the
only concern was the economics. This in it pure forms is true judged by the
existence of SASOL, Plains Gasification Plant and others although primarily
based upon coal. The continuing question is how to reduce the costs through
technical innovation so that we are not put into complete economic shock
when
a real upset in our oil supply occurs.
We are still subject to instant loss of oil supply from war between
countries and political forces. When there are alternatives, this is a very
uncomfortable feeling.
Tom Taylor
>>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From hausrmn at sri.lanka.net Wed Aug 11 03:50:03 1999
From: hausrmn at sri.lanka.net (William Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Packing density of wood chips.
Message-ID: <002b01bee369$f29e89a0$b09c33ca@ibox3041.lanka.net>

 

Good morning GAS-L.

Who out there has any data of the bulk density
of wood chips (like from a knife type chipper) and of fine hog fuel
(about 1 cm) as loaded into trucks for transport?  Is
there any precident of using standard garbage compactor trucks for increasing
wood chip density?

<FONT color=#000000
size=2>                                                           
Many thanks for your feedback on
this.

<FONT
color=#000000>                                                                                           
W.B.Hauserman

From dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu Wed Aug 11 09:34:58 1999
From: dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Packing density of wood chips.
Message-ID: <601A55066596D211A7AD00104BC6FB25073595@catalina.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

My experience is that bulk density for wood from a tubgrinder is about
15lb/ft^3 at 25%moisture. My first reaction to using garbage compactor
trucks is that it sounds like a bad idea. However, if you are feeding into
something that will break up the chips again, maybe not. Bridging and
matting of the fuel is the concern.

-----Original Message-----
From: William Hauserman [mailto:hausrmn@sri.lanka.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 2:52 PM
To: GAS-L
Subject: GAS-L: Packing density of wood chips.

Good morning GAS-L.

Who out there has any data of the bulk density of wood chips (like from a
knife type chipper) and of fine hog fuel (about 1 cm) as loaded into trucks
for transport? Is there any precident of using standard garbage compactor
trucks for increasing wood chip density?

Many thanks for
your feedback on this.


W.B.Hauserman

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Aug 11 11:43:00 1999
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Membrane Separation Question
In-Reply-To: <2e8ce33f.24df860e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <37B199A9.30EE9818@c2i.net>

VHarris001@aol.com wrote:
>
> I just read in Waste News that several landfill gas projects are using
> membrane separation technology to separate carbon dioxide from the methane in
> LFG.
>
> Does anyone know if membrane technology can separate the CO2 fraction from

..yep. Yep.

> the other pyrolysis gases? If so, what are other drawbacks that keep it from
> being widely used? Cost? Size? Reliability? Others?

..introduction; someone has to go first, and do it _right_. If the
pioneer fails, from his own lack of knowledge or understanding of what
the hell he's doing, well......we all know the history of gasification,
right........

..to learn the basics, you will want to get the "Gengas" of Membrane
Separation Technology, titled "Basic Principles of Membrane Technology",
by Marcel Mulder of Center for Membrane Science and Technology,
University of Twente, the Netherlands.

It is sold by Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, P.O.Box 322, 3300 AH
Doordrecht, the Netherlands, ISBN 0-7923-0979-0 (paperback),
0-7923-0978-2 (hardbound), covers _everything_ you need to do your own.

I feel it could use more "what's available to buy", I got mine in -94,
it was then 2 yrs old and should be updated by now. Do a web search.

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Aug 11 11:43:05 1999
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: OIL ARMAGEDDON ;-D
In-Reply-To: <25acab4.24e17b71@cs.com>
Message-ID: <37B199B6.1E5F7C0C@c2i.net>

Tom et al,

..it is as always fun to watch you armed-to-the-teeth yanks, fear the
effects of justice, democracy and capitalism, which by the way, also
defeated communism ;-)

..FUD'ing, like Microsoft tries to do towards the Linux community (8
million last year, now in -99, past, ah, 12? ;-)), must to succeed, be
supported by some form of substance, like performance and value, versus
the investment. :-)

..when you go buy a new or "new" auto, it boils down to which one is the
most fun. Face it, the women postpone the divorce because we're get so
damned nice having fun in our Ferrari's. _Not_ because of its fuel
economy or safety or whatever else we dream up.

..so, unless you're anything like Mr. Milosevic, you will also like
Mankind's current and future membership on this planet to live a nice
happy life in wealth, justice, democracy, (capitalism,) and, plain good
fun. :-)

..when you go buy an auto, you will have a certain personal set of
preferences. Ideally, you will want your own idea of having fun, also
benefit Mankind above, adding to the fun, and not detracting from it
:-).

..most people will want the standard ac, everything automatic, some
_utility_, _good_ range, cheap and easy "refueling" whenever needed, a
smooth ride and, when you gently lower the gas pedal, to beat that
fossil Ferrari, with _sparkling_ authority... ;-)

..and if someone manages to _armageddon_ the power grid in your area, it
is always nice to be able to just plug in your car to light up your home
again... ;-)

..so just when will these used two-ton electric monster taxi's from
Lappland, hit _your_ market? ;-) Capitalism _Rules_ ! ;-D

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

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Aug 11 21:58:17 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Packing density of wood chips.
Message-ID: <979d6ecf.24e38499@aol.com>

Using a typical "new" rear-load type trash truck (the kind that is loaded at
the back), you should be able to achieve a density of 1000 lbs per cubic yard
of trash. I personally have never packed a load of wood chips so have no
first hand knowledge. I've packed many loads of brush and Christmas trees
and know they do not pack very densely. I would think chipping or grinding
would solve this problem.

If you assuming Darren's figure below is correct (405 lbs per cubic yard),
you should be able to transport 147 percent more wood with the same volume
truck.

Note however that rear-load type packer trash trucks are much heavier than
typical trucks - which translates into a lower payload without being
"overweight." Frequently it is more practical in trash transfer operations
to purchase larger "open top" trailers, load the trash into the trailer with
a machine, and transport it "uncompacted." The economics of trash transport
are largely dictated by the circumstances of each operation. Also, straight
loads of wood chips might cause binding problems where the packer blade
sweeps the hopper and where the push out blade slides against the walls and
floor of the body of the truck.

Regards,
Vernon Harris
VHarris001@aol.com

In a message dated 8/11/99 9:39:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu writes:

> My experience is that bulk density for wood from a tubgrinder is about
> 15lb/ft^3 at 25%moisture. My first reaction to using garbage compactor
> trucks is that it sounds like a bad idea. However, if you are feeding into
> something that will break up the chips again, maybe not. Bridging and
> matting of the fuel is the concern.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Hauserman [mailto:hausrmn@sri.lanka.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 2:52 PM
> To: GAS-L
> Subject: GAS-L: Packing density of wood chips.
>
>
> Good morning GAS-L.
>
> Who out there has any data of the bulk density of wood chips (like from a
> knife type chipper) and of fine hog fuel (about 1 cm) as loaded into trucks
> for transport? Is there any precident of using standard garbage compactor
> trucks for increasing wood chip density?
>
> Many thanks for
> your feedback on this.
>
>
> W.B.Hauserman
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Aug 11 23:11:07 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next) question
Message-ID: <34769b72.24e395d6@aol.com>

Dear Tom Reed, Arnt, others,

I have read several of your (Tom Reed's) references to the addition of air
just above the grate in the CGP Bangalore lab in India under Prof. Mukunda.

I was wondering if you would further explain the mechanism in operation here
that reduces the tars and the procedure for admitting air to the gasifier.

Also, would you discuss the functioning of the grate in a stratified
downdraft gasifier. For instance, Arnt has sent the gasification group a
diagram of his grateless gasifier, and I have also been working on an idea
for a similar design. Also in the book "Small Scale Gas Producer-Engine
Systems (Kaupp/Goss), on page 77, Figure 70 shows a gas producer with a
moveable grate, but I note that producer gas does not pass through the grate.
Rather the only purposes of the grate appear to be to stir fuel and restrain
fuel while allowing ash to fall through for removal. In addition, page 69,
figure 61 shows a crossdraft gasifier with no grate.

What is your opinion of the need for a grate in a stratified downdraft
gasifier, other than (1) as a restraint to position fuel, or (2) a method of
separating ash from char and fuel, or (3) as a breaking point in the reactor
from which to draw gas?

If others have an opinion about this point, I would appreciate hearing from
you as well.

Thank you,
Vernon Harris
VHarris001@aol.com

In a message dated 7/17/99 3:45:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Reedtb2@cs.com
writes:

>
> Glad to hear you are going to build a Stratified Downdraft (open top,
> topless, open core, char making) gasifier. The latest improvement on this
> has been made at the CGP Bangalore lab in India under Prof. Mukunda. They
> add an additional air inlet a few inches above the grate and reduce tar
from
> 1000 to 100 ppm and reduce char-ash from 5% to < 1%.
>
> We are now improving on that model (we hope) here at CPC.
>
> Keep in touch.
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED
> THE BEF
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From mlefcort at compuserve.com Thu Aug 12 02:16:12 1999
From: mlefcort at compuserve.com (Malcolm D. Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: OIL ARMAGEDDON ;-D
Message-ID: <199908120218_MC2-80B6-C455@compuserve.com>

Arnt Karlsen

You wrote:

> ..it is as always fun to watch you armed-to-the-teeth yanks....

You really have gone a bit far.

I think an apology is due to Tom et al...

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

 

From costich at pacifier.com Thu Aug 12 10:21:48 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next) question
Message-ID: <002a01bee4cf$112d57a0$898c41d8@costich.pacifier.com>

Dear Vern, and all:
>For my Imbert downdraft coined design you'll recall (Vern) the grate is a
floating disc of 1/2" thick stainless steel alloy (boiler/heat exchanger
tubesheet) that is perforated with 3/4" holes approx 50% by total surface
area. I resized its diameter after locating it in a scrapyard. Drilling
those holes would be an odious task-- this is a good reason not to have a
grate?(nc-plasma!), my grate is flush with the bottom of 2 6X6 inch
charcoal harvesting/ignition access holes. I use a "knocker" which is a 1"
X 30" iron shaft which swings thru an arc of the self-aligning flange
bearing that bolts it to the side of the gasifier just beneath the grate,
and the grate is a disc sitting on a rolled square bar lip. Grate is free
floating and "jumps" when struck from beneath.
I see a grate or any ash "sifter/classifier" purpose is to hold up a
charcoal mass at its repose so as to keep the throat packed full of white
hot reactant and it is the pyro-chemisty at the throat that determines
produced gas quality.
renewable'y' yours, Dale Costich

VHarris001@aol.com <VHarris001@aol.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next) question

>Dear Tom Reed, Arnt, others,
>
>I have read several of your (Tom Reed's) references to the addition of air
>just above the grate in the CGP Bangalore lab in India under Prof. Mukunda.
>
>I was wondering if you would further explain the mechanism in operation
here
>that reduces the tars and the procedure for admitting air to the gasifier.
>
>Also, would you discuss the functioning of the grate in a stratified
>downdraft gasifier. For instance, Arnt has sent the gasification group a
>diagram of his grateless gasifier, and I have also been working on an idea
>for a similar design. Also in the book "Small Scale Gas Producer-Engine
>Systems (Kaupp/Goss), on page 77, Figure 70 shows a gas producer with a
>moveable grate, but I note that producer gas does not pass through the
grate.
> Rather the only purposes of the grate appear to be to stir fuel and
restrain
>fuel while allowing ash to fall through for removal. In addition, page 69,
>figure 61 shows a crossdraft gasifier with no grate.
>
>What is your opinion of the need for a grate in a stratified downdraft
>gasifier, other than (1) as a restraint to position fuel, or (2) a method
of
>separating ash from char and fuel, or (3) as a breaking point in the
reactor
>from which to draw gas?
>
>If others have an opinion about this point, I would appreciate hearing from
>you as well.
>
>
>Thank you,
>Vernon Harris
>VHarris001@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 7/17/99 3:45:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Reedtb2@cs.com
>writes:
>
>
>>
>> Glad to hear you are going to build a Stratified Downdraft (open top,
>> topless, open core, char making) gasifier. The latest improvement on
this
>> has been made at the CGP Bangalore lab in India under Prof. Mukunda.
They
>> add an additional air inlet a few inches above the grate and reduce tar
>from
>> 1000 to 100 ppm and reduce char-ash from 5% to < 1%.
>>
>> We are now improving on that model (we hope) here at CPC.
>>
>> Keep in touch.
>>
>> Yours truly, TOM REED
>> THE 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 LINVENT at aol.com Thu Aug 12 13:26:12 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: OIL ARMAGEDDON ;-D
Message-ID: <e3d91b7a.24e45e19@aol.com>

I appreciate the defense of us armed to the teeth yanks.
However, if we look at history, much of the warring going on could have
been averted with the right diplomacy and intelligence. After all, the major
war, the cold war was won with a very clever deception called SDI or
strategic defense initiative. Of course, most warring economies such as the
Russians will run out of steam after a while as the lack of infrastructure
investment causes the culture to collapse. What did the Romans do after they
captured a country? Build roads, bridges, water systems.
Of course, if the United States had not entered WWII with it's massive
strength, the world would be speaking different languages. We may have also
landed on the moon in the 50's as the Germans were so far along on the path
to super missles. The V-5 would reach the United States. So whoever may
criticize us armed yanks should think about this when they go to sleep at
night.
Unfortunately, we still have to keep some form of vigilance with the
radical governments who have some agenda which counters the "world order". I
am also concerned about the attempts to prevent changes in policitcal and
economic boundaries as it is a natural evolution of man and attempts to
prevent it merely protect the weak, anathema to nature.
Food for thought, perhaps mental indigestion.

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 12 15:30:06 1999
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: OIL ARMAGEDDON ;-D and apology
In-Reply-To: <199908120218_MC2-80B6-C455@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <37B32076.9593D6DB@c2i.net>

"Malcolm D. Lefcort" wrote:
>
> Arnt Karlsen
>
> You wrote:
>
> > ..it is as always fun to watch you armed-to-the-teeth yanks....
>
> You really have gone a bit far.
> I think an apology is due to Tom et al...

..yeah, I agree, that "you" here in the Gas-List is _ugly_, it
_destroys_ my post. Thank you Malcolm, for pointing me to my failure.

..dear Tom et al, I apologize for referring to You, the Gas-List
Membership as, "you armed-to-the-teeth yanks", which I really has no
cause to do.

..I know You as intelligent, innovative decent people who happen to
share my own interest in thermochemical gasification.

..I apologize for expressing myself in a way that could give any of You
guys the idea I was referring You here in the Gas-List, as
armed-to-the-teeth fanatics who might execute their constitutional
rights in ugly ways we read about in the media.

.._That_ was _NOT_ my intention.

..my intention was to _add_ to the embarrassment of those people who
refer to global technology and business developments, as some biblical
scale drama, using FULL CAPS, when they _really_ should know better.
The oil companies do, and act accordingly.

..for further such amusement, chk out _any_ Usenet news group discussing
politics, constitutional rights and firearms, alternative energy,
religion and science, global food supply and demand, how life began,
etc. ;-)
Note _how, who says what_. A beer to first one of you who comes up a
post claiming trigonometry to be a Washington, D.C. conspiracy ;-D

We here in the Gas-list promote technologies which will, like it or not,
eventually outperform the current liquid fuel technologies and
businesses. So they FUD. Just like Microsoft. They make pretty good
money now, and would like to keep doing just that, and they also happen
to know a few things of they're up against... ;-)

..the only problem I see with the above amusement, is having miseducated
people act upon what they believe is a problem; there _are_ people out
there who believe energy and food supply "problems" can only be solved
by a thermo-nuclear shoot-out, and who has enough skills to keep _quiet_
and do it whenever ready.

..our job here is twofold:

-1. Keep or get them safely _out_ of Office (the Kansas State School
Board(?) is bad enough, but safe for us overseas, at least in the short
term. some D.C. Offices, would be a _lot_ worse, the good thing about
Khomeini, Saddam and Milosevic, is neither of them has had access to
ICBM's...)

-2. Educate or Prove them wrong in a way they feel is _Right_, so they
_become_ useable in Office. (Anyone you get to steal and use your own
ideas in ways _you like_, you can use in a D.C. Office)

..making a healthy profit in the process is a nice bonus and help prove
(y)our concept right.

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

 

From woolsey at netins.net Thu Aug 12 18:58:44 1999
From: woolsey at netins.net (Edward Woolsey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Great News for U.S. Biomass Industry
Message-ID: <009f01bee515$dfbe09c0$8c158ea7@woolsey.netins.net>

 

Greetings
Today was a REALLY good day for biomass energy
in the U.S.
Pres. Clinton announced a broad new biomass energy
initiative.
We look forward to the challenge.

Ed Woolsey

Attached are test documents of the press releases
.....included are from Iowa Sen. Harkin.  Both Harkin and Grassley have
been very good supporters of Biomass Energy.  Sorry for any mistakes in
OCR.

VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Old Executive Office Building
Room 286
Washington, DC 20501

Phone:(202) 456-
Fax:(202)

P.02/OF

PRESIDENT CLINTON AND VICE PRESIDENT GORE:
GROWING CLEAN ENERGY FOR THE 21sT CENTURY
August 12,1999

Today, President Clinton will announce new steps to spur bio-based technologies that can help grow the
economy, enhance U.S. energy security, and meet environmental challenges like global warming. The
President will issue an Executive Order coordinating Federal efforts to accelerate these 21st century
technologies - which can convert crops, trees, and other "biomass" into a vast array of fuels and
materials - and set a goal of tripling U.S. use of bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010. Meeting this goal
could create $15 billion to $20 billion in new income for farmers and rural America, and reduce annual
greenhouse gas emissions by up to 100 million tons - the equivalent of taking more than 70 million cars
off the road. In addition, the President will call on Congress to approve his proposed research funding
and tax credits to promote energy efficiency, bioenergy, and other clean energy sources.

