January 1999 Gasification Archive

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Jan 3 19:33:22 1999
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: World Problems #1-#3 - Unhappy New Year
Message-ID: <199901031933_MC2-655D-9265@compuserve.com>

Fellow Bioenergy Visionaries:

Recently Paul Hait said that in the 1970s he attended a Stanford seminar
focussed on defining the most needs of the world (ie of 6 B people, more
than half without most of the benefits of civilization). He said that they
were #1, Cooking and #2, clean water.

I would like to appoint electric power as #3. Once you have power, you
have communication, knowledge and the possibility of fixing #1 and #2.
Without these necessities it will be a very unhappy new year and new
century for 3 B people.
~~~~~
We here in Bioenergy have a major possibility of solving these problems.
STOVES is reporting more change in stoves through gasification than occured
during 10,000 years of "cut and try" or the last decade of funding "stove
development" by NGOs (without much effort to understand the fundamental
pyrolysis, gasification and combustion processes).

Small scale gasification holds the promise of providing electric power at
the mini and micro scales of 100 kW or 1 kW.

Pyrolysis holds the promise of producing activated charcoal, a key material
in water purification.

So let me exhort each of you to see what you can contribute to the welfare
of the world's poor in the decades to come. Personally, I hope our stoves
will be serving a few billion people before I die.... or to put it another
way, I don't intend to die until we get this problem solved.

Yours truly, TOM REED

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

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Jan 3 19:33:34 1999
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Stove & GasifierTriage
Message-ID: <199901031933_MC2-655D-9262@compuserve.com>

Dear Stovers:

Here's an unpleasant holiday message. Ron Larson hopes that we can focus
our STOVE IMPROVEMENT attention on Khartoum because they have a very
serious stove problem.

While my heart goes out to the inhabitants of Sudan and the world of 2
billion people without adequate cooking or power, I think focusing on those
with the greatest problems, rather than those capable of solving their
problems dilutes our efforts.

I would recommend that we find people in stable political economies who
have some money and fuel and are ready to make the effort to improve their
cooking. That is likely to make the greatest advance in both technology
and distribution of stoves or gasifiers. With that experience under our
belts we can then go on to the poorer and less stable sections.

Comments? Yours for a better world ASAP,
TOM REED

* For those who don't know about triage, after a big battle (Gettysburg,
Blaklava, the Marne, etc.), you line up all the wounded and have an
experienced doctor examine each soldier. Those who won't survive no matter
what, get a red tag. Those who will survive without major treatment get a
green tag. Those who might survive if treated, but not otherwise, get a
yellow tag. All doctors then only treat those with yellow tags. A tough
policy, but any other policy is worse.

War is hell. So is living in the Sudam.

Message text written by Ronal W. Larson
>Stovers:

Some of you will remember several messages from El Fadil. I have
replied privately - expressing a hope to meet him in Khartoum in the near
future. I have also cut him off the list

Then I decided that I should have replied publicly, since others
may have a similar desire to get to Khartoum and to help the Sudanese - who
have a very serious stoves problem. I will send El Fadil's address on to
anyone who is interested.

Ron

>From: "A. A. B. El Fadil" <Elfadil@495-simon.agrartech.uni-hohenheim.de>
>Organization: ATS, Hohenheim University
>To: larcon@sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
>Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:03:47 +0200
>Subject: Greetings from El Fadil
>Priority: normal
>
>Dear Mr. Larson,
>
>Merry Christmas and happy new year to you, your family and all list
>members.
>
>I am Leaving tomorrow back to the Sudan. I will keep in contact from
>there (may be e-mail if it is available otherwise per post).
>
>Please sign off.
>
>Best regards El Fadil

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

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

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Jan 3 19:33:40 1999
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Biomass Generalizations
Message-ID: <199901031933_MC2-655D-9267@compuserve.com>

Dear Bob:

Thanks for your comments. CH2O is an accurate ratio formula representation
of simple sugars, C6H12O6, but not quite cellulose (C6 H10 O5), and
certainly not for biomass. Most biomass comes quite close to

C H(1.4) O(0.6)
and
C H(1.4) O(0.6) + 1.05 (O2 + 3.76N2) ==> CO2 + 1.4 H2O + 3.95 N2

You are correct that

1 kg biomass requires 6.4 kg air for complete combustion to 7.4 kg CO2
+
0.7 H2O

should have read
1 kg biomass requires 6.4 kg air for complete combustion to 7.4 kg (CO2,
H2O, N2)

I feel that not being able to write exact equations for biomass is a major
part of the reason we make so little progress.

Yours truly, TOM REED

Tom Reed wrote:

> COMBUSTION
> 1 kg "typical biomass" (10% moisture,ash free basis, 18 MJ/kg) wil
generate
> 5 kWt when completely combusted.

>
> 1 kg biomass requires 6.4 kg air for complete combustion to 7.4 kg CO2 +
> 0.7 H2O

what?? CH2O + 02 ---> CO2 + H2O
when I balance the equasion I get (from 1 kg biomass) 1.47 kg CO2 and 0.6
kg
H20. No way are you going to get 7.4 kg of CO2. Do you mean 7.4 kg
(CO2 + plus uncombusted N2) ?

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

Bob Allen, Professor of Chemistry
Arkansas Tech University

http://swalaw.com/acc
http://over.to/bob.allen

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Jan 4 11:52:25 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Stove & GasifierTriage
Message-ID: <5b178183.3690f1bf@aol.com>

Tom,
Perhaps Sudan should get a red tag? With the overall world energy prices, it
is difficult to select the country to try to save or to develop a rational
application of gasifiers.
Sudanese do not know they are suffering unless we tell them or watch TV and
see how we live. If they can afford TV, then, they should spend more money on
their stove problems.