New Economic Opportunities for a New Century. Advances in farm, forestry, and other biological
sciences are fueling a revolution in the use of biomass (trees, crops, and agricultural and forestry
wastes) to make low polluting products, such as:
* transportation fuels, like cellulosic ethanol from agricultural waste;
* electricity, by burning willows and switchgrass along with coal in existing plants and by
converting paper industry by-products into fuel gases; and,
* commercial products, such as chemicals, glues, paints - even furniture and textiles.
By creating high-tech jobs and new economic opportunities, meeting the President's goal of tripling
U.S. use of bioenergy and bioproducts could add $15 billion to $20 billion in new income for farmers
and many rural communities.

Cleaner Energy, Cleaner Environment. Bioenergy and bioproducts can dramatically reduce
greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. Since crops absorb carbon during growth,
their use for energy and other applications results in near zero net carbon release.
* Tripling our use of bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010 will reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions
by Lip to 100 million tons - the equivalent of taking over 70 million cars off the road.
* In addition, the deep-rooted plants commonly used for biomass are helpful in controlling erosion,
filtering chemicals from water runoff, and slowing floodwaters.

Energy Security. Meeting the President's goal of tripling our use of bioproducts and bioenergy will
allow us to cut back on the almost 4 billion barrels of oil we are projected to import in 2010.

Federal Leadership. Leading scientific and industry groups are calling for a stronger Federal role to
help move these promising technologies from the laboratory to the marketplace. Today's Executive
Order creates a powerful new research management team focused on an ambitious set of goals. It:

* Establishes a permanent council consisting of the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture, the EPA
Administrator, the Director of the National Science Foundation, and other agency heads to develop a
detailed biomass research program to be presented annually as part of the Federal budget.

* Directs the council to review major agency regulations, incentives and programs to ensure that they
effectively promote the use of bioproducts and bioenergy.

* Creates an outside advisory group with representatives from bio~based industries, farm and forestry
sectors, universities, and environmental groups.

in a separate Executive Memorandum, the President instructed the Secretaries of Energy and
Agriculture to prepare a report within the next 120 days on options for modifying existing DOE and
USDA programs with a goal of tripling U.S. use of bio-based products and bioenergy by 2010.

15:43 P.03/OF

THE PRESIDENT'S NEW EXECUTIVE ORDER ON
BIO-BASED PRODUCTS AND BIOENERGY
AUGUST 12, 1999

The Executive Order issued by President Clinton today will coordinate Federal efforts to
accelerate the development of 21" century bio-based industries that use trees, crops, and
agricultural and forestry wastes to make fuels, chemicals, and electricity. Owing to recent
scientific advances, Bioenergy and bioproducts have enormous potential to create new economic
opportunities for rural America, enhance U.S. energy security, and help meet environmental
challenges like global warming. In a separate Executive Memorandum, the President set a goal
of tripling U.S. use of bio-based products and bioenergy by 2010. Meeting this goal could create
$15 billion to $20 billion in new income for farmers and rural America, and reduce annual
greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equal to as much as 100 million metric tons of carbon
(MMTCE) - the equivalent of taking over 70 million cars off the road.

BIOMASS

Biomass is trees, crops, and agricultural and forestry wastes that can be used to make fuels,
chemicals, and electricity. Biomass is a clean, domestic, and renewable source of energy. It can
be used to fuel cars, power factories, and create a host of chemicals and other everyday products.

EXECUTIVE ORDER

Recent scientific advances in farm, forestry, and other biological sciences are making bioenergy
and bioproducts more technically feasible and more economically viable. Recent reports and
studies - including the just-released National Research Council report, "Biobased Industrial
Products" - have concluded that Federal support for research is essential to realizing the
economic and environmental potential of bio-based industries. Today's Executive Order acts on
this advice to create a powerful new research management team to focus Federal efforts with a
goal of tripling U.S. use of bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010. Energy from biomass sources
currently accounts for about 3 percent of the total U.S. energy supply - mostly from wood and
wood waste.

This Executive Order:

* Establishes a permanent council consisting of the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture, the
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, and the Director of the National Science
Foundation, and other agency heads to develop a detailed research program to be presented
annually as part of the annual Federal budget.

* Instructs the council to review major agency regulations, incentives and programs to ensure
that they are being used effectively to promote the use of bioproducts and bioenergy. The
council's plan will be reviewed by an outside advisory group with representatives from bio-
based industries, farm and forestry sectors, universities, and environmental groups.

Directs DOS and USDA to establish a National Biobased Products and Bioenergy
Coordination Office to manage the preparation of interagency budgets and provide an easy
point of entry for anyone interested in Federal work in Bio-based products and bioenergy.

Today's Executive Order also builds on the Administration's record of strong and consistent
support for bio-based industries. This includes the Administration's electricity restructuring bill
introduced earlier this year requiring that 7.5 percent of all U.S. electricity come from renewable
resources by 2010; Executive Order 13101, signed in September 1998, instructing Federal
agencies to make use of Biobased products; new proposed tax credits for bio-based electricity
production; and increased research finding for the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department
of Agriculture (USDA), and the National Science Foundation.

In a separate Executive Memorandum, the President instructed the Secretaries of Energy and
Agriculture to prepare a report within 120 days outlining and assessing options for modifying
existing DOE and USDA programs with a goal of tripling U.S. use of bio-based products and
bioenergy by 2010.

WHAT IS BEING DONE RIGHT NOW IN BlOENERGY AND BIOPRODUCTS

Clean bioenergy and bioproducts are very much here and now. Already DOE and USDA are
participating in partnerships on a number of major, breakthrough bioenergy and bioproducts
projects, including:

* Biomass to Ethanol Demonstration Projects. Last fall BC Intentional broke ground in
Jennings, Louisiana on the first commercial plant to produce ethanol from the cellulose in
agricultural waste - in this case sugar cane bagasse- A number of other demonstration
projects are under development to convert municipal solid waste to ethanol.

o Bio refinery for Chemicals. Cargill Corporation, one of the largest privately held company
in the United States, has built a prototype bio refinery in Blair, Nebraska. This new facility
will use corn to produce a stream of chemical products and also a biodegradable polymer,
polylactic acid, used in making films, fibers, rigid materials and coatings.

* Co-Firing Technologies. A number of projects are exploring ways to use biomass such as
switchgrass and shod-rotation wood crops like willows to make electricity by cofiring them
with coal. Two of the most prominent projects - the Iowa Chariton Valley Project and the
New York Salix project - will also investigate the technical and business aspects of biomass
gasification, where biomass is made into a fuel gas that can be used for heat or power
production.

ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF USING BIOMASS FOR ENERGY AND PRODUCTS

A robust bioenergy and bioproducts industry in the United States promises tremendous economic
benefits for biomass producers - including farmers and the forest products industry energy
producers, chemical manufacturers. and the U.S. economy as a whole.

P.05/OF

For rural America, a fast-growing bioenergy market will greatly increase the demand for energy
crops and for agricultural and forest residues, or wastes, of all types. Since the cost of
transporting the raw materials is high, most of the value-added work would occur in rural
communities, providing new revenue streams for farmers and cash-flow for rural economic
development. This means that good, high-technology jobs associated with producing biofuels
and chemicals can be added in rural communities helping ensure that they will be an integral part
of a prosperous 21st century American economy. By creating high-tech jobs and new economic
opportunities, meeting the President's goal of tripling U.S. use of bioenergy and bioproducts
could add $15 billion to $20 billion in new income for farmers and many rural communities.

Finally, as the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology highlight in their
new report - "Powerful Partnerships: The Federal Role in International Cooperation on Energy
Innovation" - investments in bioenergy technologies, infrastructures, and markets could increase
profitability for U.S. firms competing in global markets, while simultaneously providing for the
world's future energy needs in an environmentally sustainable way.

 

BIO-BASED TECITNOLOGIES HELP MEET ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES

Substituting biomass for fossil fuels can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions that
contribute to global warming. Since biomass crops absorb carbon during growth, their use for
energy and other applications results in near zero net carbon release.

Meeting the President's goal of tripling our use of bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010 will
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 100 MMCTE - the equivalent of taking more than 70
million cars off the road. Substituting for fossil fuels, bioenergy will also reduce emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOx). sulfur oxides (SOx), and other pollutants.

Additionally, the deep-rooted plants commonly used for biomass - such as poplar, willow, and
switchgrass - are helpful in controlling erosion, filtering chemicals from water runoff, and
slowing floodwaters-

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S FY2000 BUDGET ON BIOMASS

The President's FY 2000 budget request contains $242 million for investments in biomass
research, development and deployment, including:

* Advanced Biomass Power and Fuels. Funding for DOE and USDA to continue
developing, testing, and demonstrating high-yield, low-cost biomass feedstocks; cofiring
biomass with coal to produce electricity; advanced technologies for biomass gasification
using paper industry by-products; and continued work on producing alternative fuels, such as
ethanol, from biomass.

* National Biomass Partnership. Funding for DOE, USDA and other Federal agencies and
private partners to launch a national partnership to develop advanced integrated biomass
technologies.

The President has also proposed a package of biomass tax credits. The President proposes to
extend for 5 years the current 1.5 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit for electricity produced from
biomass. The proposal also expands the types of biomass eligible for the credit to include certain
forest-related, agricultural and other resources. Finally, the package includes a 1.0 cent per
kilowatt hour tax credit for electricity produced by cofiring biomass in coal plants.

To date, Congress has not only failed to enact these proposed new tax credits, but has terminated
the current 1..5 cent per kilowatt credit and cut the President's budget request by 14 percent.

 

 

TOTAL P.08

AUG. 12. 1999 4:08PM SENATE AGRICULTURE COMM NO.052 P.2/2

U:.S. Senator

A

(202) 224-3254
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE; Contact: Christopher Moody/Shannon Tesdaltl
August 12, 1999

HARKIN LAUDS ADMINISTRATION EFFORTS CALLING FOR
TRIPLING USE OF 310-BASED PRODUCTS AND ENERGY fly 2010
Action Comes Onlv Weeks After the Sen are Agriculture Committee Adopted Iowa Senator's Legislation
To Allow Energy-Producing Crops to be Harvested on CRP Land

Washington- Calling it, "the future of American agriculture," U.S. Senator Torn Harkin (D-
IA) today lauded the Clinton. Administration for issuing an Executive Order supporting the use of biomass.
Last year, Harkin inserted provisions in the Agriculture, EPA, and Defense Appropriations bills promoting
the purchase and use of environmentally-preferable products by the Federal Government.

"Increasing use of biomass energy sources is a winner for Iowa," said Harkin. "It means new farm
income opportunities, greater rural economic development, energy Independence; and a cleaner
environment for us all. Biomass has the potential to be a key component of the future of agriculture."

The President's Executive Order establishes a permanent council consisting of the Secretaries of
Agriculture and Energy, the EPA Administrator, the Director of the National Science Foundation and other
agency heads to develop a detailed biomass research program to be presented annually as part of the
Federal budget. In a separate Executive Memorandum, the President instructed the Secretaries of
Agriculture and Energy to prepare a report within the next 120 days on options for modifying existing
USDA and DOE programs with a goal of tripling U.S. use of bio-based products and bio-energy by 2010.

If the U.S. triples the use of bio-based energy and products, it could create $15-20
billion in new income for farmers and rural America. This action could also reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by over 100 million tons. Examples of biomass products include bio-based industrial oils
and greases, building material and chemicals. Examples of energy use include replacing MTBE with
ethanol, or burning switchgrass to generate electricity. A switchgrass demonstration project is currently
underway in southeast Iowa.

"Rural economies across the country need a boost from new economic activity," said Harkin.
"Biomass has the potential to provide billions in additional income to farm families, boost domestic energy
supplies, and help our environment. President Clinton and Vice President Gore are right in this move to
support our energy security and our farmers."

Before the August recess, the Senate Agriculture Committee passed legislation by Harkin that
would allow vegetation to be grown and harvested on CRP land for use as biomass energy sources. The
harvesting would only be allowed under conditions that protect soil and wildlife. Iowa will have 1,499.046
acres in the CRP in October of this year.

Harkin who has been encouraging increased use of biomass for energy production since the 1970s,
is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee that passed the legislation,

-30-

 

From tomb at snowcrest.net Fri Aug 13 02:36:13 1999
From: tomb at snowcrest.net (Tom Blackburn)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next) question
In-Reply-To: <34769b72.24e395d6@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000f01bee556$8271d940$aead4ed1@tomblack>

Dear Vern, and others,

Here is an experience I have had with a grate.
I have recently developed an inverted type of gasifier that uses
coarse fir sawdust as fuel. The unit is bottom fed, by an auger, that is
set up on time intervals. The packing action of the auger is critical to
efficient operation. The fuel compresses about 3 to 1. This packed mass
is stopped in the throat by a stainless steel disc which is suspended
from above. I have placed the proper amount of weight on this free
floating shaft to regulate the fuel compression factor. This shaft also
rotates at 1/2 RPM. This eliminates "tunneling" in the reduction bed,
and loss of CO2 conversion. I have tried to use no grate and found that
the BTU's fall off drastically, even in my inverted design, with the
charcoal sitting on top of the hearth!
This unit produces high quality gas with in one minute of ignition.
----- Original Message -----
From: <VHarris001@aol.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next)
question

> Dear Tom Reed, Arnt, others,
>
> I have read several of your (Tom Reed's) references to the addition of
air
> just above the grate in the CGP Bangalore lab in India under Prof.
Mukunda.
>
> I was wondering if you would further explain the mechanism in
operation here
> that reduces the tars and the procedure for admitting air to the
gasifier.
>
> Also, would you discuss the functioning of the grate in a stratified
> downdraft gasifier. For instance, Arnt has sent the gasification group
a
> diagram of his grateless gasifier, and I have also been working on an
idea
> for a similar design. Also in the book "Small Scale Gas
Producer-Engine
> Systems (Kaupp/Goss), on page 77, Figure 70 shows a gas producer with
a
> moveable grate, but I note that producer gas does not pass through the
grate.
> Rather the only purposes of the grate appear to be to stir fuel and
restrain
> fuel while allowing ash to fall through for removal. In addition,
page 69,
> figure 61 shows a crossdraft gasifier with no grate.
>
> What is your opinion of the need for a grate in a stratified downdraft
> gasifier, other than (1) as a restraint to position fuel, or (2) a
method of
> separating ash from char and fuel, or (3) as a breaking point in the
reactor
> from which to draw gas?
>
> If others have an opinion about this point, I would appreciate hearing
from
> you as well.
>
>
> Thank you,
> Vernon Harris
> VHarris001@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 7/17/99 3:45:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Reedtb2@cs.com
> writes:
>
>
> >
> > Glad to hear you are going to build a Stratified Downdraft (open
top,
> > topless, open core, char making) gasifier. The latest improvement
on this
> > has been made at the CGP Bangalore lab in India under Prof.
Mukunda. They
> > add an additional air inlet a few inches above the grate and reduce
tar
> from
> > 1000 to 100 ppm and reduce char-ash from 5% to < 1%.
> >
> > We are now improving on that model (we hope) here at CPC.
> >
> > Keep in touch.
> >
> > Yours truly, TOM REED
> > THE 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 sylva at iname.com Fri Aug 13 13:41:50 1999
From: sylva at iname.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Packing density of wood chips.
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990813184626.006ddcb0@mail.cableol.co.uk>

On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 01:52:13 +0600, W.B.Hauserman wrote:

>Who out there has any data of the bulk density of wood chips (like from a
knife type chipper)
We used 2.88m3 per tonne on whole tree hardwood. Similar figure for
cordwood was 1.8m3 per tonne for 2m billets. Assuming 80%mc (dry weight
basis) this seems to fit with Darren's answer.
> and of fine hog fuel (about 1 cm) as loaded into trucks for transport?
Is there any precident of using standard garbage compactor trucks for
increasing wood chip density?
I have no knowledge for chips but a standard garbage truck is used to
transport lop and top by an arborist in London UK and achieves better bulk
densities than loose chips.
In a similar vein the proposes (gasifier??) for Carlisle UK is trialling
two balers for lop and top which approach the bulk densities of cordwood.
This has good cost implications for both comminution (cheaper to use a
static hacker than a terrain chipper as the plant can power it with its own
electricity rather than fossil fuel amongst other benefits)and transport
(which can be on standard flatbed rather than specialised bulkers).
AJH
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From ahe1 at cableol.co.uk Sat Aug 14 16:23:07 1999
From: ahe1 at cableol.co.uk (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Packing density of wood chips.
In-Reply-To: <002b01bee369$f29e89a0$b09c33ca@ibox3041.lanka.net>
Message-ID: <37b53512.373970677@mail.net.ntl.com>

On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 01:52:13 +0600, W.B.Hauserman wrote:

>Who out there has any data of the bulk density of wood chips (like from a knife type chipper)
We used 2.88m3 per tonne on whole tree hardwood. Similar figure for
cordwood was 1.8m3 per tonne for 2m billets. Assuming 80%mc (dry
weight basis) this seems to fit with Darren's answer.
> and of fine hog fuel (about 1 cm) as loaded into trucks for transport? Is there any precident of using standard garbage compactor trucks for increasing wood chip density?
I have no knowledge for chips but a standard garbage truck is used to
transport lop and top by an arborist in London UK and achieves better
bulk densities than loose chips.
In a similar vein the proposes (gasifier??) for Carlisle UK is
trialling two balers for lop and top which approach the bulk densities
of cordwood. This has good cost implications for both comminution
(cheaper to use a static hacker than a terrain chipper as the plant
can power it with its own electricity rather than fossil fuel amongst
other benefits)and transport (which can be on standard flatbed rather
than specialised bulkers).
AJH

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

 

From rmcguckin at energetics.com Sat Aug 14 16:23:16 1999
From: rmcguckin at energetics.com (McGuckin, Robyn)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Great News for U.S. Biomass Industry
Message-ID: <199908142023.QAA10095@solstice.crest.org>

To read more about yesterday's executive order and bioenergy initiative
developments, go to UBECA's site:
http://www.ubeca.org/pubs/press/bio-announce081199.html

Robyn McGuckin.
Program Manager
United BioEnergy Commercialization Association
www.ubeca.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Woolsey [SMTP:woolsey@netins.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 6:56 PM
> To: gasification@crest.org; bioenergy@crest.org
> Subject: Great News for U.S. Biomass Industry
>
> Greetings
> Today was a REALLY good day for biomass energy in the U.S.
> Pres. Clinton announced a broad new biomass energy initiative.
> We look forward to the challenge.
>
> Ed Woolsey
>
> Attached are test documents of the press releases .....included are from
> Iowa Sen. Harkin. Both Harkin and Grassley have been very good supporters
> of Biomass Energy. Sorry for any mistakes in OCR.
> << File: Vpbiomas.txt >> << File: Harknbio.txt >>

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

 

From pandres at swbi.net Sat Aug 14 16:23:09 1999
From: pandres at swbi.net (Philipp Andres)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Great News for U.S. Biomass Industry
In-Reply-To: <37B4A054.60BD8C6D@ttacs.ttu.edu>
Message-ID: <002601bee613$fb47b3e0$0f00a8c0@satellite.vestas>

Dear Harry,

I find your tunnel vision and your complete disregard for the reality of
dwindling fossil fuels, the requirement to conserve the same for future
generations and to gradually make the switch to renewable energy resources
appalling.

Your negative attitude is more astonishing when considering the fact that
you have now been part of this discussion group long enough to maybe just
maybe understand the importance of cleaning up the air and learning from our
past mistakes.

Kind regards,

Philipp Andres
Principal
Sustainable Energy Link
Phone: (519) 396-6922
Fax: (519) 396-6158
e-mail: pandres@swbi.net

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bioenergy@crest.org [mailto:owner-bioenergy@crest.org] On Behalf
Of Harry W. Parker
Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 6:47 PM
To: Edward Woolsey
Cc: gasification@crest.org; bioenergy@crest.org
Subject: Re: Great News for U.S. Biomass Industry

Hello all,

Clinton's biomass initiative reminded me of an initiative by another
president. Nixon declared that we should achieve energy independence by
(I forget the date). Knowing people immediately laughed at the idea.
Considerable federal money was spent to no real result. I enjoyed
working 2 years in Washington for ESCOE in regard to synfuels with a
tiny, tiny fragment of that money.

Clinton's goals for biomass are just as laughable, and we may have some
real fun spending some resources which come from Clinton's biomass
initiative. The result will be minimal except for selected biomass
resources to replace a selected petrochemicals.

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

 

The Bioenergy List is sponsored by:
David M. Gubanc.P.E. http://www.gubanc.com and
dk-TEKNIK ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT http://www.dk-teknik.dk
Other SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/bioenergy-list-archive/

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

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sat Aug 14 16:50:15 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next) question
Message-ID: <8e74c1d7.24e7311c@aol.com>

Dear Dale, et al,

In theory, the Imbert type configuration of your (Dale's) gasifier relies
chiefly on its geometry to produce high quality gas (for IC engine use that
means high btu, low tar gas). Specifically - the position of the tuyeres,
throat and grate in relationship to each other and relative to the size of
the throat, AND the corresponding superficial velocity of the gas are the key
factors in gas production. That is - of course - in theory.

The development of the stratified downdraft gasification model would suggest
that you could do away with both the tuyeres and throat in your gasifier and
still produce high quality gas. If this is true (I am inclined to believe
that it is), it would seem to mean one of two things: once the appropriate
superficial velocity is achieved, either (1) the relationship between the
incoming air, fuel and outgoing gas is much less important than has
previously been thought, -OR- (2) the relationship between the incoming air,
fuel and outgoing gas is largely self regulating.

In either case, it causes me to wonder whether or not the grate is a critical
component in the production of high quality gas. As long as a gasifier
design provided that producer gas can be drawn from the reactor while
simultaneously the fuel is kept in place and not swept away with the producer
gas, it would seem sufficient to meet the requirements of stratified
downdraft gasification.

Surely if tuyeres and throats are critical for gasification, then also grates
must be - as you say - to hold the charcoal mass at its repose so as to keep
the throat packed full of white hot reactant. However, if tuyeres and
throats are not critical, then must grates be? I wonder exactly what's going
on in that stratified downdraft gasifier? Hmmm . . .

Regards,
Vernon Harris
VHarris001@aol.com

In a message dated 8/12/99 10:27:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
costich@pacifier.com writes:

> Dear Vern, and all:
> >For my Imbert downdraft coined design you'll recall (Vern) the grate is a
> floating disc of 1/2" thick stainless steel alloy (boiler/heat exchanger
> tubesheet) that is perforated with 3/4" holes approx 50% by total surface
> area. I resized its diameter after locating it in a scrapyard. Drilling
> those holes would be an odious task-- this is a good reason not to have a
> grate?(nc-plasma!), my grate is flush with the bottom of 2 6X6 inch
> charcoal harvesting/ignition access holes. I use a "knocker" which is a 1"
> X 30" iron shaft which swings thru an arc of the self-aligning flange
> bearing that bolts it to the side of the gasifier just beneath the grate,
> and the grate is a disc sitting on a rolled square bar lip. Grate is free
> floating and "jumps" when struck from beneath.
> I see a grate or any ash "sifter/classifier" purpose is to hold up a
> charcoal mass at its repose so as to keep the throat packed full of white
> hot reactant and it is the pyro-chemisty at the throat that determines
> produced gas quality.
> renewable'y' yours, Dale Costich
>
>
> VHarris001@aol.com <VHarris001@aol.com>
> To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
> Date: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 8:15 PM
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next) question
>
>
> >Dear Tom Reed, Arnt, others,
> >
> >I have read several of your (Tom Reed's) references to the addition of air
> >just above the grate in the CGP Bangalore lab in India under Prof.
Mukunda.
> >
> >I was wondering if you would further explain the mechanism in operation
> here
> >that reduces the tars and the procedure for admitting air to the gasifier.
> >
> >Also, would you discuss the functioning of the grate in a stratified
> >downdraft gasifier. For instance, Arnt has sent the gasification group a
> >diagram of his grateless gasifier, and I have also been working on an idea
> >for a similar design. Also in the book "Small Scale Gas Producer-Engine
> >Systems (Kaupp/Goss), on page 77, Figure 70 shows a gas producer with a
> >moveable grate, but I note that producer gas does not pass through the
> grate.
> > Rather the only purposes of the grate appear to be to stir fuel and
> restrain
> >fuel while allowing ash to fall through for removal. In addition, page
69,
> >figure 61 shows a crossdraft gasifier with no grate.
> >
> >What is your opinion of the need for a grate in a stratified downdraft
> >gasifier, other than (1) as a restraint to position fuel, or (2) a method
> of
> >separating ash from char and fuel, or (3) as a breaking point in the
> reactor
> >from which to draw gas?
> >
> >If others have an opinion about this point, I would appreciate hearing
from
> >you as well.
> >
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Vernon Harris
> >VHarris001@aol.com
> >
> >
> >In a message dated 7/17/99 3:45:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Reedtb2@cs.com
> >writes:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Glad to hear you are going to build a Stratified Downdraft (open top,
> >> topless, open core, char making) gasifier. The latest improvement on
> this
> >> has been made at the CGP Bangalore lab in India under Prof. Mukunda.
> They
> >> add an additional air inlet a few inches above the grate and reduce tar
> >from
> >> 1000 to 100 ppm and reduce char-ash from 5% to < 1%.
> >>
> >> We are now improving on that model (we hope) here at CPC.
> >>
> >> Keep in touch.
> >>
> >> Yours truly, TOM REED
> >> THE BEF
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sat Aug 14 17:12:59 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next) question
Message-ID: <411fa8d7.24e73662@aol.com>

Dear Tom Blackburn,

Have you enough experience with your gasifier to know the cause of the
dropoff in gas quality? Would you attribute it exclusively to the loss of
compaction in the fuel caused by removing the stainless steel disc? If so,
do you believe the problem would be solved were compaction achieved by some
other method (e.g. bindings, pelletizing, etc)?

Also, since the disc rotates, it must be reducing tunneling by stirring the
reduction bed. Do you find this increases tar production or ash carryover in
the producer gas? Can you explain the mechanism of CO2 conversion. Do you
mean, for instance, that stirring the bed increases the CO2 contact with the
carbon bed?

Thanks for your feedback.

Regards,
Vernon Harris
VHarris001@aol.com

In a message dated 8/13/99 2:42:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
tomb@snowcrest.net writes:

> Dear Vern, and others,
>
> Here is an experience I have had with a grate.
> I have recently developed an inverted type of gasifier that uses
> coarse fir sawdust as fuel. The unit is bottom fed, by an auger, that is
> set up on time intervals. The packing action of the auger is critical to
> efficient operation. The fuel compresses about 3 to 1. This packed mass
> is stopped in the throat by a stainless steel disc which is suspended
> from above. I have placed the proper amount of weight on this free
> floating shaft to regulate the fuel compression factor. This shaft also
> rotates at 1/2 RPM. This eliminates "tunneling" in the reduction bed,
> and loss of CO2 conversion. I have tried to use no grate and found that
> the BTU's fall off drastically, even in my inverted design, with the
> charcoal sitting on top of the hearth!
> This unit produces high quality gas with in one minute of ignition.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <VHarris001@aol.com>
> To: <gasification@crest.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 8:13 PM
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next)
> question
>
>
> > Dear Tom Reed, Arnt, others,
> >
> > I have read several of your (Tom Reed's) references to the addition of
> air
> > just above the grate in the CGP Bangalore lab in India under Prof.
> Mukunda.
> >
> > I was wondering if you would further explain the mechanism in
> operation here
> > that reduces the tars and the procedure for admitting air to the
> gasifier.
> >
> > Also, would you discuss the functioning of the grate in a stratified
> > downdraft gasifier. For instance, Arnt has sent the gasification group
> a
> > diagram of his grateless gasifier, and I have also been working on an
> idea
> > for a similar design. Also in the book "Small Scale Gas
> Producer-Engine
> > Systems (Kaupp/Goss), on page 77, Figure 70 shows a gas producer with
> a
> > moveable grate, but I note that producer gas does not pass through the
> grate.
> > Rather the only purposes of the grate appear to be to stir fuel and
> restrain
> > fuel while allowing ash to fall through for removal. In addition,
> page 69,
> > figure 61 shows a crossdraft gasifier with no grate.
> >
> > What is your opinion of the need for a grate in a stratified downdraft
> > gasifier, other than (1) as a restraint to position fuel, or (2) a
> method of
> > separating ash from char and fuel, or (3) as a breaking point in the
> reactor
> > from which to draw gas?
> >
> > If others have an opinion about this point, I would appreciate hearing
> from
> > you as well.
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Vernon Harris
> > VHarris001@aol.com
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 7/17/99 3:45:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Reedtb2@cs.com
> > writes:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Glad to hear you are going to build a Stratified Downdraft (open
> top,
> > > topless, open core, char making) gasifier. The latest improvement
> on this
> > > has been made at the CGP Bangalore lab in India under Prof.
> Mukunda. They
> > > add an additional air inlet a few inches above the grate and reduce
> tar
> > from
> > > 1000 to 100 ppm and reduce char-ash from 5% to < 1%.
> > >
> > > We are now improving on that model (we hope) here at CPC.
> > >
> > > Keep in touch.
> > >
> > > Yours truly, TOM REED
> > > THE BEF
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Sun Aug 15 01:50:07 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Great News for U.S. Biomass Industry
In-Reply-To: <009f01bee515$dfbe09c0$8c158ea7@woolsey.netins.net>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19990814224346.00d09e80@mail.teleport.com>

At 05:46 PM 8/13/99 -0500, Harry W. Parker wrote:
>Clinton's goals for biomass are just as laughable, and we may have some
>real fun spending some resources which come from Clinton's biomass
>initiative. . .

Harry,

This sounds to me like you don't care about bioenergy; you're just hanging around to pick off some grant money. Clinton's incentive funds should not go to you, but to the hundreds of people who are making serious commitments to bioenergy by taking risks and investing their own funds to develop or improve renewable energy technologies.

In global terms it won't amount to much but it should be used to help offset the risk of developing biomass energy technologies.

Tom

-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
T.R. Miles, Technical Consultants, Inc.
1470 SW Woodward Way
Portland, Oregon, USA Tel:(503) 646-1198/292-0107
http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/ Fax:(503) 605-0208/292-2919
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Sun Aug 15 06:52:40 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: GAS-Real news for Biomass energy initiave
Message-ID: <5280d42.24e7f650@aol.com>

Dear All,
President Clinton putting the spotlight on Biomass energy is a great
incentive to make things happen in biomass energy. However, a faster way is
to create a 1 cent/Kwhr "green tax credit" for biomass based power
generation. That would be real action at minimal cost to the gov't.
Tom Taylor
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From snkm at btl.net Sun Aug 15 11:33:43 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Basic Premises
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990815093923.00736828@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Hi Folks;

I would like to "rock" the boat a little. Correct me as you see fit!

To date -- basic premise of bioenergy is to ferment/biodigest (or otherwise
process) the organically active ingredients of a crop raised for fuel (Ergo
-- corn) and gasify the trash.

I wish to "question" this. Taking sugar cane as an example.

Can we not "gasify" to fuel directly sugar cane?

Of course, not by the procedures popular on this list -- such as a down
draft combustion process -- but rather through steam reforming?

Can't we do just as well through direct action on the entire organic plant!

We do not need combustion with air. It only adds nitrogen. We can combust
part of the resulting fuel for the heat source required to run the reaction.

It comes out much more efficient doing it this way.

Direct gasification of carbohydrates using steam reforming technology is
already well established in the oil refineries.

May we not be missing something here?

What would be the results from steam reforming Corn or Sugar Cain?

For sure the ash could be directly recycled as "fertilizer". A perfect,
closed, loop!

So please -- tell me why this cannot be done?

And if it can -- why are we not at least trying to do it?

As always -- I have an excellent design for a steam reformer.