Sincerely,

Tom Taylor

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

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Jan 4 13:22:03 1999
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Firewood measure
Message-ID: <199901041322_MC2-6572-6A3A@compuserve.com>

Sue et al:

A CHORD is a stack of wood measuring 4X4X8 ft3. It is unbelievably big and
we have been chewing on a chord for two years. Here in Denver a chord of
softwood runs $125 - $150; hardwood more. A softwood chord weighs about a
ton, a hardwood chord a ton and a half, but of course these are very
approximate and site specific.

A "Face Chord" is 4X8XStove size or whatever the vendor specifies,
typically 18".

I don't know if a "Rick" is an official measure, and I hope someone else
does. They burn "ricks" at Jack Daniels to make activated charcoal! It
appeared to be about 4X4X4, but cross stacked to have a lot of air access.

Yours truly, TOM
REED
How much firewood is in a cord of wood (dimensions of cord)?
How much firewood is in a rick of wood (dimensions of rick)?

Thanks for the info.

Sue
<Su0006397@aol.com>
<

From r at costarica.net Mon Jan 4 18:40:41 1999
From: r at costarica.net (Roy Lent)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Firewood measure
In-Reply-To: <199901041322_MC2-6572-6A3A@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <199901042340.RAA29764@internet.informatica.co.cr>

Tom Reed writes:

>A CHORD is a stack of wood measuring 4X4X8 ft3. It
>is unbelievably big and we have been chewing on a chord for two
>years. Here in Denver a chord of softwood runs $125 - $150;
>hardwood more. A softwood chord weighs about a ton, a hardwood
>chord a ton and a half, but of course these are very approximate
>and site specific.

Always wondered exactly how much a cord of wood was. I might mention
that the word "chord" is more musical and the measure of wood is a
"cord".

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

From mark at ludlow.com Tue Jan 5 13:40:41 1999
From: mark at ludlow.com (Mark Ludlow)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Firewood measure
In-Reply-To: <199901041322_MC2-6572-6A3A@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <LNBBLJBMIEFPHLBOBGICEEKPCAAA.mark@ludlow.com>

'scuze me for splitting hairs (instead of firewood), but I believe it's
"cords" we're talking about here, not "chords", which may sound better but
are incapable of generating warmth (unless you play them REALLY fast).

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org
[mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of Tom Reed
Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 6:22 PM
To: INTERNET:Su0006397@aol.com; GASIFICATION; STOVES; BIOENERGY
Subject: GAS-L: Firewood measure

Sue et al:

A "Face Chord" is 4X8XStove size or whatever the vendor specifies,
typically 18".

Yours truly, TOM
REED
How much firewood is in a cord of wood (dimensions of cord)?
How much firewood is in a rick of wood (dimensions of rick)?

Thanks for the info.

Sue
<Su0006397@aol.com>
<

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Jan 5 14:32:50 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Firewood measure
Message-ID: <84658011.36917a7b@aol.com>

Roy Lent
Most "cord" deliverers do not deliver this much. A regular pickup load is
not a cord worth.
Chord is also a measure of distance across a circle, from one point on the
circumfrence to the other. I wonder what the origin of the cord of wood came
from, I will ask my father who in his mid-80's would probably know and he used
to lumber jack.
BTU/cord? Perhaps that is the way they should sell it?
Tom Taylor
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From ahe1 at cableol.co.uk Thu Jan 7 16:50:38 1999
From: ahe1 at cableol.co.uk (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Firewood measure
In-Reply-To: <199901041322_MC2-6572-6A3A@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <199901072150.QAA28275@solstice.crest.org>

At 18:45 04-01-99 -0000, Mark Ludlow wrote:
>'scuze me for splitting hairs (instead of firewood), but I believe it's
>"cords" we're talking about here, not "chords", which may sound better but
>are incapable of generating warmth (unless you play them REALLY fast).

They are actually derived from the same root, the Greek word for string!

Tom wrote:
>Sue et al:
>
>A CHORD is a stack of wood measuring 4X4X8 ft3. It is unbelievably big and
>we have been chewing on a chord for two years. Here in Denver a chord of
>softwood runs $125 - $150; hardwood more. A softwood chord weighs about a
>ton, a hardwood chord a ton and a half, but of course these are very
>approximate and site specific.

I see this was crossposted to 3 Crest lists and only elicited responses in
gasification. I think discussion is more appropriate to Stoves list and
hope I am not wandering off topic. My interest is the relationships of
values, in Britain we are used to paying comparatively more for our
consumer goods than some other countries especially the USA. Such that it
is not unusual to see goods for sale in the US at Xdollars and finding the
same item for sale in UK for Xpounds when the exchange rate is 1.5 dollars
to the pound. Yet here a cord of hardwood firewood is worth about 40-50GBP
delivered and softwood would not sell at all!

As to weights, this depends on seasoning, but freshly felled and cut
competently with the intention of optimising the lorry load, and sold by
weight, a cord is approx two tonnes. That is not to say that I cannot
effect the stacking density adversely by poor cutting if I sell by volume
:). Also account should be taken of edge effects when stacked on/against a
hard surface (such as a truck bed).

128 cubic feet equals approx 3.6 cubic metres, allowing 40% airspace this
gives a solid volume of just over 2 cubic metres. I only have experience of
UK hardwoods but if we assume a heavy wood such as Oak or Beech then 1
cubic metre fresh felled is slightly over a tonne. Assuming 100% moisture
content expressed as % of dry weight this contains a net energy of about
8GJ per tonne or 16GJ per cord, season this to 30% moisture content and
this leaps to 17GJ per cord and bone dry 18.5 GJ per cord.

Neglecting costs of cominution, efficiency of burning or handling costs and
with no latent heat recovery:
A UK fresh felled cord at 50GBP contains 16GJ or 4444 KWhr(t) so the cost
per KWhr(t) is 0.011GBP.