Peter Singfield
Xaibe Village
Corozal District
Belize, Central America
Tel 501-4-35213
E-mail: snkm@btl.net
Url: http://www.wireworm.com/snkm/index.htm

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

 

From costich at pacifier.com Sun Aug 15 12:01:46 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next) question
Message-ID: <003501bee738$8b38e8a0$5d8c41d8@costich.pacifier.com>

Vern: I agree with your findings and would have to build other gasifier
styles to draw a conclusion. Life is short and I'm sure like me you've
created hundeds of inventions in other areas since this list topic ensued.
I still hold that when building a gasifier it is easy to install tuyeres
(and then not use them later) and the throat can be any diameter (or even
not called a throat), but there surely must be a strategem for holding fuel
in a heated/insulated space while it is vaporized (eg. fluidized, like the
balloon poised at the vacuum cleaner outlet).
The tuyeres are the inverse (if you will) of the ring burners I use to point
heat at the hot cap of my stirling engine. Each point focuses the
efficiency of the flame process to drive heat into the absorbing metal--
tuyeres add entropy to the white hot area (in a gasifier) while the oxygen
is in actuality, the only sought after element induced there.
The gasifier "made in heaven" would have to be made in heaven!
Dale Costich

-----Original Message-----
From: VHarris001@aol.com <VHarris001@aol.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Saturday, August 14, 1999 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next) question

>Dear Dale, et al,
>
>In theory, the Imbert type configuration of your (Dale's) gasifier relies
>chiefly on its geometry to produce high quality gas (for IC engine use that
>means high btu, low tar gas). Specifically - the position of the tuyeres,
>throat and grate in relationship to each other and relative to the size of
>the throat, AND the corresponding superficial velocity of the gas are the
key
>factors in gas production. That is - of course - in theory.
>
>The development of the stratified downdraft gasification model would
suggest
>that you could do away with both the tuyeres and throat in your gasifier
and
>still produce high quality gas. If this is true (I am inclined to believe
>that it is), it would seem to mean one of two things: once the appropriate
>superficial velocity is achieved, either (1) the relationship between the
>incoming air, fuel and outgoing gas is much less important than has
>previously been thought, -OR- (2) the relationship between the incoming
air,
>fuel and outgoing gas is largely self regulating.
>
>In either case, it causes me to wonder whether or not the grate is a
critical
>component in the production of high quality gas. As long as a gasifier
>design provided that producer gas can be drawn from the reactor while
>simultaneously the fuel is kept in place and not swept away with the
producer
>gas, it would seem sufficient to meet the requirements of stratified
>downdraft gasification.
>
>Surely if tuyeres and throats are critical for gasification, then also
grates
>must be - as you say - to hold the charcoal mass at its repose so as to
keep
>the throat packed full of white hot reactant. However, if tuyeres and
>throats are not critical, then must grates be? I wonder exactly what's
going
>on in that stratified downdraft gasifier? Hmmm . . .
>
>Regards,
>Vernon Harris
>VHarris001@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 8/12/99 10:27:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>costich@pacifier.com writes:
>
>> Dear Vern, and all:
>> >For my Imbert downdraft coined design you'll recall (Vern) the grate is
a
>> floating disc of 1/2" thick stainless steel alloy (boiler/heat exchanger
>> tubesheet) that is perforated with 3/4" holes approx 50% by total
surface
>> area. I resized its diameter after locating it in a scrapyard.
Drilling
>> those holes would be an odious task-- this is a good reason not to have
a
>> grate?(nc-plasma!), my grate is flush with the bottom of 2 6X6 inch
>> charcoal harvesting/ignition access holes. I use a "knocker" which is a
1"
>> X 30" iron shaft which swings thru an arc of the self-aligning flange
>> bearing that bolts it to the side of the gasifier just beneath the
grate,
>> and the grate is a disc sitting on a rolled square bar lip. Grate is
free
>> floating and "jumps" when struck from beneath.
>> I see a grate or any ash "sifter/classifier" purpose is to hold up a
>> charcoal mass at its repose so as to keep the throat packed full of
white
>> hot reactant and it is the pyro-chemisty at the throat that determines
>> produced gas quality.
>> renewable'y' yours, Dale Costich
>>
>>
>> VHarris001@aol.com <VHarris001@aol.com>
>> To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 8:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next)
question
>>
>>
>> >Dear Tom Reed, Arnt, others,
>> >
>> >I have read several of your (Tom Reed's) references to the addition of
air
>> >just above the grate in the CGP Bangalore lab in India under Prof.
>Mukunda.
>> >
>> >I was wondering if you would further explain the mechanism in operation
>> here
>> >that reduces the tars and the procedure for admitting air to the
gasifier.
>> >
>> >Also, would you discuss the functioning of the grate in a stratified
>> >downdraft gasifier. For instance, Arnt has sent the gasification group
a
>> >diagram of his grateless gasifier, and I have also been working on an
idea
>> >for a similar design. Also in the book "Small Scale Gas
Producer-Engine
>> >Systems (Kaupp/Goss), on page 77, Figure 70 shows a gas producer with a
>> >moveable grate, but I note that producer gas does not pass through the
>> grate.
>> > Rather the only purposes of the grate appear to be to stir fuel and
>> restrain
>> >fuel while allowing ash to fall through for removal. In addition, page
>69,
>> >figure 61 shows a crossdraft gasifier with no grate.
>> >
>> >What is your opinion of the need for a grate in a stratified downdraft
>> >gasifier, other than (1) as a restraint to position fuel, or (2) a
method
>> of
>> >separating ash from char and fuel, or (3) as a breaking point in the
>> reactor
>> >from which to draw gas?
>> >
>> >If others have an opinion about this point, I would appreciate hearing
>from
>> >you as well.
>> >
>> >
>> >Thank you,
>> >Vernon Harris
>> >VHarris001@aol.com
>> >
>> >
>> >In a message dated 7/17/99 3:45:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>Reedtb2@cs.com
>> >writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Glad to hear you are going to build a Stratified Downdraft (open
top,
>> >> topless, open core, char making) gasifier. The latest improvement
on
>> this
>> >> has been made at the CGP Bangalore lab in India under Prof. Mukunda.
>> They
>> >> add an additional air inlet a few inches above the grate and reduce
tar
>> >from
>> >> 1000 to 100 ppm and reduce char-ash from 5% to < 1%.
>> >>
>> >> We are now improving on that model (we hope) here at CPC.
>> >>
>> >> Keep in touch.
>> >>
>> >> Yours truly, TOM REED
>> >> THE 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 snkm at btl.net Sun Aug 15 13:47:52 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990815115420.00e2a728@wgs1.btl.net>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 2311 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19990815/12940e39/attachment.bin
From LINVENT at aol.com Sun Aug 15 16:25:47 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:
Message-ID: <febc87af.24e87ccf@aol.com>

Peter,
The average American generates about 3# of trash per day. This is not
high btu plastic, and a house will use minimally 15-20 KWhr/day of power
which the trash does not even come close to providing, with refrigerated air,
the power is much more. Adding grass clippings and dried sewage may help, but
at some cost. Mixed with solar the approach is better for overall needs, and
a demonstration house should be set up. Anyone for a grant submission?
Tom Taylor
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From snkm at btl.net Sun Aug 15 18:29:06 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Dreaming in Color
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990815163554.00e535a4@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Tom:

You are of course absolutely right -- the proper wording should have been:

Supply all your energy needs from garbage. Not limiting is to from one
dwelling.

It stay the same -- free and readily available. If fact -- if you can take
enough of it -- they pay you to keep it!

I believe I can build this device by a single casting of ductile iron -- no
use going for manganese steel -- that would be over kill. These are
"Cast-Irons".

It would on the same levels as casting a four cylinder car block -- think
model T even.

Having has experience in this type of foundry work -- I would use a glued
together styrofoam pattern -- investment cast in silicate sand bonded by
CO2 fixed resins -- etc.

In fact -- I could make these suckers in any third world country!

Would it bore the list if I copied over a com I made to Dale regarding how
I plan to do it? I call that message dreaming in color.

However -- one day -- two poor dudes -- may well make it up. On the other
hand is may just be another dead end.

Still, a cylinders that maintain a water gas reaction at one fixed
temperature --

In the Water Gas reaction -- the problem was that endothermic demands of
this reaction made it extremely hard to keep the high temps needed for
efficient -- hi BTU water gas. As the temperature goes down -- the reaction
goes from producing CO to making CO2.

The cylinder stays at 1800 deg temperature -- when you release the pressure
-- release the breech -- swing it over -- blow it out -- back upright --
charge the cylinder with a pre-pressed cylindrical charge -- screw the
breech back in -- watch your flair and as soon as the first gas -- the gas
of pyrolization comes -- switch over to that storage tank -- this is the
fuel that fires this device and maybe your generator as well?

Well -- if you want the rest -- let me know -- would hate to become a bore
here.

The interesting part is that out of the 100 heat units in the charge -- as
much as over 70 parts will "cross-over" into gas produced.

So if we put a forty pound cylinder of garbage in this device (Say low
value -- 10,000 BTU per pound) we will receive 280,000 BTU of gas.

If we do 100 lbs per charge -- (bigger "cannon"" -- 700,000 BTU.

De we really care if we have a slow "reactor" that takes -- say -- 18 hours
per charge. Naw -- not me!!

Can any of you gentle men out there grasp the potential for such a device??

I will freely describe the entire process of constructing -- controlling a
reaction vessel capable of easily sustaining 1800 Deg F. reactions -- under
pressure!

Storage of products becomes no problems at even 500 PSI -- for 700,000
BTU's worth. One regular house propane tank?

But I advise any of the corporate sharks out there not to try to "steal"
it. I live in Belize and am cheap to employ.

Besides -- you would have to get around my prior work in the state of this
art:

http://patents.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/ifetch4?INDEX+PATBIB-76-98+0+8049+4+2+9648+
OF+1+1+1+IN%2fSingfield

And I know anything less than a 100 million is chicken feed today in
projects advancing our state of science on modern planet earth. But if
anyone had even a spare $50,000 US -- Dale and I could make a humdinger of
a working prototype.

Might even be of interest to some major operation -- these things can
easily be geared up.

You think the concept of steam reformation of organics is radicle? It is
not! A very well matured and developed technology. I believe with the right
temperature -- the right pressure -- and the right catalyst -- you can
produce what ever you want.

The first gas exhausted is rich pyrolization products.

The second gas released is clean -- pure -- water gas.

Pyrolization is well over when exhaust gas temperature goes past 1700 on to
its way to the 1800 operating temperature.

The prototype would be very useful to write the book on efficient biomass
to biofuel conversion. What if we filled it with corn? Potatoes? Sugar
Cane? Cassava?

Or -- wood chips. bagasse. Garbage. Tires. -- anything???

What do we get per pound?

Hey -- let's write down the results?

22 years ago while working for the Canadian NRC -- I could have submitted
this and got a grant right away. Today -- hapless! Only the big deals from
the big teams -- well connected to the money cow.

But don't worry -- some day Dale and I might build it -- if the men in the
black overcoats do not take us out first!

Because not only would it be ending America's dependence on foreign oil --
it would be ending American's dependence on major on their corporate oil
distributors.

The water gas is so clean -- using a hydrogen separation diaphragm -- you
are running a fuel cell. The CO is just another fuel gas hanging around --
my my -- what to do with it?

But in any event -- such a prototype would be excellent for laboratory work
in answering so many questions a Corporation might have regarding
gasification.

But is sure ain't like the old days -- I know of no corporation research
projects in any field of science (and, especially in medicine) that is
doing anything more than justifying their tax rebate credentials in the
most politically correct manner they can discover.

Dreaming in color.

If this thing ever gets built it will be because Dale and I want to hear it
go "BUZZZZZZZ".

Or like I also dream -- would it not be nice to buy the old sugar factory
here in Libertad -- still operational -- with all its machine shops, and
other infrastructures -- for grinding, steaming, extracting biomass
substances (though best with sugar), many acres of producing cane fields
and simply have some fun! We do not have black over-coats here.

So until we build our little machine that can allow one to live comfortably
on 100 pounds of garbage per day ----

Chow!

Peter Singfield
Xaibe Village
Corozal District
Belize, Central America
Tel 501-4-35213
E-mail: snkm@btl.net
Url: http://www.wireworm.com/snkm/index.htm

 

At 04:27 PM 8/15/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Peter,
> The average American generates about 3# of trash per day. This is not
>high btu plastic, and a house will use minimally 15-20 KWhr/day of power
>which the trash does not even come close to providing, with refrigerated
air,
>the power is much more. Adding grass clippings and dried sewage may help,
but
>at some cost. Mixed with solar the approach is better for overall needs, and
>a demonstration house should be set up. Anyone for a grant submission?
>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 graeme at powerlink.co.nz Mon Aug 16 04:01:22 1999
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Grate stuff (excuse the pun)
Message-ID: <000401bee7bc$813ed880$6ae637d2@graeme>

Hi Vern and Gasification colleagues.

Re: Grates, precipitators and membranes.

Many thanks to you all for showing concern over my recent health "glitch"
which is now cleared up. I'm sure its a sign of CO withdrawal and have
decided that if I cannot smell it then at least I can write about it!

As usual I have to cover several subjects in the same post, so just delete
that which is of no interest.

Grates: Shaker barred grates are used to shake the fines out of the bottom
char to prevent plugging and the resulting channelling. A blank plate with
a pyramid of support char correctly positioned could be made to continuously
self clear by spilling over the edges.

Introducing air a couple of inches above the grate will burn out the grate
bars if the gas passed through the grate. This will consume the CH4
reducing tar and of course the char by combusting it, making a high
temperature exit gas with elevated levels of CO2. If however the gas posses
sideways through the char mass, you will get reduction and consumption of
char plus a reduction of the CH4 achieving a reasonable gas quality.

Precipitators: All these electrical devices are vunerable to carbon dust
shorting them out, or moisture contamination which also shorts them out.
You can have a good fiddle with them but reliability of function gets you in
the end.

Membrane Separation: If you could start with perfectly clean dry gases then
this is the way to go. Unfortunately producer was as we make it isn't so
pure in form, and the membranes foul. There is also the flow rate through
these things which if used for producer gas on an engine say, require a size
of system that is killed by economics. We investigated their use but it was
ridiculously expensive.

Regards
Doug.

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

 

From rnelson at oz.oznet.ksu.edu Mon Aug 16 10:40:36 1999
From: rnelson at oz.oznet.ksu.edu (RICHARD NELSON)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: physical data for big bluestem
Message-ID: <43BEEA03B8@oz.oznet.ksu.edu>

Does anyone have a good reference for physical and chemical data for
the herbaceous energy crop, big bluestem? We are currently
investigating the possibility of co-firing herbaceous energy crops
such as switchgrass and big bluestem for large-scale electrical
generation in Kansas and were concerned about silica, ash, etc.
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Aug 16 18:48:26 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Grate stuff (excuse the pun)
Message-ID: <1a0514a2.24e9efd1@aol.com>

Doug,
Your comments about electrostatic precipitator fouling and shorting out
are welcome to visit our operating gasifier with ESP's in continuous
operation.
Membrane separation can be used with the proper upstream cleaning.

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

 

From tomb at snowcrest.net Tue Aug 17 01:07:15 1999
From: tomb at snowcrest.net (Tom Blackburn)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next) question
In-Reply-To: <411fa8d7.24e73662@aol.com>
Message-ID: <002001bee86e$c4ca6e40$4bac4ed1@tomblack>

Dear Vern, and others,
I attribute the decrease in gas quality to two factors.
1. Loss of residence time in the reduction bed.
2. Inadequate surface exposure to the glowing carbon.
I do believe if my fuel were precompacted this problem would be
mitigated. Please remember my fuel is softwood sawdust.
I seemed logical to me to compact and feed the fuel in one step. The
problem I have had to overcome was keeping the grate clean. If you are
using the traditional chunk size fuel then the grate is correspondingly
larger. But with small particle size fuel the grate openings are very
small. (.062" to .095"). Just try to keep these clear! I have had a
dozen devices tried, all failed in time. Until now! My last attempt
works perfectly. I have used a .187" mesh stainless steel screen 12" in
dia. encircled by a 3" high rim. This is half filled with .250" steel
shot. I have a 1 rpm gearmotor above that is connected by a shaft to a
rake that stirs the shot bed. This device lets the gas through and
cleans the screen too. I have several hours on this device so far, and
no plug ups. An interesting aspect of this is my grate outlet
temperature has dropped from 700 C. to 100 C. and my gas is extremely
explosive. I thought my pyrometer was malfunctioning, but it's not.
Anybody know if there is a catalytic action going on here? Also my
carryover to the ashbox has decreased considerably.

Regards,
Tom Blackburn

----- Original Message -----
From: <VHarris001@aol.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 1999 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next)
question

> Dear Tom Blackburn,
>
> Have you enough experience with your gasifier to know the cause of the
> dropoff in gas quality? Would you attribute it exclusively to the
loss of
> compaction in the fuel caused by removing the stainless steel disc?
If so,
> do you believe the problem would be solved were compaction achieved by
some
> other method (e.g. bindings, pelletizing, etc)?
>
> Also, since the disc rotates, it must be reducing tunneling by
stirring the
> reduction bed. Do you find this increases tar production or ash
carryover in
> the producer gas? Can you explain the mechanism of CO2 conversion.
Do you
> mean, for instance, that stirring the bed increases the CO2 contact
with the
> carbon bed?
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
> Regards,
> Vernon Harris
> VHarris001@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 8/13/99 2:42:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> tomb@snowcrest.net writes:
>
> > Dear Vern, and others,
> >
> > Here is an experience I have had with a grate.
> > I have recently developed an inverted type of gasifier that
uses
> > coarse fir sawdust as fuel. The unit is bottom fed, by an auger,
that is
> > set up on time intervals. The packing action of the auger is
critical to
> > efficient operation. The fuel compresses about 3 to 1. This packed
mass
> > is stopped in the throat by a stainless steel disc which is
suspended
> > from above. I have placed the proper amount of weight on this free
> > floating shaft to regulate the fuel compression factor. This shaft
also
> > rotates at 1/2 RPM. This eliminates "tunneling" in the reduction
bed,
> > and loss of CO2 conversion. I have tried to use no grate and found
that
> > the BTU's fall off drastically, even in my inverted design, with
the
> > charcoal sitting on top of the hearth!
> > This unit produces high quality gas with in one minute of ignition.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <VHarris001@aol.com>
> > To: <gasification@crest.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 8:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next)
> > question
> >
> >
> > > Dear Tom Reed, Arnt, others,
> > >
> > > I have read several of your (Tom Reed's) references to the
addition of
> > air
> > > just above the grate in the CGP Bangalore lab in India under
Prof.
> > Mukunda.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if you would further explain the mechanism in
> > operation here
> > > that reduces the tars and the procedure for admitting air to the
> > gasifier.
> > >
> > > Also, would you discuss the functioning of the grate in a
stratified
> > > downdraft gasifier. For instance, Arnt has sent the gasification
group
> > a
> > > diagram of his grateless gasifier, and I have also been working
on an
> > idea
> > > for a similar design. Also in the book "Small Scale Gas
> > Producer-Engine
> > > Systems (Kaupp/Goss), on page 77, Figure 70 shows a gas producer
with
> > a
> > > moveable grate, but I note that producer gas does not pass
through the
> > grate.
> > > Rather the only purposes of the grate appear to be to stir fuel
and
> > restrain
> > > fuel while allowing ash to fall through for removal. In
addition,
> > page 69,
> > > figure 61 shows a crossdraft gasifier with no grate.
> > >
> > > What is your opinion of the need for a grate in a stratified
downdraft
> > > gasifier, other than (1) as a restraint to position fuel, or (2)
a
> > method of
> > > separating ash from char and fuel, or (3) as a breaking point in
the
> > reactor
> > > from which to draw gas?
> > >
> > > If others have an opinion about this point, I would appreciate
hearing
> > from
> > > you as well.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Vernon Harris
> > > VHarris001@aol.com
> > >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 7/17/99 3:45:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > Reedtb2@cs.com
> > > writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Glad to hear you are going to build a Stratified Downdraft
(open
> > top,
> > > > topless, open core, char making) gasifier. The latest
improvement
> > on this
> > > > has been made at the CGP Bangalore lab in India under Prof.
> > Mukunda. They
> > > > add an additional air inlet a few inches above the grate and
reduce
> > tar
> > > from
> > > > 1000 to 100 ppm and reduce char-ash from 5% to < 1%.
> > > >
> > > > We are now improving on that model (we hope) here at CPC.
> > > >
> > > > Keep in touch.
> > > >
> > > > Yours truly, TOM REED
> > > > THE 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 Wed Aug 18 08:36:40 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next) question
Message-ID: <8cde87fb.24ec036a@cs.com>

Dear Vern et al:
<<
Dear Tom Reed, Arnt, others,

I have read several of your (Tom Reed's) references to the addition of air
just above the grate in the CGP Bangalore lab in India under Prof. Mukunda.

The stratified downdraft gasifier developed at SERI (NREL), Buck Rogers,
Kansas State, UC Davis etc. typically had 5-8% unused char-ash at the grate.
I believe this is primarily for thermodynamic reasons - the air required for
pyrolysis was insufficient to gasify ALL the charcoal remaining after
gasification. Typical tar (condensible at 90C) levels were 1000-2000 ppm.

Prof. Makuna's group at the Combustion, Gasification, Pyrolysis (actually
Propulsion) Laboratory at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore about
1990 found that by adding more air just above the grate they could

o convert the remaining char-ash (down to 1%) to energy
o burn remaining tars to < 100 ppm.

I was wondering if you would further explain the mechanism in operation here
that reduces the tars and the procedure for admitting air to the gasifier.

Air was admitted through 1-2 nozzles about 15 cm above grate and brought the
temperature back up sufficiently so that the oxygen and H2O/CO2 gases from
above could consume the remaining char-tar.

Also, would you discuss the functioning of the grate in a stratified
downdraft gasifier. For instance, Arnt has sent the gasification group a
diagram of his grateless gasifier, and I have also been working on an idea
for a similar design. Also in the book "Small Scale Gas Producer-Engine
Systems (Kaupp/Goss), on page 77, Figure 70 shows a gas producer with a
moveable grate, but I note that producer gas does not pass through the
grate.
Rather the only purposes of the grate appear to be to stir fuel and
restrain
fuel while allowing ash to fall through for removal. In addition, page 69,
figure 61 shows a crossdraft gasifier with no grate.

What is your opinion of the need for a grate in a stratified downdraft
gasifier, other than (1) as a restraint to position fuel, or (2) a method of
separating ash from char and fuel, or (3) as a breaking point in the reactor
from which to draw gas?

We are also construting a grateless gasifier now. Agree with the above
purposes.

If others have an opinion about this point, I would appreciate hearing from
you as well.

I hope that Professor Makunda will give us his version of their discovery and
the current status of all the good gasifiers they are making there.


Thank you,
Vernon Harris
VHarris001@aol.com
>>

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

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Wed Aug 18 20:09:24 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bioenergy List Discussion at Oakland
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19990818170843.00b1e170@mail.teleport.com>

Bioenergy List Members

I would like to meet with the Bioenergy List moderators and anyone else
interested in helping manage these lists in Oakland during the Biomass
Conference of the Americas. While the schedule may be quite full an
informal meeting would be quite useful.

Please send me private email if you expect to attend the conference and
would like to discuss the lists. Please also suggest a time. One of the
lunch periods might be appropriate.

While these lists are hosted at CREST they are supported by sponsors and
volunteer moderators. As always we need volunteer moderators to share the
load, especially for the bioenergy, bioconversion and digestion lists.

Thanks,

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

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

 

From R.E.Sims at massey.ac.nz Wed Aug 18 21:41:02 1999
From: R.E.Sims at massey.ac.nz (Sims, Ralph)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bioenergy List Discussion at Oakland
Message-ID: <E325DED913AED111B6480000F878317D0245E461@its-xchg1.massey.ac.nz>

Good idea Tom, but unfortunately due to other unexpected commitments, I have
had to pull out of the conference.

Next time maybe!

Ralph Sims

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph E H Sims
Director, Centre for Energy Research
Massey University
Palmerston North

Tel +64 6 3505288
Fax +64 6 3505604

Home phone: +64 6 3573257

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Miles [mailto:tmiles@teleport.com]
Sent: Thursday, 19 August 1999 12:17
To: bioenergy@crest.org
Cc: stoves@crest.org; gasification@crest.org; bioconversion@crest.org;
digestion@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Bioenergy List Discussion at Oakland

Bioenergy List Members

I would like to meet with the Bioenergy List moderators and anyone else
interested in helping manage these lists in Oakland during the Biomass
Conference of the Americas. While the schedule may be quite full an
informal meeting would be quite useful.

Please send me private email if you expect to attend the conference and
would like to discuss the lists. Please also suggest a time. One of the
lunch periods might be appropriate.

While these lists are hosted at CREST they are supported by sponsors and
volunteer moderators. As always we need volunteer moderators to share the
load, especially for the bioenergy, bioconversion and digestion lists.

Thanks,

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

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 Thu Aug 19 07:16:08 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Flexible Gas Bags
Message-ID: <ce166529.24ed4209@cs.com>

Dear Don Patrick et al:

I am also working along the same lines. I hope to store a few m3 of producer
gas (and a few kW power in batteries) to run our Mountain Biomass Home in the
near future.

I have purchased a 10 ft by 100 ft roll of rubberized roofing (a name like
PDME, can't remember now). It was recommended by Dale Costich and others.
Check your local roofing supplies.

It isn't cheap - about $180 with the adhesive and tape used to make it water
and gas tight. Haven't started construction yet. Will try a small bag
first.

Any comments, Dale or others???

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 8/14/99 9:50:47 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
donaldp@marick.co.uk writes:

<< Dear Tom,
could you please help out??

I am looking for a supplier / suppliers of flexible gas bags, ie. rubber etc.
The requirement is to store producer gas.
Obviously the gas bag will require rigidising with a metal cage for
protection and the bag will also have flanges for connections.

Thanks for your help.
Looking forward to hearing from you and thanking

Yours sincerely,
Donald Patrick >>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From costich at pacifier.com Thu Aug 19 10:05:29 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Flexible Gas Bags
Message-ID: <011501beea4c$ff3f38a0$088c41d8@costich.pacifier.com>

rubberized roofing membrane? never thought of that! sounds better than the
several mil pvc ag-bag. A bit labor intensive if that is a flat sheet 10' X
100'...but with patience... there is a "bale bag" pvc bag big enough to
store a round bale inside that I used to confirm the storage theory for
myself. At the risk of repeating myself, the idea of round accordian-like
bellows (like a squeezebox 10'dia.) that is hoisted up 20' and expands
sucking draft thru the gasifier while decending by gravity to the ground.
and then let loose the rope at the top to have it compress the gas out to
various cooking locations is perfect synergy to home power gasification. No
electricity required! period. zip. Dale
-----Original Message-----
From: Reedtb2@cs.com <Reedtb2@cs.com>
To: donaldp@marick.co.uk <donaldp@marick.co.uk>; gasification@crest.org
<gasification@crest.org>
Date: Thursday, August 19, 1999 4:21 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Flexible Gas Bags

>Dear Don Patrick et al:
>
>I am also working along the same lines. I hope to store a few m3 of
producer
>gas (and a few kW power in batteries) to run our Mountain Biomass Home in
the
>near future.
>
>I have purchased a 10 ft by 100 ft roll of rubberized roofing (a name like
>PDME, can't remember now). It was recommended by Dale Costich and others.
>Check your local roofing supplies.
>
>It isn't cheap - about $180 with the adhesive and tape used to make it
water
>and gas tight. Haven't started construction yet. Will try a small bag
>first.
>
>Any comments, Dale or others???
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED BEF
>
>In a message dated 8/14/99 9:50:47 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
>donaldp@marick.co.uk writes:
>
><< Dear Tom,
> could you please help out??
>
> I am looking for a supplier / suppliers of flexible gas bags, ie. rubber
etc.
> The requirement is to store producer gas.
> Obviously the gas bag will require rigidising with a metal cage for
> protection and the bag will also have flanges for connections.
>
> Thanks for your help.
> Looking forward to hearing from you and thanking
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Donald Patrick >>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 19 19:03:04 1999
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next) question (long)
In-Reply-To: <34769b72.24e395d6@aol.com>
Message-ID: <37BCA8E4.7882D75F@c2i.net>

Dear Vernon, Tom, Tom, Dale et al,

..grate action is needed, not the grate itself ;-)

..see my comments below...

VHarris001@aol.com wrote:
>
> Dear Tom Reed, Arnt, others,
[...]
> Also, would you discuss the functioning of the grate in a stratified
> downdraft gasifier. For instance, Arnt has sent the gasification group a
> diagram of his grateless gasifier, and I have also been working on an idea
> for a similar design.

..you will find the ash dome in my figure, the gas outlet cage/ash
cage/perforated cylinder around the ash dome, and the ash auger, jointly
does, and adds to the traditional grate services. For the spectacular
occasions, sneeze.
(The purge gas is used to cool the auger and combat air leaks into the
gasifier.)

..to minimize heat loads on the auger and the bottom service valve, we
poured in ~10mm expanded ceramic ball pellets, up to the auger, and then
the ash dome, before loading charcoal and the fuel. On pouring pellets
into the fuel hopper, we found it would start fusing around the same
temperature as the ash and the sewer pellets, when we used the smaller
tuyeres, my hunch is these ceramic ball pellets might be useable
verifying oxidation zone temperatures.

> Also in the book "Small Scale Gas Producer-Engine
> Systems (Kaupp/Goss), on page 77, Figure 70 shows a gas producer with a
> moveable grate, but I note that producer gas does not pass through the grate.
> Rather the only purposes of the grate appear to be to stir fuel and restrain
> fuel while allowing ash to fall through for removal. In addition, page 69,
> figure 61 shows a crossdraft gasifier with no grate.
>
> What is your opinion of the need for a grate in a stratified downdraft
> gasifier, other than (1) as a restraint to position fuel, or (2) a method of
> separating ash from char and fuel, or (3) as a breaking point in the reactor
> from which to draw gas?
>
> If others have an opinion about this point, I would appreciate hearing from
> you as well.
>
> Thank you,
> Vernon Harris
> VHarris001@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 7/17/99 3:45:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Reedtb2@cs.com
> writes:
>
> >
> > Glad to hear you are going to build a Stratified Downdraft (open top,
> > topless, open core, char making) gasifier. The latest improvement on this
> > has been made at the CGP Bangalore lab in India under Prof. Mukunda. They
> > add an additional air inlet a few inches above the grate and reduce tar

..tuyeering? ;-)

> > from 1000 to 100 ppm and reduce char-ash from 5% to < 1%.
> >
> > We are now improving on that model (we hope) here at CPC.
> >
> > Keep in touch.
> >
> > Yours truly, TOM REED

 

 

Dale wrote:
>
> Dear Vern, and all:
> >For my Imbert downdraft coined design you'll recall (Vern) the grate is a
> floating disc of 1/2" thick stainless steel alloy (boiler/heat exchanger
> tubesheet) that is perforated with 3/4" holes approx 50% by total surface
> area. I resized its diameter after locating it in a scrapyard. Drilling
> those holes would be an odious task-- this is a good reason not to have a
> grate?(nc-plasma!), my grate is flush with the bottom of 2 6X6 inch
> charcoal harvesting/ignition access holes. I use a "knocker" which is a 1"
> X 30" iron shaft which swings thru an arc of the self-aligning flange
> bearing that bolts it to the side of the gasifier just beneath the grate,
> and the grate is a disc sitting on a rolled square bar lip. Grate is free
> floating and "jumps" when struck from beneath.

..tried sneezing this? A small dose of air should do the job...

> I see a grate or any ash "sifter/classifier" purpose is to hold up a
> charcoal mass at its repose so as to keep the throat packed full of white
> hot reactant and it is the pyro-chemisty at the throat that determines
> produced gas quality.
> renewable'y' yours, Dale Costich
>

Tom Blackburn wrote:
>
> Dear Vern, and others,
>
> Here is an experience I have had with a grate.
> I have recently developed an inverted type of gasifier that uses
> coarse fir sawdust as fuel. The unit is bottom fed, by an auger, that is
> set up on time intervals. The packing action of the auger is critical to
> efficient operation. The fuel compresses about 3 to 1. This packed mass
> is stopped in the throat by a stainless steel disc which is suspended
> from above. I have placed the proper amount of weight on this free
> floating shaft to regulate the fuel compression factor. This shaft also
> rotates at 1/2 RPM. This eliminates "tunneling" in the reduction bed,
> and loss of CO2 conversion. I have tried to use no grate and found that
> the BTU's fall off drastically, even in my inverted design, with the
> charcoal sitting on top of the hearth!
> This unit produces high quality gas with in one minute of ignition.

..if this is your _cold_ start time, not at all bad, not at all bad!
Can we hope to see a figure of your gasifier here in the list?
I take it you have the gas flow the in same direction as the fuel,
upwards?

Tom Blackburn wrote:
>
> Dear Vern, and others,
> I attribute the decrease in gas quality to two factors.
> 1. Loss of residence time in the reduction bed.

..??? What do you mean?

> 2. Inadequate surface exposure to the glowing carbon.
> I do believe if my fuel were precompacted this problem would be
> mitigated. Please remember my fuel is softwood sawdust.

..compacting works ;-)

> I seemed logical to me to compact and feed the fuel in one step. The
> problem I have had to overcome was keeping the grate clean. If you are
> using the traditional chunk size fuel then the grate is correspondingly
> larger. But with small particle size fuel the grate openings are very
> small. (.062" to .095"). Just try to keep these clear! I have had a
> dozen devices tried, all failed in time. Until now! My last attempt
> works perfectly. I have used a .187" mesh stainless steel screen 12" in
> dia. encircled by a 3" high rim. This is half filled with .250" steel
> shot. I have a 1 rpm gearmotor above that is connected by a shaft to a
> rake that stirs the shot bed. This device lets the gas through and
> cleans the screen too. I have several hours on this device so far, and
> no plug ups. An interesting aspect of this is my grate outlet
> temperature has dropped from 700 C. to 100 C. and my gas is extremely

..you gas is going down??? Tar content? If your gas flows the same way
as your fuel, I'd guess you had by far too much char in your reduction
zone and that reduction is reversed, producing CO2, carbon and possibly
steam, rather CO and H2. Such reversal will happen 700 - 400 C unless
you yank the gas out of the char bed quickly, ie; within half a second.

> explosive. I thought my pyrometer was malfunctioning, but it's not.
> Anybody know if there is a catalytic action going on here? Also my
> carryover to the ashbox has decreased considerably.
>
> Regards,
> Tom Blackburn
>

 

Vern writes:
>
> Dear Dale, et al,
>
> In theory, the Imbert type configuration of your (Dale's) gasifier relies
> chiefly on its geometry to produce high quality gas (for IC engine use that
> means high btu, low tar gas). Specifically - the position of the tuyeres,
> throat and grate in relationship to each other and relative to the size of
> the throat, AND the corresponding superficial velocity of the gas are the key
> factors in gas production. That is - of course - in theory.
>
> The development of the stratified downdraft gasification model would suggest
> that you could do away with both the tuyeres and throat in your gasifier and
> still produce high quality gas. If this is true (I am inclined to believe
> that it is), it would seem to mean one of two things: once the appropriate
> superficial velocity is achieved, either (1) the relationship between the
> incoming air, fuel and outgoing gas is much less important than has
> previously been thought, -OR- (2) the relationship between the incoming air,
> fuel and outgoing gas is largely self regulating.

..(2). Assuming of course, you sprinkle fuel to maintain a thin enough
reduction zone, ~3"-12" on top of the "grate" and above that a thick
enough combustion / oxidation zone, ~5"-10", (anyone?) to kill tunneling
etc, or 'imbert'... ;-)

> In either case, it causes me to wonder whether or not the grate is a critical
> component in the production of high quality gas. As long as a gasifier
> design provided that producer gas can be drawn from the reactor while
> simultaneously the fuel is kept in place and not swept away with the producer
> gas, it would seem sufficient to meet the requirements of stratified
> downdraft gasification.
>
> Surely if tuyeres and throats are critical for gasification, then also grates
> must be - as you say - to hold the charcoal mass at its repose so as to keep
> the throat packed full of white hot reactant. However, if tuyeres and
> throats are not critical, then must grates be? I wonder exactly what's going
> on in that stratified downdraft gasifier? Hmmm . . .