Tom's softwood cord at 125 dollars=83GBP contains less weight of dry wood
(softwood being lighter for the same cord and probably more moisture) so
costs more than 0.019GBP/KWhr.

Fuel oil at domestic rates here is 0.01GBP/KWhr(t), so at these prices logs
are a luxury good here, not to mention time consuming and dirty to handle
and burn.

Electricity costs about 0.09gbp/KWhr

This is from the top of my head, feel free to dissect and point out any
mistakes.

AJH

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

From danday at scientificcarbons.com Thu Jan 7 21:41:50 1999
From: danday at scientificcarbons.com (Danny Day)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Activated Carbon as a Bi-Product of Gasification
Message-ID: <199901080241.VAA12096@solstice.crest.org>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------431105F883E844D2A7D31370
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I wish I had the time to go into the components of activation and the
theories surrounding its manufacture. If you have an interest in the
field especially as it relates to various biomass stream you can check
out the free on-line Activated Carbon Research Library
(http://www.acrl.org). Doug you are right in saying that waste charcoal
is slightly active. Activated carbon is measured by many (14) different
ASTM test to quantify its quality and is probably one of the most
complex chemicals to verify its usability for particular uses. We have
a pilot production laboratory that provides contract services worldwide
to activate, verify and test activated carbon qualities of almost any
biomass feedstock.

What you discover is that the "usefullness" of a particular carbon is
based on many components (hardness, alkilinity, percentage of remaining
ash, water soluble ash, acid soluble ash, surface area, pore voloume,
average pore size, pore size distribution, pore structure, moisture
content, wettability, ignition temperature, apparent density, particle
size, dusting). After all these tests are complete then another series
of adsorption tests are used to further charecterize a carbon for a
particular purpose (iodine, carbon tet, bezene, molasses, butane) and
then to take it another step further you repeat the experiments of
adsorption and desorption many times to measure the ultimate working
capacity of an activated carbon.

Using one measure Nitrogen BET(surface area measure by Nitrogen
adsorption under various pressures), we find that charcoal can have
anywhere from 8 - 100 meters square per gram. Typical commercial grade
activated carbons, range from 600-1400 meters sqare per gram. So you
can see that it is slighlty active. These low-low activities chars may
have a use as a soil remediation additives as one possiblitity, and
there are sure to be many.

In addition to 4 different pilot activation lines, we also have a full
commercial production facility for the production of very high grade
activated carbons from biomass. (http://www.scientificcarbons.com) Our

primary feedstock is peanut shells but we can process almost any biomass
material. Our company provides contract manufacturing, grinding and
classification of activated carbon as well as quality control testing.

Cogeneration in activated carbon production is not new. Though, I do
believe that we are the only biomass activated carbon facility with
cogeneration construction which can be maximized to produce more or
less electrical power as required. (Someone please correct me if I am
wrong). We did not elect to sell back to the grid since avoided costs in
Georgia make this uneconomical. In addition, it is not our core
business. The company does offer complete activation plants for
producing activated carbon from biomass as well as providing marketing
and technical support.

We would be happy to answer any questions we can.

Danny Day
danday@scientificcarbons.com
Scientific Carbons, Inc.
800-723-4939

>Brian

>I think the paragraph you quote means something different to the
>interpretation.
>After pyrolysis (oxidation) the char bed turns to activated carbon by
the
>action of incandescent gases passing through the char. It is consumed
by
>the process of reduction and a small proportion is ejected with the
gas.
>Our waste charcoal has been analysed and found to be low grade
activated
>quality. Markets may exist for this but would require investigating.
One
>thing for sure is that you don't want to be removing it from the
process if
>gas making is your first priority.

>Regards

>Doug Williams.

> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 18:20:16 -0000
> From: "ITI" <iti@connect-2.co.uk>
> Subject: GAS-L: Activated Carbon as a Bi-Product of Gasification.
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: Schmidt, Darren <dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu>
> To: 'gasification@crest.org' <gasification@crest.org>
> Date: 27 October 1998 17:54
> Subject: GAS-L: USMC Project
>
> >Hello, I was the on site engineer at Camp Lejuene. Sounds like you
all
> >have definite opinions about our experience. I invite questions and
> >criticism, and would like to know who has operating systems at 1MWe
scale.
> >
> >Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
> >Energy and Environmental Research Center
> >PO Box 9018 Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018
> >ph. (701)777-5120 fax (701)777-5181
>
>
>
> Dear Darren,
>
>
> To take you up somewhat belatedly on your offer to answer any queries
:
>
>
> I was looking back recently through the Status Report on the Camp
Lejeune
> Project as presented to the Seventh National Bioenergy Conference in
1996.
> In the summary for Camp Lejeune, the following comment may be quoted :

>
>
> "....The result of this pyrolysis is an activated carbon "char" bed
and
the
> low heating value gas.... The activated carbon is potentially a
saleable
> bi-product of the system."
>
>
> I would be interested to know if this aspect of the project was ever
> pursued - i.e. the commercialisation of the activated carbon.
>
>
> Would you (or indeed anyone else on the list) perhaps know if
activated
> carbon is a viable bi-product of the gasification process ? If
not,
then

> why not ? Are the two processes innately compatible ?
>
>
> Looking forward to your answers,
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Brian Russell.
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Brian B. Russell,
> Innovation Technologies (Ireland) Ltd.,
> 47 Manse Road,
> Ballycarry, Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim,
> BT 38 9HP N Ireland.
> tel/fax : (0044) (0) 1960 373379
> email : iti@connect-2.co.uk

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES

--------------431105F883E844D2A7D31370
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="danday.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Danny Day
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="danday.vcf"

begin:vcard
n:Day;Danny
tel;fax:912-723-6771
tel;work:912-723-6757
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.scientificcarbons.com
org:Scientific Carbons, Inc.
version:2.1
email;internet:danday@scientificcarbons.com
title:President
note:Scientific Carbons, a subsidiary of Scientific AG Industries, a public-private partnership of the U.S. Government.
adr;quoted-printable:;;253 North Bay Street=0D=0A;Blakely;GA;31723;USA
x-mozilla-cpt:;21504
fn:Danny Day
end:vcard

--------------431105F883E844D2A7D31370--

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

From ahe1 at cableol.co.uk Thu Jan 7 21:42:53 1999
From: ahe1 at cableol.co.uk (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Firewood measure
In-Reply-To: <199901041322_MC2-6572-6A3A@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <199901080242.VAA12176@solstice.crest.org>

They are actually derived from the same root, the Greek word for string!

Tom's softwood cord at 125 dollars=83GBP contains less weight of dry wood
(softwood being lighter for the same cord and probably more moisture) so
costs more than 0.019GBP/KWhr.

Fuel oil at domestic rates here is 0.01GBP/KWhr(t), so at these prices logs
are a luxury good here, not to mention time consuming and dirty to handle
and burn.

Electricity costs about 0.09gbp/KWhr

This is from the top of my head, feel free to dissect and point out any
mistakes.

AJH

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

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Jan 8 12:35:28 1999
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Firewood measure
Message-ID: <199901081235_MC2-65F7-73BE@compuserve.com>

Dear Andrew Hegge et al:

Thanks for converting my CHORD spelling to the correct CORD. (Ralph
Overend also called, humming a "chord" into the phone.)

Thanks for the comparative costs of wood and other fuels in UK. I'm
surprised at the low cost of hardwood in the UK - 40-50 GBP/cord. I
presume that is a true cord measure, not face cord or other.

I agree that in the future all discussion of cords and ricks should take
place in STOVES, not GASIFICATION or BIOENERGY. However, I'll post this
there to let people know where the discussion is going.

So far I haven't seen RICKS discussed, but I haven't finished reading my
145 messages after a recent trip.

Yours truly, TOM REED

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

Tom's softwood cord at 125 dollars=83GBP contains less weight of dry wood
(softwood being lighter for the same cord and probably more moisture) so
costs more than 0.019GBP/KWhr.

Fuel oil at domestic rates here is 0.01GBP/KWhr(t), so at these prices logs
are a luxury good here, not to mention time consuming and dirty to handle
and burn.

Electricity costs about 0.09gbp/KWhr

This is from the top of my head, feel free to dissect and point out any
mistakes.

AJH

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 paulh at Princeton.EDU Fri Jan 8 17:23:47 1999
From: paulh at Princeton.EDU (Paul M. Henderick)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Soot particles vs. ash fragments
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.03.9901081312500.29005-100000@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU>

Dear all,

Whenever one is reading about the performance of a gasifier and ppm of
particulate matter is listed, it never distinguishes between ppm of soot
particles and ppm of ash-derived (silica, etc) particles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't carbonaceous particles relatively
benign (in the guts of a prime mover) compared to abrasive silica and the
like? Are there any typical values for what the split is for a downdraft
gasifier?

Thanks!

-Paul Henderick

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

From onar at con2.com Fri Jan 8 17:56:49 1999
From: onar at con2.com (Onar Aam)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Soot particles vs. ash fragments
Message-ID: <01be3b59$a9b4d040$0c01a8c0@cd_replication>

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't carbonaceous particles relatively
>benign (in the guts of a prime mover) compared to abrasive silica and the
>like? Are there any typical values for what the split is for a downdraft
>gasifier?

Hi, both ash and soot are mostly chemically benign. The problems with large
quantities of fly ash is mostly mechanical (they are allergenes), not
chemical. Hence, it doesn't really matter what the composition of the
particles are as long as they are in the low ppm range.

Onar.

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

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sun Jan 10 13:28:56 1999
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Soot particles vs. ash fragments
Message-ID: <003b01be3cc5$ce52a860$6ce637d2@graeme>

Hi Paul,

I assume that you are referring to ppm of particulate from downdraft
gasifiers in the gas stream before combustion. I don’t believe there is any
average for this figure for there are many different designs in principle
for down draft gasifiers.

Carbonaceous particles in themselves can be far from benign for many reasons
in what you refer to as the prime mover, which I assume is an engine or
turbine. As a particle they are the slowest to react with the combustion
air and I suspect are a major contributor to CO emissions. Apart from that
they will also impact and burn on surfaces resulting in pitting and the case
of spark ignition engines, particularly if moisture is present, foul the
sparkplug. The silica of course or any other non combustible particulate is
a potential source of abrasive wear particle if the size is over 2 micron
which is deemed to be the thinnest oil film possible to maintain in an
engine.

On the other hand when you refer to guts of the prime mover, I had the
dubious experience of witnessing dissecting of human lungs quite recently
and the propensity for atmospheric soot to be ingested and retained by the
lung linings make it far from benign if the Particulates you are referring
to are actually an atmospheric emission.

>From a safety point of view either to mechanical prime mover or its human
equivalent, the particulate produced from our processes either before of
after use of the gas should be as minimal as possible. I’m sure that others
will add to this discussion.

Kind Regards

DOUG WILLIAMS

>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 17:23:47 -0500 (EST)
>From: "Paul M. Henderick" <paulh@Princeton.EDU>
>Subject: GAS-L: Soot particles vs. ash fragments
>
>Dear all,
>
>Whenever one is reading about the performance of a gasifier and ppm of
>particulate matter is listed, it never distinguishes between ppm of soot
>particles and ppm of ash-derived (silica, etc) particles.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't carbonaceous particles relatively
>benign (in the guts of a prime mover) compared to abrasive silica and the
>like? Are there any typical values for what the split is for a downdraft
>gasifier?