..I'd compare it to the core centerline of a midsize Imbert, just before
running out of fuel... ;-)

> Regards,
> Vernon Harris
> VHarris001@aol.com

Dale wrote:
> Vern: I agree with your findings and would have to build other gasifier
> styles to draw a conclusion. Life is short and I'm sure like me you've
> created hundeds of inventions in other areas since this list topic ensued.
> I still hold that when building a gasifier it is easy to install tuyeres
> (and then not use them later) and the throat can be any diameter (or even

..I used ash and a steel cone to build an ash cone and a thick ash layer
for heat insulation, if you accept the heat loss or combat it somehow,
an holed disk will do the job much cheaper. A combination is even
better, capping the cone with an holed cap will allow tweaking... ;-)

> not called a throat), but there surely must be a strategem for holding fuel
> in a heated/insulated space while it is vaporized (eg. fluidized, like the
> balloon poised at the vacuum cleaner outlet).
> The tuyeres are the inverse (if you will) of the ring burners I use to point
> heat at the hot cap of my stirling engine. Each point focuses the
> efficiency of the flame process to drive heat into the absorbing metal--
> tuyeres add entropy to the white hot area (in a gasifier) while the oxygen
> is in actuality, the only sought after element induced there.
> The gasifier "made in heaven" would have to be made in heaven!
> Dale Costich
>

.."stirred and shaken, please"... ;-)

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

 

From fractional at willmar.com Thu Aug 19 23:47:46 1999
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Flexible Gas Bags
In-Reply-To: <011501beea4c$ff3f38a0$088c41d8@costich.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <37974A26.D48C11DF@willmar.com>

Hello List,

That's usually EPDM rubber and sells for about 15 cents/sf used. It's very
tough AND flexible. My piece is due in a couple of weeks and am told it will
weigh 300 lbs or more for a 900 sf chunk! For starters I intend to lay it on
the ground as that methane bag from England except as a fat tube. Be sure to
ask for narrow (used) scraps to tie it down. They can only throw those away
anyway.
My intention is roll the thing up on four 55 gal drums welded together,
weighting the drums with sand. Installing it on a slope with a weight suspended
in a tree to encourage movement, hopefully it will provide a few oz of pressure
without having to rely on a pump.
Would like to try Dales accordion sucker bag but there are only so many weeks
in a summer.
With a 20' circumference as opposed to 9', the yield from 900 sf of rubber is
36 cubic yards instead of 16 if you presume a semicircle cross section with some
loss on the ends. The 20' circ. bag should only sit about 4'+ high so a 5'
mound should provide wind and a visual shield. With some plantings you
shouldn't know its even there. A 100' roll of PE pipe should keep it at a
healthy distance.

We'll see,

Alan

Dale Costich wrote:

> rubberized roofing membrane? never thought of that! sounds better than the
> several mil pvc ag-bag. A bit labor intensive if that is a flat sheet 10' X
> 100'...but with patience... there is a "bale bag" pvc bag big enough to
> store a round bale inside that I used to confirm the storage theory for
> myself. At the risk of repeating myself, the idea of round accordian-like
> bellows (like a squeezebox 10'dia.) that is hoisted up 20' and expands
> sucking draft thru the gasifier while decending by gravity to the ground.
> and then let loose the rope at the top to have it compress the gas out to
> various cooking locations is perfect synergy to home power gasification. No
> electricity required! period. zip. Dale
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reedtb2@cs.com <Reedtb2@cs.com>
> To: donaldp@marick.co.uk <donaldp@marick.co.uk>; gasification@crest.org
> <gasification@crest.org>
> Date: Thursday, August 19, 1999 4:21 AM
> Subject: GAS-L: Re: Flexible Gas Bags
>
> >Dear Don Patrick et al:
> >
> >I am also working along the same lines. I hope to store a few m3 of
> producer
> >gas (and a few kW power in batteries) to run our Mountain Biomass Home in
> the
> >near future.
> >
> >I have purchased a 10 ft by 100 ft roll of rubberized roofing (a name like
> >PDME, can't remember now). It was recommended by Dale Costich and others.
> >Check your local roofing supplies.
> >
> >It isn't cheap - about $180 with the adhesive and tape used to make it
> water
> >and gas tight. Haven't started construction yet. Will try a small bag
> >first.
> >
> >Any comments, Dale or others???
> >
> >Yours truly, TOM REED BEF
> >
> >In a message dated 8/14/99 9:50:47 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> >donaldp@marick.co.uk writes:
> >
> ><< Dear Tom,
> > could you please help out??
> >
> > I am looking for a supplier / suppliers of flexible gas bags, ie. rubber
> etc.
> > The requirement is to store producer gas.
> > Obviously the gas bag will require rigidising with a metal cage for
> > protection and the bag will also have flanges for connections.
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> > Looking forward to hearing from you and thanking
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> > Donald Patrick >>
> >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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Aug 21 18:52:21 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Reverse Boudouard
Message-ID: <222c5547.24f08840@cs.com>

Dear Arnt, Vern et al:

In the discussion on grates, Arnt says "
..you gas is going down??? Tar content? If your gas flows the same way
as your fuel, I'd guess you had by far too much char in your reduction
zone and that reduction is reversed, producing CO2, carbon and possibly
steam, rather CO and H2. Such reversal will happen 700 - 400 C unless
you yank the gas out of the char bed quickly, ie; within half a second.

Thermodynamically He is correct. The reaction

2CO ==> CO2 + C

is in equilibrium (DG = 0) at about 925 K. 652 C. However, the kinetics for
this reaction is quite slow and generally only significant when in contact
with steel or nickel. In steel mills it results in the formation of "Kisch"
carbon (graphite). (In the 1950s we used this reaction to grow diamonds.)

So, does anyone have information that it actually occurs in < 1 sec in a
gasifier char bed?

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF
In a message dated 8/19/99 5:08:17 PM Mountain Daylight Time, arnt@c2i.net
writes:

<<
..you gas is going down??? Tar content? If your gas flows the same way
as your fuel, I'd guess you had by far too much char in your reduction
zone and that reduction is reversed, producing CO2, carbon and possibly
steam, rather CO and H2. Such reversal will happen 700 - 400 C unless
you yank the gas out of the char bed quickly, ie; within half a second.
>>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From tchouate at term.ucl.ac.be Mon Aug 23 02:35:27 1999
From: tchouate at term.ucl.ac.be (Tchouate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Basic Premises
Message-ID: <001801beed32$5ea0d960$37ee6882@hibiscus.term.ucl.ac.be>

Dear M. Singfield,
could you please tell me more about this steam reforming technology for
organic plants such as sugar cane and corn, ore advise me to read somme
book?
Thank you
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TCHOUATE HETEU Pépin M.
Research Engineer
Université Catholique de Louvain
Unité TERM - Groupe Energie Biomasse

2, place du Levant
B-1348 Louvain-La-Neuve

Tel: +32 (0)10 472219
Fax: +32 (0)10 452692
tchouate@term.ucl.ac.be
http://www.meca.ucl.ac.be/term/geb/
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
À : gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date : dimanche 15 août 1999 17:20
Objet : GAS-L: Basic Premises

>
>Hi Folks;
>
>I would like to "rock" the boat a little. Correct me as you see fit!
>
>To date -- basic premise of bioenergy is to ferment/biodigest (or otherwise
>process) the organically active ingredients of a crop raised for fuel (Ergo
>-- corn) and gasify the trash.
>
>I wish to "question" this. Taking sugar cane as an example.
>
>Can we not "gasify" to fuel directly sugar cane?
>
>Of course, not by the procedures popular on this list -- such as a down
>draft combustion process -- but rather through steam reforming?
>
>Can't we do just as well through direct action on the entire organic plant!
>
>We do not need combustion with air. It only adds nitrogen. We can combust
>part of the resulting fuel for the heat source required to run the
reaction.
>
>It comes out much more efficient doing it this way.
>
>Direct gasification of carbohydrates using steam reforming technology is
>already well established in the oil refineries.
>
>May we not be missing something here?
>
>What would be the results from steam reforming Corn or Sugar Cain?
>
>For sure the ash could be directly recycled as "fertilizer". A perfect,
>closed, loop!
>
>So please -- tell me why this cannot be done?
>
>And if it can -- why are we not at least trying to do it?
>
>As always -- I have an excellent design for a steam reformer.
>
>
>Peter Singfield
>Xaibe Village
>Corozal District
>Belize, Central America
>Tel 501-4-35213
>E-mail: snkm@btl.net
>Url: http://www.wireworm.com/snkm/index.htm
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

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

 

From snkm at btl.net Tue Aug 24 12:12:50 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Basic Premises
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990824101816.0073a93c@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi TCHOUATE

At 08:40 AM 8/23/99 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear M. Singfield,
>could you please tell me more about this steam reforming technology for
>organic plants such as sugar cane and corn, ore advise me to read somme
>book?
>Thank you

Sure!

I am using terminology very loosely here. Steam reforming crude organic
material can also be called water gas production -- or synthesis gas
production.

For my refs on this subject -- I am using an old article titled "Gas
Industry" in a 1962 edition Encyclopedia Britannica. Book ten -- page 41.

Steam reforming is the final part of a hydrocarbon to gas conversion
process. As I apply this to "wet" bio-materials -- it becomes a reaction
chamber process.

The first part is pyrolization of the material. This will produce some rich
gases as well as steam. After the pyrolization process is done -- the
process continues with steam reformation of the carbon residue to synthesis
gas.

The balance of material that is left will be mainly metals and minerals.

This is by nature -- a batch job operation.

The entire process is very endothermic -- but the end efficiency of BTU's
eventually extracted as a refined gas far exceeds any gasification process.

This is a very simple process and yields a cleaner product of much higher
BTU value than current combustion gasifiers can hope to achieve.

Though this "process" is very old in Gas Production Industry (low grade
coals) and long used in the "cracking" process in oil refineries -- it
suffers a few problems for biomass conversion projects.

I believe I have engineered the solutions to these problems.

What is needed at this time is some help in building a small series of
prototypes to test and prove my theories.

If you are serious in this regard -- co-venturing a prototype development
program -- I can supply you with full details.

This is basically -- an extremely economical solution. Further, it is a
natural for small scale production facilities.

The Reference work I recommended above will give you a very good idea of
prior state of this art.

At present -- there exists a Sugar Factory here in Belize -- that is soon
to be scrapped -- that would make the ideal prototype development situation.

This plant to be sold for scrap metal value!

But for the short term -- small prototypes built in a small machine shop
would enable accurate analyses regarding the feasibility.

We are talking operating temperatures of 1800 Deg. F in a steam
environment. I have no problem with easily running at pressure to 1000 PSI
-- and can even go as high as 10,000 PSI -- but at greater expense.

Pressure being one of the methods of governing speed of reaction.

This style of "batch" processing resembles closely the operation of a large
auto-loading cannon. I have some background there from my work many years
back with Gerald Bull (of super gun fame).

Also, I hold patents in high pressure/temp steam reaction vessels.

The plan is to rapidly charge reaction chambers with large pellets of
compressed biomass. This can be anything from old car tires to green sugar
cane.

We designed -- many years ago -- a 240 MM cannon that fired six round per
minute using 2000 PSI air pressure to actuate all loading functions.

Economical technology -- easily applied to the present circumstances. The
secret is in valving -- both the high pressure air for loading, locking,
and ejection -- and the high pressure/temperature steam reactions. I have
that technology well in hand.

The chemical processes of pyrolization and steam reformation are a "given".

The secret of controlling the highly endothermic needs of the steam
reforming reaction is in the use of a specially designed liquid metal
boiler. This makes sure that heat transfer is equal through out the entire
batch process -- keeping temperatures equal at all points at all times --
no matter how large the "load" may be. And further, the specific heat as
well as the latent heat of fusion factor (of a tuned for that temperature
range alloy) make up an efficient "heat-capacitor" that allows
stabilization to be achieved during the extremely varying heat demands of a
pressurized steam reformation.

This can be as rapid an endothermic reaction as burning gun powder can be a
rapid exothermic reaction.

I can easily understand that this entire concept is far beyond the normal
topics of this list. However -- I can clearly demonstrate it can be done
and feel strongly that it should be investigated as a viable alternative to
present state of the art gasification processes.

And that my friends is where it stands now. Who wants to build the next
super gun?

Talk about beating plows out of guns!

Basic prototype work revolves around simply building a liquid metal, steam
reaction, chamber. This to be loaded and tested for efficiency and products
resolved over a wide range of materials. Sort of writing the book on what
steam pyrolysis and steam reforming can do when combined as a single batch
process.

I know -- sound very complicated. It is not!! Much simpler than the
gasification process discussed on this list to date. Just looks scary --
but then -- a simple cannon is very scary as well -- but is hardly a
problem to build and operate.

Peter Singfield
Belize; Central America

>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>TCHOUATE HETEU Pépin M.
>Research Engineer
>Université Catholique de Louvain
>Unité TERM - Groupe Energie Biomasse
>
>2, place du Levant
>B-1348 Louvain-La-Neuve
>
>Tel: +32 (0)10 472219
>Fax: +32 (0)10 452692
>tchouate@term.ucl.ac.be
>http://www.meca.ucl.ac.be/term/geb/
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
>À : gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
>Date : dimanche 15 août 1999 17:20
>Objet : GAS-L: Basic Premises
>
>
>>
>>Hi Folks;
>>
>>I would like to "rock" the boat a little. Correct me as you see fit!
>>
>>To date -- basic premise of bioenergy is to ferment/biodigest (or otherwise
>>process) the organically active ingredients of a crop raised for fuel (Ergo
>>-- corn) and gasify the trash.
>>
>>I wish to "question" this. Taking sugar cane as an example.
>>
>>Can we not "gasify" to fuel directly sugar cane?
>>
>>Of course, not by the procedures popular on this list -- such as a down
>>draft combustion process -- but rather through steam reforming?
>>
>>Can't we do just as well through direct action on the entire organic plant!
>>
>>We do not need combustion with air. It only adds nitrogen. We can combust
>>part of the resulting fuel for the heat source required to run the
>reaction.
>>
>>It comes out much more efficient doing it this way.
>>
>>Direct gasification of carbohydrates using steam reforming technology is
>>already well established in the oil refineries.
>>
>>May we not be missing something here?
>>
>>What would be the results from steam reforming Corn or Sugar Cain?
>>
>>For sure the ash could be directly recycled as "fertilizer". A perfect,
>>closed, loop!
>>
>>So please -- tell me why this cannot be done?
>>
>>And if it can -- why are we not at least trying to do it?
>>
>>As always -- I have an excellent design for a steam reformer.
>>
>>
>>Peter Singfield
>>Xaibe Village
>>Corozal District
>>Belize, Central America
>>Tel 501-4-35213
>>E-mail: snkm@btl.net
>>Url: http://www.wireworm.com/snkm/index.htm
>>
>>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From tomb at snowcrest.net Tue Aug 24 19:51:17 1999
From: tomb at snowcrest.net (Tom Blackburn)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Reverse Boudouard
In-Reply-To: <222c5547.24f08840@cs.com>
Message-ID: <000701beee8c$0328f300$0a0566d8@tomblack>

Greetings all,

I guess I am ready for another round of head shaking.
Since my last statement about the steel shot contributing some sort
of catalytic effect, I have logged another 8 hrs. running time on my
gasifier. I can say for certain, the shot changes the dynamics of my
machine. I have no need for a gas cooler now, so I removed it from the
circuit! The gas outlet temperature 6" above the shot has never gone
above 100 C. and the delivered gas temp. to the engine is running
between 30 C. and 35 C. The only cooling takes place in my ash box, 5 '
of misc. piping, and a filter box. The PVC piping to the engine is not
quite warm to the touch. My gas quality remains high, although I feel
the gasifier is more sensitive to moisture in the fuel now.
At present, I am developing a cyclonic type of drier to utilize the
exhaust of the engine. The fir sawdust I am using is very damp when it
is delivered to me. This product when sun dried for a couple of days
works well. So far, 2 minutes of retention time in the cyclone
accomplishes the same effect.
I cannot answer all of the technical scientific questions I may
provoke. My background comes from the mining industry, including
precious metals recovery and equipment fabrication. I can only
contribute my findings and be entertained by the reactions of those on
the "list".

Until next time,
Tom C. Blackburn

----- Original Message -----
From: <Reedtb2@cs.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 1999 3:54 PM
Subject: GAS-L: Reverse Boudouard

> Dear Arnt, Vern et al:
>
> In the discussion on grates, Arnt says "
> ..you gas is going down??? Tar content? If your gas flows the same
way
> as your fuel, I'd guess you had by far too much char in your reduction
> zone and that reduction is reversed, producing CO2, carbon and
possibly
> steam, rather CO and H2. Such reversal will happen 700 - 400 C unless
> you yank the gas out of the char bed quickly, ie; within half a
second.
>
> Thermodynamically He is correct. The reaction
>
> 2CO ==> CO2 + C
>
> is in equilibrium (DG = 0) at about 925 K. 652 C. However, the
kinetics for
> this reaction is quite slow and generally only significant when in
contact
> with steel or nickel. In steel mills it results in the formation of
"Kisch"
> carbon (graphite). (In the 1950s we used this reaction to grow
diamonds.)
>
> So, does anyone have information that it actually occurs in < 1 sec in
a
> gasifier char bed?
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED
BEF
> In a message dated 8/19/99 5:08:17 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
arnt@c2i.net
> writes:
>
> <<
> ..you gas is going down??? Tar content? If your gas flows the same
way
> as your fuel, I'd guess you had by far too much char in your
reduction
> zone and that reduction is reversed, producing CO2, carbon and
possibly
> steam, rather CO and H2. Such reversal will happen 700 - 400 C
unless
> you yank the gas out of the char bed quickly, ie; within half a
second.
> >>
> 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 Tue Aug 24 22:44:09 1999
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Mukunda video/papers
Message-ID: <37BEEAFA.DBE31445@willmar.com>

Hello List,

Does anyone know of where Prof. Mukundas videos or papers might be
loaned or purchased in the USA? His webpage advertises them. He has
some nice diagrams of his open top gasifier and I would like to see the
materials without the wait for international shipping.

"The Biomass Solution" video
"Tutorial on Gasifier" video

"Recent Advances in Biomass Gasification and Combustion"
a collection of papers edited by P.J.Pauland H.S.Mukunda.