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>- -Paul Henderick
>
>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 joe.teeter at mail.rowan.k12.nc.us Mon Jan 11 11:31:08 1999
From: joe.teeter at mail.rowan.k12.nc.us (joe teeter)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Advice on Design of Gas Generator for a 10 kw Generator with VW Rabbit Engine
Message-ID: <v01510100b2bf8f71a420@[207.53.77.58]>

I am searching for a member of the group who would consider reviewing
my plans for a small stationary gasification system designed for
residential use.

Joe Teeter

Gold Hill, NC USA

joe.teeter@mail.rowan.k12.nc.us

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

From dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu Mon Jan 11 11:47:05 1999
From: dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Advice on Design of Gas Generator for a 10 kw Generator with VW Rabbit Engine
Message-ID: <601A55066596D211A7AD00104BC6FB2507325D@catalina.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

Sounds like fun. I had experience operating a 1MWe powerplant at Camp
Lejeune, NC. It was a downdraft gasifier that fueled a 800KW spark ignited
Waukesha engine generator set. We put over 100 hours on the engine, and
over 300 on the gasification system.

-----Original Message-----
From: joe.teeter@mail.rowan.k12.nc.us
[mailto:joe.teeter@mail.rowan.k12.nc.us]
Sent: Monday, January 11, 1999 10:40 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Advice on Design of Gas Generator for a 10 kw Generator
with VW Rabbit Engine

I am searching for a member of the group who would consider reviewing
my plans for a small stationary gasification system designed for
residential use.

Joe Teeter

Gold Hill, NC USA

joe.teeter@mail.rowan.k12.nc.us

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 speser at waypoint.com Mon Jan 11 14:19:51 1999
From: speser at waypoint.com (Phyl Speser)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Soot particles vs. ash fragments
Message-ID: <01be3d92$c0049d40$55d542cf@hannah.waypoint>

I am a contractor for EPA working on commercializing high priority
technology. One technology is a new, high performance, low cost candle
filter. Based on early prototypes anticipated performance is filtration
efficicency better than 99.9%, temperature to 2000 deg F, resistence to
thermal and mechanical shock for back-flushing and system upsets, chemical
resistence to environments found in advnaced power systems, operational life
of 2 years or more, and price at or under $500.

Is this performance competitive? What specific requirements do end-users
have? What information do end-users like to see when assessing new
technology in this area? Any and all advice will be gratefully appreciated.
Please respond directly to me at phyl@seeport.com

Thanks,
Phyllis

Phyllis Speser
1811 36th St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
360.386.9560
www.seeport.com
phyl@seeport.com
darkness of night eyes
sunrise of awakening
daylight of the truth
---> (:) <------

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul M. Henderick <paulh@Princeton.EDU>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 2:06 PM
Subject: GAS-L: Soot particles vs. ash fragments

>
>Dear all,
>
>Whenever one is reading about the performance of a gasifier and ppm of
>particulate matter is listed, it never distinguishes between ppm of soot
>particles and ppm of ash-derived (silica, etc) particles.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't carbonaceous particles relatively
>benign (in the guts of a prime mover) compared to abrasive silica and the
>like? Are there any typical values for what the split is for a downdraft
>gasifier?
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>-Paul Henderick
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

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

From jphillips at alumni.stanford.org Tue Jan 12 09:50:04 1999
From: jphillips at alumni.stanford.org (Jeffrey N. Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Soot particles vs. ash fragments
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.03.9901081312500.29005-100000@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU>
Message-ID: <000101be3e3b$10d15760$381c29d8@jnphatch.gis.net>

Paul,

One drawback of soot that has not been mentioned is its propensity to foul
the ducts/pipes leading from the gasifier to the prime mover. The fouling
leads to higher velocities in the pipe which means higher pressure drop
which means your gasifier pressure has increase in order to deliver the same
amount of fuel to the prime mover. At a certain point the pressure drop
gets too high and you have to shut down and clean out the pipes. You can
clean the pipes automatically by adding "sootblowers", but that means more
equipment. Porous ceramic filters with backpulsing can also be used to
remove the soot, but you still have the problem of how to prevent
fouling/plugging of the lines between the gasifier and the filter.

I'd be interested in hearing of any experience gasifier operators have had
in terms of what gasifier conditions cause the most and the least amount of
soot to be produced. I know when we were gasifying hazardous wastes at
Molten Metal, it was clear that some feeds produced more soot than others
even though we tried to keep the oxygen/carbon feed ratios the same. In
coal gasification, addition of steam along with the oxygen (or air) seemed
to help. In refineries, steam is frequently added to flare gas to prevent
sooty flames in the flares. So, does biomass with higher moisture produce
less soot?

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

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org] On
Behalf Of Paul M. Henderick
Sent: Friday, January 08, 1999 5:24 PM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Soot particles vs. ash fragments

Dear all,

Thanks!

-Paul Henderick

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Jan 12 11:28:42 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Soot & other contaminants
Message-ID: <5f4757e0.369b771a@aol.com>

Dear Jeff,
Not only does "soot" foul the pipes, but high temperatures cause the tars and
oils to crack, coating the pipe with carbonized deposits which are virtually
impossible to remove. Lurgi uses augers which periodically ream the pipes off
of the top of the reactor.
We prevent the accumulation by using mechanical surface cleaners which
operate periodically to remove the surface accumulation and the gas stream
carry it into the next stage for accumulation and removal.
This coupled with lowered reactor design gas output content of tars and oils
reduces the build up and closing of the pipes, allowing full time operation
and minimal pressure drop through the system. Others have used water to
quench the gas, but this makes downstream cleaning more complex.

Sincerely,

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

From james at sri.org.au Tue Jan 12 17:22:26 1999
From: james at sri.org.au (James Joyce)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Soot & other contaminants
Message-ID: <19990113082232james@jj_lap.sri.org.au>

Tom Taylor wrote :

> Dear Jeff,
> Not only does "soot" foul the pipes, but high temperatures cause
> the tars and oils to crack, coating the pipe with carbonized
> deposits which are virtually impossible to remove. Lurgi uses augers
> which periodically ream the pipes off of the top of the reactor.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought I had read that it is the
cracking of tars and oils that results in soot rather than the other
way around.

Jeffrey Phillips wrote :

> I'd be interested in hearing of any experience gasifier operators
> have had in terms of what gasifier conditions cause the most and the
> least amount of soot to be produced. I know when we were gasifying
> hazardous wastes at Molten Metal, it was clear that some feeds
> produced more soot than others even though we tried to keep the
> oxygen/carbon feed ratios the same. In coal gasification, addition
> of steam along with the oxygen (or air) seemed to help. In
> refineries, steam is frequently added to flare gas to prevent
> sooty flames in the flares. So, does biomass with higher moisture
> produce less soot?

Given that steam is a much better gasification agent than CO2 could it
be that it helps to gasify the soot deposits ? Perhaps this is the
case (as a recent paper by Stanmore et al. on carbon burnout in PF
boilers shows mathematically), but I think the catalytic effect of
steam on tar cracking may be a larger effect ... by reducing the amount
of tar that reaches the cooler downstream surfaces.

So, with no practical experience to back me up, I think a high moisture
biomass fuel should result in less soot deposition .... pity about the
lower product gas heating value though !

Happy New year .. may it bring us successful (economic?) gasification !

James Joyce
Engineer
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay Australia
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Jan 13 21:47:11 1999
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: More soot, less soot
Message-ID: <199901132147_MC2-668F-B95B@compuserve.com>

Jeff, Paul, Gasification:

Soot is an important subject and I don't know all answers. Never had
trouble personally, but here are some thoughts.

Soot is produced as the oxygenated, low temperature tars are roasted to PNA
type high temperature tars and finally to soot. It is typiacally sub
micron in size and not easily filtered out or deposited. In fluidized bed
and updraft gasifiers the tars are initially at a level of 1-20% of feed,
and their breakdown can form a LOT of soot. In downdraft gasifiers the
incoming air burns the soot as it emerges from the fuel particles, so tar
is typically 0.1%. Maybe that's why I haven't experienced trouble. Or
maybe it is a different kind of soot.

I think there is a lot more soot made in gasifiers than we are usually
aware of. It is so fine that it can pass into the combustion areas and be
burned up and not cause trouble. Depends in part on velocity in the pipes.

Every candle produces a great deal of soot as one can tell be holding a
cold spoon in the flame for a few seconds. However, the soot is
immediately burned up, provided that the flame is stable. If there is a
wind, guttering moves the flame about and the soot escapes unburned.

So.... It is very site dependent and hard to generalize on soot.

Yours truly, TOM REED

Paul,

One drawback of soot that has not been mentioned is its propensity to foul
the ducts/pipes leading from the gasifier to the prime mover. The fouling
leads to higher velocities in the pipe which means higher pressure drop
which means your gasifier pressure has increase in order to deliver the sa=
me
amount of fuel to the prime mover. At a certain point the pressure drop
gets too high and you have to shut down and clean out the pipes. You can
clean the pipes automatically by adding "sootblowers", but that means more
equipment. Porous ceramic filters with backpulsing can also be used to
remove the soot, but you still have the problem of how to prevent
fouling/plugging of the lines between the gasifier and the filter.

I'd be interested in hearing of any experience gasifier operators have had
in terms of what gasifier conditions cause the most and the least amount o=
f
soot to be produced. I know when we were gasifying hazardous wastes at
Molten Metal, it was clear that some feeds produced more soot than others
even though we tried to keep the oxygen/carbon feed ratios the same. In
coal gasification, addition of steam along with the oxygen (or air) seemed
to help. In refineries, steam is frequently added to flare gas to prevent
sooty flames in the flares. So, does biomass with higher moisture produce
less soot?

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

-----Original Message-----
From:=09owner-gasification@crest.org [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]=
On
Behalf Of Paul M. Henderick
Sent:=09Friday, January 08, 1999 5:24 PM
To:=09gasification@crest.org
Subject:=09GAS-L: Soot particles vs. ash fragments

Dear all,

Thanks!

-Paul Henderick

From pchakra at teri.res.in Thu Jan 14 02:26:56 1999
From: pchakra at teri.res.in (P Chakravarty)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Advice on Design of Gas Generator for a 10 kwGenerator with VW Rabbit Engine -Reply
Message-ID: <s69de457.058@teri.res.in>

Our group works on biomass gasifiers for various applications ranging
from power generation to different kinds of thermal applications. We
work both on updraft and downdraft gasifiers. I am pleased to learn that
you already have an experience of operating a 1MWe gasifier for 300 hrs
and especially on the engine for 100 hrs. I shall be really happy to learn
more details of your experience on the system performance of your unit.
Can you enlighten us about the gas quality of your gasifier in terms of gas
calorific value, tar and particulate content, consistancy of gas generation,
fuel that you use. What kind of specific consumption rate of biomass you
are getting for 1kWhr of electricity. What mechanisms you use for
cleaning the gas, and order of gas cleanliness that you achieve before
and after the cleaning. Did you open the engine manifold to see the effect
of 100hrs of operation on the engine. Is your gasifier an open top design.
Also can you throw some light on relative differences (based on practical
experiences) between an open top vis-a-vis a close top design.

Shall really be keen to hear from you

With warm regards and seasons grreeting for a joyful 1999.