A link to his web site:
http://aero.iisc.ernet.in/~mukunda/stand-alone.html
(Poke around for the CGP main page)

Thanks,

Alan

 

 

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

 

From claush at et.dtu.dk Thu Aug 26 00:34:46 1999
From: claush at et.dtu.dk (Claus Hindsgaul)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: Sv: GAS-L: Reverse Boudouard
Message-ID: <199908260434.AAA21825@solstice.crest.org>

id EAA14748
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification

Hello Tom,

Reasoning similar to yours was why we did not expect any soot at all in our
two-stage down-draft gasifier. After having found large amounts of soot in
the gas (about 90% of the particle contents), I consulted some
diesel-engine researchers. They told me, that the formation of soot was not
very well understood, and could not at present be theoretically forecasted
to any reasonable extend for new processes.

The explanation for this is, that the main Boudouard reaction (below)
actually represents several very complex paths of intermediate reactions.
These reactions include convertion to e.g. small aromatics with a far
faster reaction-rate. The result is, that soot forms fast even at places
were the (simple!) overall Boudouard reaction is excessevly slow.

Read e.g:
Chales A. Amann and Donald C. Siegla: "Diesel particulates -- what they
are and why". Aerosol Science and Technology, 1:73-101 1994.

Claus Hindsgaul Hansen
Halmfortet - DTU, Område 120 - DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
Phone: (+45) 4525 4174 - FAX: (+45) 4593 5761
claush@et.dtu.dk
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Reedtb2@cs.com <Reedtb2@cs.com>
Til: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Dato: 23. august 1999 07:02
Emne: GAS-L: Reverse Boudouard

...
>
>Thermodynamically He is correct. The reaction
>
> 2CO ==> CO2 + C
>
>is in equilibrium (DG = 0) at about 925 K. 652 C. However, the kinetics for
>this reaction is quite slow and generally only significant when in contact
>with steel or nickel. In steel mills it results in the formation of "Kisch"
>carbon (graphite). (In the 1950s we used this reaction to grow diamonds.)
>
>So, does anyone have information that it actually occurs in < 1 sec in a
>gasifier char bed?

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

 

From anildo at navier.ist.utl.pt Thu Aug 26 11:25:05 1999
From: anildo at navier.ist.utl.pt (Anildo Costa)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Energy models
Message-ID: <199908261525.LAA18368@solstice.crest.org>

Dear Sir:

I am a student at technical University of Lisbon (Portugal), IST,
Department of Mechanical Engineering. My area is Renewable Energy and we

are developing a methology to integrate renewable energy in islands,
namely in the Arquiphelago of Cape Verde.

I would appreciate if you could send me any information, including
prices (for two licences: one for a University and another for a State
Institution), methodology and application cases, inputs and outputs, and

other required general data, software and hardware requirements about
any commercial models for techno-economic assessment that can be
interesting for our purpose.

Yours sincerely,

Susana Pires
Rua Virgilio Correia, nº 13, 7º Dto
1600-219 Lisbon
Portugal

rdd48170@mail.telepac.pt

 

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

 

From claush at et.dtu.dk Thu Aug 26 15:18:46 1999
From: claush at et.dtu.dk (Claus Hindsgaul)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: Sv: GAS-L: Reverse Boudouard
Message-ID: <199908261918.PAA09687@solstice.crest.org>

id EAA14748
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification

Hello Tom,

Reasoning similar to yours was why we did not expect any soot at all in our
two-stage down-draft gasifier. After having found large amounts of soot in
the gas (about 90% of the particle contents), I consulted some
diesel-engine researchers. They told me, that the formation of soot was not
very well understood, and could not at present be theoretically forecasted
to any reasonable extend for new processes.

The explanation for this is, that the main Boudouard reaction (below)
actually represents several very complex paths of intermediate reactions.
These reactions include convertion to e.g. small aromatics with a far
faster reaction-rate. The result is, that soot forms fast even at places
were the (simple!) overall Boudouard reaction is excessevly slow.

Read e.g:
Chales A. Amann and Donald C. Siegla: "Diesel particulates -- what they
are and why". Aerosol Science and Technology, 1:73-101 1994.

Claus Hindsgaul Hansen
Halmfortet - DTU, Område 120 - DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
Phone: (+45) 4525 4174 - FAX: (+45) 4593 5761
claush@et.dtu.dk
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Reedtb2@cs.com <Reedtb2@cs.com>
Til: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Dato: 23. august 1999 07:02
Emne: GAS-L: Reverse Boudouard

...
>
>Thermodynamically He is correct. The reaction
>
> 2CO ==> CO2 + C
>
>is in equilibrium (DG = 0) at about 925 K. 652 C. However, the kinetics for
>this reaction is quite slow and generally only significant when in contact
>with steel or nickel. In steel mills it results in the formation of "Kisch"
>carbon (graphite). (In the 1950s we used this reaction to grow diamonds.)
>
>So, does anyone have information that it actually occurs in < 1 sec in a
>gasifier char bed?

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

 

From thomas_milne at nrel.gov Thu Aug 26 15:18:55 1999
From: thomas_milne at nrel.gov (Milne, Thomas)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: physical data for big bluestem
Message-ID: <199908261918.PAA09722@solstice.crest.org>

Dear Richard:

At the second Biomass Conference of the Americas, David Johnson et al from
NREL presented a paper on compositional variability in herbaceous energy
crops, which included data on big bluestem. Contact him for possible
sources of other information on this tall grass.

Tom Milne.

-----Original Message-----
From: RICHARD NELSON [SMTP:rnelson@oz.oznet.ksu.edu]
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 1999 9:11 PM
To: gasification@crest.org
Cc: jeking@idir.net
Subject: GAS-L: physical data for big bluestem

Does anyone have a good reference for physical and chemical data for

the herbaceous energy crop, big bluestem? We are currently
investigating the possibility of co-firing herbaceous energy crops
such as switchgrass and big bluestem for large-scale electrical
generation in Kansas and were concerned about silica, ash, etc.
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 thomas_milne at nrel.gov Thu Aug 26 15:40:43 1999
From: thomas_milne at nrel.gov (Milne, Thomas)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: physical data for big bluestem
Message-ID: <199908261940.PAA13288@solstice.crest.org>

At the Fourth Biomass Conference of the Americas, David Johnson et al
presented a paper that included compositional data on big bluestem. He may
have sources for other property data on this tall grass.

Tom Milne.

-----Original Message-----
From: RICHARD NELSON [SMTP:rnelson@oz.oznet.ksu.edu]
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 1999 9:11 PM
To: gasification@crest.org
Cc: jeking@idir.net
Subject: GAS-L: physical data for big bluestem

Does anyone have a good reference for physical and chemical data for

the herbaceous energy crop, big bluestem? We are currently
investigating the possibility of co-firing herbaceous energy crops
such as switchgrass and big bluestem for large-scale electrical
generation in Kansas and were concerned about silica, ash, etc.
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 R.E.Sims at massey.ac.nz Thu Aug 26 23:27:26 1999
From: R.E.Sims at massey.ac.nz (Sims, Ralph)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: Recall: GAS-L: Energy models
Message-ID: <E325DED913AED111B6480000F878317D0245E4BE@its-xchg1.massey.ac.nz>

Sims, Ralph would like to recall the message, "GAS-L: Energy models".
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From draudio at nmu.edu Fri Aug 27 12:08:33 1999
From: draudio at nmu.edu (dave)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: use of ether for starting
Message-ID: <199908271608.MAA07775@solstice.crest.org>

I've heard that the use ot starting fluid is harmful to diesel
engines.Is this true?Second question is what are some reasons for
difficult starting when only the use of starting fluid will start the
engine?

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

 

From snkm at btl.net Fri Aug 27 12:26:42 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: use of ether for starting
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990827103055.0074e9c8@wgs1.btl.net>

 

One reason follows the other! A diesel is hard starting when the
compression is low. This normally due to worn out piston rings. These
motors will still start using either.

However -- as the machine gets more worn -- it takes more either -- and a
point is reached that the either slips past the compression rings and
builds up in the crank case. At that point the motor can explode once started.

I have personally witnessed this event!

The solution is rebuilding the engine to get compression levels up again.

Peter Singfield
Belize, Central America

At 12:08 PM 8/27/99 -0400, you wrote:
>I've heard that the use ot starting fluid is harmful to diesel
>engines.Is this true?Second question is what are some reasons for
>difficult starting when only the use of starting fluid will start the
>engine?
>
>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 Aug 27 20:00:10 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: use of ether for starting
Message-ID: <4c2afbe0.24f8812f@aol.com>

Regarding using ether for starting engines:
High compression diesel engines will predetonate on ether which causes
gases and other materials to blow past the rings. It will also remove the
oil from the cylinder walls and cause the engine to lock up from lack of
lubrication and will damage the rings, score the cylinder walls.
Predetonation is the knocking sound which you hear with the spraying of ether
into the engine.
Once an engine has been exposed to ether use, it becomes an "ether
addict" and will require ether, sometimes larger amounts to get started.
Requiring ether is a sign of a worn out engine, with little compression,
poor injectors, fouled or out of adjustment valves, cracked heads, bad
gaskets or a variety of other problems.
Other materials can be used instead of ether such as a gasoline soaked
rag over the air cleaner, WD-40, I have even used oxygen where it was so cold
that ether had very little pressure or the engine was so badly worn out that
it would not start otherwise. Of course oxygen is dangerous as it can
accumulate in the crankcase and detonate off of fumes or oil droplets. I
guess I have been lucky.
If an engine requires any option such as heating it up, using some other
low vapor pressure hydrocarbon other than ether, use it. Ether will
accelerate the deterioration of an engine unnecessarily.
I have had lots of heavy equipment at my mining operation over the years
and much too much engine wear from ether and other bad practices.

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

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sat Aug 28 00:20:05 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Grate stuff (excuse the pun)
Message-ID: <772732d6.24f8be16@aol.com>

Dear Doug,

It's nice to have you back, and - judging by the pun - it appears you're back
in good spirits. I hope CO doesn't finally get you in the end. Isn't this
your second serious bout with that devil gas? You do know it's meant to be
combusted - not inhaled? Better get a good CO monitor and be diligent in
it's use! CO poisioning is something one might expect of a rank amateur, not
a seasoned professional such as yourself. I'm sure you are too valuable to
your family and friends to be lost. And certainly your knowledge and
experience in the biomass gasification field would be a tremendous loss to
the gasification community - even if it were at the expence of stopping your
experimentation just before a "eureka moment." You can live to make that
discovery another day - and live to tell the rest of us about it! Take care!

If I understand your post about grates correctly, your position is that a
gasifier MUST have a grate - at a minimum - so that fines can be removed
from amongst the char to prevent plugging and the resulting channelling? I
would further surmise that your position is that as the gasifier becomes less
efficient at sweeping away fines, the higher the tar production becomes and
the lower the btu's of the gas.

The grate appears to be a tremendously problematic feature for any gasifier,
and in my particular application (MSW) I don't believe I can retain the grate
and solve these problems. I'm considering a workaround design - similar to
Arnt's design - where the ash removal auger and accumulated bottom ash bed
blocks the free flow of fuel through the system. I'm relying on the
superficial velocity of the gas to (mostly) sweep away the fines and
vibratory action to (mostly) reduce channeling and bridging. Not having
experience in gasifier operation, I can only imagine the results.

I envision (1) an uncombusted fuel column with no ash gradually progressing
to (2) a zone of semi-combusted fuel mixed with moderate amounts of bottom
ash and small amounts of fly ash, then (3) a zone of mostly bottom ash -
concentrated around the auger - with some uncombusted fuel mixed with small
amounts of fly ash. The non-combustibles should pass through and be augered
out. I suspect some combustibles will pass through uncombusted, but that is
an acceptable outcome. An outcome that would not be acceptable would be if
this design - or indeed any grateless design - is inherently flawed and
cannot produce a reasonably low tar, high btu gas - one that can be scrubbed
sufficiently to power an internal combustion engine.

So the pertinent questions, it seems to me, are (1) whether or not fines can
be swept away through a bottom ash bed (rather than the clean opening a grate
provides), and (2) whether channeling can be sufficiently reduced by
vibration.

As always - any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Vernon Harris
VHarris001@aol.com

In a message dated 8/16/99 4:06:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
graeme@powerlink.co.nz writes:

> Hi Vern and Gasification colleagues.
>
> Re: Grates, precipitators and membranes.
>
> Many thanks to you all for showing concern over my recent health "glitch"
> which is now cleared up. I'm sure its a sign of CO withdrawal and have
> decided that if I cannot smell it then at least I can write about it!
>
> As usual I have to cover several subjects in the same post, so just delete
> that which is of no interest.
>
> Grates: Shaker barred grates are used to shake the fines out of the bottom
> char to prevent plugging and the resulting channelling. A blank plate with
> a pyramid of support char correctly positioned could be made to
continuously
> self clear by spilling over the edges.
>
> Introducing air a couple of inches above the grate will burn out the grate
> bars if the gas passed through the grate. This will consume the CH4
> reducing tar and of course the char by combusting it, making a high
> temperature exit gas with elevated levels of CO2. If however the gas
posses
> sideways through the char mass, you will get reduction and consumption of
> char plus a reduction of the CH4 achieving a reasonable gas quality.
>
> Precipitators: All these electrical devices are vunerable to carbon dust
> shorting them out, or moisture contamination which also shorts them out.
> You can have a good fiddle with them but reliability of function gets you
in
> the end.
>
> Membrane Separation: If you could start with perfectly clean dry gases
then
> this is the way to go. Unfortunately producer was as we make it isn't so
> pure in form, and the membranes foul. There is also the flow rate through
> these things which if used for producer gas on an engine say, require a
size
> of system that is killed by economics. We investigated their use but it
was
> ridiculously expensive.
>
> Regards
> Doug.
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sat Aug 28 00:40:53 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next) question
Message-ID: <54fe25d7.24f8c2f9@aol.com>

Dear Tom Blackburn,

A fellow named Skip Goebel - who frequently posts to this group when he's not
building boilers - also describes what he thinks is a catalytic (clean
burning) phenomenon in the operation of his newly designed fireboxes - using
cerablanket and expanded metal. I'm not sure he was ever able to figure out
what was happening that resulted in such a clean burn. If you are
interested, I'm sure you can pick up the thread by doing a search at the
crest website. Glad to hear you are having such good success with your
system. There has been a great deal of interest expressed on this list in
gasification of sawdust, but I believe that eventually most solutions to the
problems have been in pelletizing the fuel rather than modifying the gasifier
design. Do you have a web page where we can view your design?

Regards,
Vernon Harris
VHarris001@aol.com

In a message dated 8/17/99 1:12:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
tomb@snowcrest.net writes:

> Dear Vern, and others,
> I attribute the decrease in gas quality to two factors.
> 1. Loss of residence time in the reduction bed.
> 2. Inadequate surface exposure to the glowing carbon.
> I do believe if my fuel were precompacted this problem would be
> mitigated. Please remember my fuel is softwood sawdust.
> I seemed logical to me to compact and feed the fuel in one step. The
> problem I have had to overcome was keeping the grate clean. If you are
> using the traditional chunk size fuel then the grate is correspondingly
> larger. But with small particle size fuel the grate openings are very
> small. (.062" to .095"). Just try to keep these clear! I have had a
> dozen devices tried, all failed in time. Until now! My last attempt
> works perfectly. I have used a .187" mesh stainless steel screen 12" in
> dia. encircled by a 3" high rim. This is half filled with .250" steel
> shot. I have a 1 rpm gearmotor above that is connected by a shaft to a
> rake that stirs the shot bed. This device lets the gas through and
> cleans the screen too. I have several hours on this device so far, and
> no plug ups. An interesting aspect of this is my grate outlet
> temperature has dropped from 700 C. to 100 C. and my gas is extremely
> explosive. I thought my pyrometer was malfunctioning, but it's not.
> Anybody know if there is a catalytic action going on here? Also my
> carryover to the ashbox has decreased considerably.
>
> Regards,
> Tom Blackburn
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sat Aug 28 01:22:03 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next) question(long)
Message-ID: <f19d6b62.24f8cc99@aol.com>

Dear Arnt,

The ash dome in your gasifier would not provide a clean break from the fuel
to the fines. Do the fines get swept away from the fuel sufficiently to
allow intimate contact between incoming air and the bottom-most layer of fuel
that is pressing up against the ash dome? My concern in the grateless design
(such as yours) is that the literature is repleat with descriptions of the
ash being swept away clean from the fuel, exposing successive layers of the
fuel particle to the incoming air. However, if fuel is intermingled with
ash, how can the air ever contact that particular particle of fuel
sufficiently. Additionally, the particular particle of fuel might become
buried in the ash, continuing to pryolize until it eventually passes out of
the system uncombusted. This leaves fuel further upstream to begin the
gasification process (thus still generating good quality gas from the
correctly positioned fuel), but passes through the particles of uncombusted
fuel that become "lost" in the ash bed (and continue to "smoulder", giving
off loads of tar until removed from the heat. In that sense, the ash dome
and auger do not provide the "grate action" that is needed, as would an
actual grate. What is your experience with these issues?

Also, would you say the ash dome protects the auger from overheating or does
the auger get the same heat as would a typical grate in a similar downdraft
design?