P. Chakravarty
Biomass Energy Technology Applications

**************************************
1974 to 1999
25 years of innovation and change
TERI's silver jubilee
**************************************
T E R I (Tata Energy Research Institute)
New Delhi - 110 003 / India
Fax 462 1770 or 463 2609 Country code 91
Tel. 460 1550 or 462 2246 City code 11
Web www.teriin.org

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

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Jan 14 03:24:14 1999
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Soot & other contaminants
Message-ID: <000901be3f95$e9508d80$69e637d2@graeme>

Dear Jeff et al

Soot reformation will occur when the gas temperature is held over 500
degrees C, and your mentioning high velocity in that particular situation
points to the solution. Increase the duct size allowing the gas to expand
and minimise horizontal ducting and pipes etc.

Soot isn’t really a product of gasification rather the reforming after
reduction while the gas is held over that 500 degrees C. Some fuel woods do
however collapse in the char stage during reduction, sending showers of fine
carbon dust into the gas stream. Other conditions that we have observed
that duplicate this phenomena is rotten or decomposing wood, coppicing
willow for example that hasn’t been dried quickly.

Higher moisture content of biomass will reduce oxidation temperatures and in
that respect might reduce soot. The down side is that the hydrocarbon (tar)
will increase and then you will create a coking problem in the hot ducts.

Thermal cracking of distillation gases in the gasifier, as opposed to
cracking and coking in the ducts, create permanent gases and carbon black,
which form in the oxidation zone as distillation gases pass through. These
are then subjected to (in our down draught process) up to 1500 degrees C,
literally tempering them into a crystal lattice structure making them
waterproof like graphite. It would take pretty hot steam to crack these
particles and you can only get them out in a very cool condensing stage as
they will pass through any filtration device.

Hope this helps

Regards
Doug Williams.

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

From max.lauer at joanneum.ac.at Fri Jan 15 12:55:37 1999
From: max.lauer at joanneum.ac.at (Lauer Maximillian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Soot particles vs. ash fragments
Message-ID: <199901151755.MAA28192@solstice.crest.org>

id DAA04452
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification

Dear Pyllis,

this technology seems of interest for quite a lot of applications. Please
could you give some more information regarding size, pressure range,etc?

Best Regards

Max

At 10:46 11.01.99 -0800, you wrote:
>I am a contractor for EPA working on commercializing high priority
>technology. One technology is a new, high performance, low cost candle
>filter. Based on early prototypes anticipated performance is filtration
>efficicency better than 99.9%, temperature to 2000 deg F, resistence to
>thermal and mechanical shock for back-flushing and system upsets, chemical
>resistence to environments found in advnaced power systems, operational life
>of 2 years or more, and price at or under $500.
>
>Is this performance competitive? What specific requirements do end-users
>have? What information do end-users like to see when assessing new
>technology in this area? Any and all advice will be gratefully appreciated.
>Please respond directly to me at phyl@seeport.com
>
>Thanks,
>Phyllis
>
>Phyllis Speser
>1811 36th St.
>Port Townsend, WA 98368
>360.386.9560
>
www.seeport.com
>phyl@seeport.com
>darkness of night eyes
>sunrise of awakening
>daylight of the truth
>---> (:) <------
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul M. Henderick <paulh@Princeton.EDU>
>To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
>Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 2:06 PM
>Subject: GAS-L: Soot particles vs. ash fragments
>
>
Maximilian Lauer Tel Nr. ++43 316 876 1336
JOANNEUM RESEARCH Fax Nr.:++43 316 876 1320
Institut für Energieforschung
Elisabethstr. 5
A-8010 Graz

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

From tmiles at teleport.com Fri Jan 15 19:42:33 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Maine Gasifier Lynnco?
Message-ID: <199901160042.TAA22205@solstice.crest.org>

Has anyone heard of a gasifier system developer or manufacturer in Maine
named Jerry Lynch of Lynco, Inc? (or similar?)

I would be interested in contact information and details of any systems
that they have developed.

Thanks

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

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

From JIRVING104 at aol.com Sat Jan 16 07:34:32 1999
From: JIRVING104 at aol.com (JIRVING104@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Maine Gasifier Lynnco?
Message-ID: <4ae984fe.36a08776@aol.com>

Hi Tom, I familiar with Jerry Lynch of Connecticut who was interested in a
gasifier technology several years ago. It must be the same person. I have a
copy of a paper he gave me on it and I'll send it to you Monday from the
office. Jerry's address at that time was :

Jerry Lynch
President
FSA, Clean Air Technologies
2 Enterprise Drive
Shelton, CT 06484
phone 203-926-9949
fax 203-926-9505

Hope this helps,
John Irving
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From rolando at ket2.ket.kth.se Mon Jan 18 10:31:12 1999
From: rolando at ket2.ket.kth.se (Rolando Zanzi)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 2nd Olle =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lindstr=F6m?= Symposium on Renewable Energy, Bioenergy
Message-ID: <199901181531.KAA02880@solstice.crest.org>

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

Symposium Internet site: http://www.ket.kth.se/rolando/OLsymp
Recently updated

Experts in the field are invited to participate actively in the 2nd Olle
Lindström Symposium on Renewable Energy by giving oral presentations on
their recent work.
All papers will be reviewed prior to publication.
Only papers that are presented by the authors will appear in the proceedings

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

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

The language of the symposium is English.

Deadline for submission of papers: 1st of Februari.
If you are interested to submit a paper, contact:
Rolando Zanzi: rolando@ket.kth.se

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

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
Michael Jerry Antal Jr, HNEI, USA
Thore Berntsson, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Erik Dahlqvist, ABB Industrial Systems, Sweden
Carl-Johan Fogelholm, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Mikko Hupa, Åbo Akademi University, Finland

Björn Karlsson, Linköping Universitet, Sweden
Björn Kjellström, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden
Bo Leckner, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Kent Nyström, SVEBIO, Sweden
Björn Qvale, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
Erik Rensfelt, TPS Termiska Processer AB, Sweden
Ingo Romey, Universität GH Essen, Germany
Tord Torisson, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Björn Zethræus, Växjö University College, Sweden

INVITED SPEAKERS
Eric D. Larson, Princeton University, USA
"Advanced Technologies for Biomass Conversion to Energy"

Eric Rensfelt, Termiska Processer, Studsvik, Sweden
"Biomass - Sustainable energy today and for the future"

Johan Gullichsen, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

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

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

*Prices include local tax (VAT).

INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
For further information please contact:

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

http://www.ket.kth.se/rolando

Visit Symposium Internet Site:

http://www.ket.kth.se/rolando/OLsymp/

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

From iti at connect-2.co.uk Mon Jan 18 12:37:40 1999
From: iti at connect-2.co.uk (ITI)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Hogild CHP, Denmark
Message-ID: <002601be4309$40d4b100$0101a8c0@ian>

Dear Gasification,

I was recently given a copy of a trade magazine for the Timber and Wood
Products industry here in the UK, and found a reference to a cogeneration
plant at Hogild in Denmark. Apparently, the plant is part of a district
heating installation for 75 homes, and it works off a 1 MW boiler to give
320 kW of usable heat and 110 kW of electricity.

Most interestingly, it seems that that the electricity end of the plant
involves the use of a gasifier. The article does not specify the power unit
however. The overall efficiency might suggest a small gas turbine.

I would be most interested to know if anyone on the list has heard of this
installation, and perhaps could tell me where I could obtain some more
information about this and other similar small CHP plants in Denmark.

With all best wishes,

Brian Russell.

Brian B. Russell,
Innovation Technologies (Ireland) Ltd
47 Manse Road, Ballycarry, Co. Antrim
BT38 8RH Northern Ireland
Tel/Fax 01960 373379
email iti@connect-2.co.uk

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

From houmoller at DK-TEKNIK.DK Tue Jan 19 03:38:01 1999
From: houmoller at DK-TEKNIK.DK (houmoller@DK-TEKNIK.DK)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Hogild CHP, Denmark
Message-ID: <TFSHTGDH@DK-TEKNIK.DK>

Dear Brian and Gasification list.

Yes, there is a gasifier in operation at Høgild. It is the local
municipalities that run the gasifier, which was originally a French
Martezo unit. The principle was OK, but the construction was so poor that
several problems with this gasifier led to a recent change, as the Danish
boiler manufacturer, Hollensen, built a new gasifier to fit into the
CHP-system.

The plant data are as follows:
- Infeed effect 700 kW
- Electrical efficiency (measured mean value, October '98): 17 per cent
- The fuel is dry wood, giving a clean gas suited for engine operation

Kontact info:
Herning Kommunale Værker
Att.: Jørgen Mouritsen
Enghavevej 10
7400 Herning
Ph. + 45 99 26 82 11
Fax + 45 99 26 82 12

Gasifier manufacturer:
Hollensen Ingeniør- og Kedelfirma ApS
Att.: Arne Hollensen
Drejervej 22
7451 Sunds
Ph. + 45 97 14 20 22
Fax + 45 97 14 26 86

Denmark has developed several CHP-technologies the last ten years. Other
projects include
- Up draft gasifier (very clean gas, engine tests to take place)
developed by Ansaldo Vølund. Placed in the town of Harboøre in Jutland.
- A pyrolysis unit pretreating straw on the CHP-plant at Haslev
(commercial operation - the technology to be used on new CHP-plants)
- Open core gasifier (100 hours of engine operation)
- A two-stage gasifier developed at the Technical University of Denmark.
First unit placed at a farm in Jutland.

More info on these projects on request.

Yours,

Søren

***********************'**************************
Søren Houmøller, M. Sc., project manager
dk-TEKNIK Energy & Environment
http://www.dk-teknik.dk
See me at
http://www.sh.dk/~cbt/sh/
Danske Ølentusiaster
http://www.image.dk/~danoel

"No sense being pessimistic; it probably wouldn't work anyway!"

-----Original Message-----
From: iti@connect-2.co.uk [SMTP:MIME @INTERNET {iti@connect-2.co.uk}]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 7:03 PM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Hogild CHP, Denmark

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Dear Gasification,

Most interestingly, it seems that that the electricity end of the plant
involves the use of a gasifier. The article does not specify the power
unit
however. The overall efficiency might suggest a small gas turbine.

I would be most interested to know if anyone on the list has heard of
this
installation, and perhaps could tell me where I could obtain some more
information about this and other similar small CHP plants in Denmark.

With all best wishes,

Brian Russell.

Brian B. Russell,
Innovation Technologies (Ireland) Ltd
47 Manse Road, Ballycarry, Co. Antrim
BT38 8RH Northern Ireland
Tel/Fax 01960 373379
email iti@connect-2.co.uk

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

From tobitze at powertech.no Tue Jan 19 18:27:47 1999
From: tobitze at powertech.no (toby)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: GASIFICATION - TWIN COMBUSTION
Message-ID: <199901192327.SAA27628@solstice.crest.org>

WHO can help me to design a wood two step gasifier for heating, and after
that
to design a working cavity stirling engine without crankcase ?
Dimentions of double gasifier is 1,5 m x 1 mtr and height is approx 1,3
mtr + hopper.

Either is intention to heat water for housefloor use, or perhaps the most
interesting way to design a 5-10 KW Stirling Oscillating Engine with
cawities-Inducing electricity of 220 v ac