Regards,
Vernon Harris
VHarris001@aol.com

In a message dated 8/19/99 7:08:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, arnt@c2i.net
writes:

> Dear Vernon, Tom, Tom, Dale et al,
>
> ..grate action is needed, not the grate itself ;-)
>
> ..see my comments below...
>
> VHarris001@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Dear Tom Reed, Arnt, others,
> [...]
> > Also, would you discuss the functioning of the grate in a stratified
> > downdraft gasifier. For instance, Arnt has sent the gasification group a
> > diagram of his grateless gasifier, and I have also been working on an
idea
> > for a similar design.
>
> ..you will find the ash dome in my figure, the gas outlet cage/ash
> cage/perforated cylinder around the ash dome, and the ash auger, jointly
> does, and adds to the traditional grate services. For the spectacular
> occasions, sneeze.
> (The purge gas is used to cool the auger and combat air leaks into the
> gasifier.)
>
> ..to minimize heat loads on the auger and the bottom service valve, we
> poured in ~10mm expanded ceramic ball pellets, up to the auger, and then
> the ash dome, before loading charcoal and the fuel. On pouring pellets
> into the fuel hopper, we found it would start fusing around the same
> temperature as the ash and the sewer pellets, when we used the smaller
> tuyeres, my hunch is these ceramic ball pellets might be useable
> verifying oxidation zone temperatures.
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Sat Aug 28 11:05:36 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next) question
Message-ID: <8b3e4462.24f95556@aol.com>

Tom Blackburn,
You may wish to look into the patent records and see about your design.
I purchased a 200 KW engine-generator set in a trailer and when it was
received, there was a gasifier in the other end of the trailer similar in
design to what you have described. We looked through the filing cabinets
full of literature and found patent office rejections of this design due to
prior art.
From the metallic nature of what you have described, and the overall
description, there may be a residence time of the gas which is
endothermically breaking down the residual tars, oils and other components,
dropping the temperture of the output gas. There may be some concern as to
the lifetime of the metals which you are using in the environment and wear.
Otherwise, congratulations on the design.
Tom Taylor
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From gayathri at cgpl.iisc.ernet.in Sat Aug 28 12:38:15 1999
From: gayathri at cgpl.iisc.ernet.in (Gayathri)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Mukunda video/papers
Message-ID: <199908281638.MAA02342@solstice.crest.org>

mukunda's web address..................

Combustion Gasification Propulsion Lab.
Dept. of Aerospace Engineering
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560 012
Phone (Office) 91-80-3348536, 3092338
(Home) 91-80-6632717
(Mobile) 91-98450 41913
Fax 91-80-3444692

Email mukunda@cgpl.iisc.ernet.in
mukunda@aero.iisc.ernetin

Website http://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in/~mukunda/home.html

 

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 Sat Aug 28 13:02:42 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Irrigation Pumping
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19990828100313.033f8290@mail.teleport.com>

Electricity costs for irrigation have increased substantially in
California, according to the California Farm Bureau Federation.

Running a typical 60-horsepower, electric, deep-well turbine costs about
$9.40 per hour. Operating expenses for an equivalent natural gas engine are
$4.24 per hour. And $6.00 per hour for diesel. Farmers are considering
entering into a contract with an engine manufacturer that allows for the
purchase of horsepower hours rather than equipment. Maintenance and service
work on the machinery is done by the engine maker.

Is there a place for gasification, digestion, or ethanol to power
irrigation pumps? What are the costs and performance of recent systems?

Regards,

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 MIHWP at TTACS.TTU.EDU Sat Aug 28 15:47:46 1999
From: MIHWP at TTACS.TTU.EDU (Harry W. Parker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: BioC: Irrigation Pumping
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990828100313.033f8290@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <37C82B00.77BB5A96@ttacs.ttu.edu>

Hello all,

A minor comment. Propane is an excellent fuel for pumping irrigation
water in some areas. We did that in the 40's. In my area building
local natural gas distribution lines to each well, not having leaks
that the farmer has to pay for etc. made natural gas a less good option.
We tried it. . We now pump our small wells with electricity.

Small wells are all we have. The water table is declining. Nationally
we have more farmland than is needed for food and fiber production in
the US. The flood risk areas should be returned to river banks, and
semiarid lands returned to grass, but that option is not a popular
solution to such national problems.

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 MIHWP at TTACS.TTU.EDU Sat Aug 28 15:48:00 1999
From: MIHWP at TTACS.TTU.EDU (Harry W. Parker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: BioC: Irrigation Pumping
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990828100313.033f8290@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <37C82804.1D6F016D@ttacs.ttu.edu>

Hello Tom and all,

I thought through gasification for irrigation pumping some years ago.
On an energy balance basis it looks very good. Locally, the already
collected cotton gin trash could provide all of the fuel needed for
pumping water for the next year's cotton crop. Yea!

My attempt at designing and operating a gasifier using the fibrous
cotton gin trash was such a disaster that I turned a bunch of money back
to the State of Texas. IF an economical gasifier could be designed
that would operate unattended on fibrous cotton gin trash for 24-48
hours and not require maintenance on the IC engine pumping the water for
a year or more there could be a wonderful future for gasifier fueled
irrigation water pumping. The" IF " in upper case above is one of
larger if's I have ever put in a sentence!

(On another subject, when I get my 1994 analysis of Hawkin's book up so
you all can read it, I will have some major comments about the serious
flaws in Hawkin's concepts.)

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 tmiles at teleport.com Sat Aug 28 16:31:35 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: BioC: Irrigation Pumping
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990828100313.033f8290@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19990828131916.034006d0@mail.teleport.com>

Harry,

Some previous gasification work on:

Cotton Gin Trash
1996-1999 Joe Craig, Cratech, Tahoka, TX, gasifier and turbine
application
1984-1989 John Goss, UC Davis. Gin trash was one of many fuels in
John's 1.5 MMBtuh (Surlite) fluidized bed gasifier
1984 Fred Moreno, Surlite, San Diego, CA, 10 MMBtuh fluidized
bed gasifier at Tonapah, AZ. Gasified cotton gin trash with a feeder that
we designed. Application was thermal oil for drying. Gasifier was later
moved to CA and used on petroleum coke.

Irrigation Pumping
1988-95ff Mukunda India 20 kWe-100kWe demonstrations
http://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in/~mukunda/home.html (wood)
1984-1989 John Goss, B M Jenkins, UC Davis, rice hulls
1977ff Brian Horsfield, UC Davis, wood and agricultural residues

What other irrigations applications exist in demonstration or commercial use?

Regards,

Tom

 

At 01:18 PM 8/28/99 -0500, Harry W. Parker wrote:
>Hello Tom and all,
>
>I thought through gasification for irrigation pumping some years ago.
>On an energy balance basis it looks very good. Locally, the already
>collected cotton gin trash could provide all of the fuel needed for
>pumping water for the next year's cotton crop. Yea!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 LINVENT at aol.com Sat Aug 28 20:00:23 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: BioC: Irrigation Pumping
Message-ID: <cc42231d.24f9d2b4@aol.com>

Dear Tom Miles and others,
Water costs in California are from $40-140/acre foot. On the East side
of Kern County, they can be $40, on the West side, $140. 3-5 acre ft/crop.
Converting to biomass fueled irrigation pumping has several concerns:
1. Crop handling-just baling may cost as much as $14/ton, then
transportation, storage etc. all add up. My recommendation is to bale the
straw or residue with the crop. Most of the crop residue is ground up and
blown out the back of harvesters where it could be baled for transportation.
2. Capital cost-Most growers these days do not have the resources to put in
the capital equipment because of the depressed commodity prices.
3. Emissions-Ever try to get an engine permitted in the SCAQMD? It may be
impossible.
4. Distribution-Either using existing natural gas lines with NG engines and
changing the valving, pressure regulators, orifices etc., running your own
electrical lines from a central power facility or whatever, also represents a
significant cost. Very few farms have the wells located in a central area
and require distribution. I doubt if any farm could justify the cost of
gasifier, feeder, storage and controls for each 80 hp well.
Even with this, the value of wheat straw in comparison to replacement for
Diesel at $1./gallon is worth more than the grain from the same crop. Other
crops such as milo, corn have much higher biomass residue weights.
The USDA/Forest Service used to put out a circular calculator which would
tell you the value of each biomass based upon heating value and the
replacement for electrical power, diesel, propane, natural gas, and others.
Unfortunately the ones which I had are nowhere to be found and I believe that
they no longer provide them.
One large grower which I work with has several 300 HP electric wells and a
1.5MWe load on his cold storage at one farm. He does not produce enough
biomass to power this facility, but does have enough waste from packing to do
it for a few days a year. He has not wanted to become a waste processing
facility to power his operation.
One interesting operation was a cotton gin entrained cyclonic combustor
operated by Boswell, the largest farming operation in the United States at
Corcoran California. The system would eat up the heat exchanger weekly with
the abrasive dust from the combustor. It was used to replace propane for
cotton drying.
Did Buck Rogers ever set his gasifier up to run an irrigation well?

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Sat Aug 28 20:10:20 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: BioC: Irrigation Pumping
Message-ID: <eaec9248.24f9d515@aol.com>

Harry,
I am of the opinion that we do not have an ag commodity oversupply, just
too expensive a production system in comparison to the rest of the world.
Most of our grains used to go to Russia and other countries which kept our
prices up.
Other countries' growers do not have to pay minimum wage, 40 hour work
weeks, unemployment compensation, workman's compensation, etc.. Can we
compete? No.
Back when you mentioned, there used to be wheat, cotton, tobacco and
peanut(which still are) allotments. You would have to get permission to
plant these crops. Deregulation does it's thing and prices drop. Name an
industry where deregulation hasn't had this effect.
The real problem is that when the ag industry goes down, the rest of the
country will also. This is historical, and although the small population
feeds most of us, the domino effect will still occur. It seems to be taking
longer this time around. Most of the recessions we have had in the last few
years followed a depressed ag commodity price period.

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Sun Aug 29 01:01:20 1999
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: To grate or not to grate, that is the (next) question(long)
In-Reply-To: <f19d6b62.24f8cc99@aol.com>
Message-ID: <37C8BEB0.B2E1E0E6@c2i.net>

Hi Vern,

..note first that my design does not...

> allow intimate contact between incoming air and the bottom-most layer of fuel
> that is pressing up against the ash dome?

...except when sneezing, normally, the air enters thru the tuyeres and
the tar flare.

VHarris001@aol.com wrote:
> The ash dome in your gasifier would not provide a clean break from the fuel
> to the fines. Do the fines get swept away from the fuel sufficiently to
> allow intimate contact between incoming air and the bottom-most layer of fuel
> that is pressing up against the ash dome?

..it appears so, we had no smoke, and saw very little sludge buildup in
the first gas bath barrel, about a mm per operating hour. We piped the
hot gas straight thru a couple of oil barrels with a foot or two of
water in each, to cool and clean it before flaring it. The second bath
did blacken and smell a little too, so whatever passed thru the first
bath, appeared to be watersoluble. Downstream of that, the fan and the
flare was clean.

..tearing down the gasifier from the top down, removing the fuel as we
work down, there is no ash (except the ash cone) until the ash dome.
Some fuels like raw chicken manure and uncompacted paper will produce
ash higher up, this is cured by pelletizing it or adding ~50% wood chips
to the feed, we pelletized it.

..before adding the tar flare in the fuel hopper, we also tried messy
stuff like suck out the tarry fuel hopper pyrolysis gas thru a 3'rd bath
barrel branched in between the other two barrels, and mixing detergents
and oil into the water, forming a voluminously stable emulsion, that
made it thru to the flare fan and took a couple of years to break
down...;-D

> My concern in the grateless design
> (such as yours) is that the literature is repleat with descriptions of the
> ash being swept away clean from the fuel, exposing successive layers of the
> fuel particle to the incoming air. However, if fuel is intermingled with
> ash, how can the air ever contact that particular particle of fuel

..the closest we've been to this, is with paper waste (no smell, just
messy), 9mm sewer pellets (a bit smelly), and raw chicken manure (did I
tell you guys about our neatly dressed up farmer friend, who came by as
we were preparing another shit load? One thing is he found the odor on
the offensive side. When he came home, his wife promptly threw him out
of the house, made him strip down in the yard, and burn what he wore
once, befored hosing him down, out there in the farm yard....
Above sewer pellets and aroma was made in a old baking oven (we bought
at the Salvation Army 2'nd shop), not in the gasifier ;-D )

..as ash or fused 9mm sewer pellets built up, available fuel was burned
off until the gasifier simply flamed out. We never saw tar below the
combustion zone.
We made 20 mm pellets out of both the chicken manure and the 9 mm sewer,
both burned nice at 20 mm.

> sufficiently. Additionally, the particular particle of fuel might become
> buried in the ash, continuing to pryolize until it eventually passes out of
> the system uncombusted. This leaves fuel further upstream to begin the
> gasification process (thus still generating good quality gas from the
> correctly positioned fuel), but passes through the particles of uncombusted
> fuel that become "lost" in the ash bed (and continue to "smoulder", giving
> off loads of tar until removed from the heat. In that sense, the ash dome
> and auger do not provide the "grate action" that is needed, as would an
> actual grate. What is your experience with these issues?

..no tar :-), about a 1/5 - 1/6 of the stuff augered out is charcoal, (a
1/4 - 1/3 is expanded ceramic pellets if it is recycled back in) and the
balance is ash.
I did ecpext more fines forming sludge in the gas baths, but either most
of my fine ash is waster soluble, or I managed to catch it in the dome.
The charcoal fines and soot is not soluble in water, and the fan is
clean, sooooooo, I guess I made a pretty good gasifier ;-)

> Also, would you say the ash dome protects the auger from overheating or does
> the auger get the same heat as would a typical grate in a similar downdraft
> design?

..judging by the paint color development, it does. Paint burns off
until quarter way down on the auger tee spool. Both the auger and
service valve flanges are too hot to touch by bare hands for more than,
say, 10 seconds. The auger has a nice warm feeling on the middle and is
cold at the drive end.
Okay, the auger _is_ two meters long... ;-)

> Regards,
> Vernon Harris
> VHarris001@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 8/19/99 7:08:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, arnt@c2i.net
> writes:
>
> > Dear Vernon, Tom, Tom, Dale et al,
> >
> > ..grate action is needed, not the grate itself ;-)
> >
> > ..see my comments below...
> >
> > VHarris001@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Tom Reed, Arnt, others,
> > [...]
> > > Also, would you discuss the functioning of the grate in a stratified
> > > downdraft gasifier. For instance, Arnt has sent the gasification group a
> > > diagram of his grateless gasifier, and I have also been working on an
> idea
> > > for a similar design.
> >
> > ..you will find the ash dome in my figure, the gas outlet cage/ash
> > cage/perforated cylinder around the ash dome, and the ash auger, jointly
> > does, and adds to the traditional grate services. For the spectacular
> > occasions, sneeze.
> > (The purge gas is used to cool the auger and combat air leaks into the
> > gasifier.)
> >
> > ..to minimize heat loads on the auger and the bottom service valve, we
> > poured in ~10mm expanded ceramic ball pellets, up to the auger, and then
> > the ash dome, before loading charcoal and the fuel. On pouring pellets
> > into the fuel hopper, we found it would start fusing around the same
> > temperature as the ash and the sewer pellets, when we used the smaller
> > tuyeres, my hunch is these ceramic ball pellets might be useable
> > verifying oxidation zone temperatures.
> >

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

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Sun Aug 29 12:19:05 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: BioC: Irrigation Pumping
In-Reply-To: <cc42231d.24f9d2b4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19990829092022.01d60b30@mail.teleport.com>

Tom Taylor,

Viewed another way, if the electricity cost is $10/hr and actual use is about 1,000 hours per year, at 5 years and 50% capital cost the whole 100 kWe system can't cost more than $25,000.

What actual costs and usages have been experienced for systems in this size? What is a feasible target system cost, capacity and use (hrs/year) to design for irrigation or remote power generation?

Tom Miles

At 08:03 PM 8/28/99 -0400, LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
>4. Distribution-Either using existing natural gas lines with NG engines and
>changing the valving, pressure regulators, orifices etc., running your own
>electrical lines from a central power facility or whatever, also represents a
>significant cost. Very few farms have the wells located in a central area
>and require distribution. I doubt if any farm could justify the cost of
>gasifier, feeder, storage and controls for each 80 hp well.
>Even with this, the value of wheat straw in comparison to replacement for
>Diesel at $1./gallon is worth more than the grain from the same crop. Other
>crops such as milo, corn have much higher biomass residue weights.
>The USDA/Forest Service used to put out a circular calculator which would
>tell you the value of each biomass based upon heating value and the
>replacement for electrical power, diesel, propane, natural gas, and others.
>Unfortunately the ones which I had are nowhere to be found and I believe that
>they no longer provide them.
>One large grower which I work with has several 300 HP electric wells and a
>1.5MWe load on his cold storage at one farm. He does not produce enough
>biomass to power this facility, but does have enough waste from packing to do
>it for a few days a year. He has not wanted to become a waste processing
>facility to power his operation.
>One interesting operation was a cotton gin entrained cyclonic combustor
>operated by Boswell, the largest farming operation in the United States at
>Corcoran California. The system would eat up the heat exchanger weekly with
>the abrasive dust from the combustor. It was used to replace propane for
>cotton drying.
>Did Buck Rogers ever set his gasifier up to run an irrigation well?
>
>Tom Taylor
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
T.R. Miles, Technical Consultants, Inc.
1470 SW Woodward Way
Portland, Oregon, USA Tel:(503) 646-1198/292-0107
http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/ Fax:(503) 605-0208/292-2919
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive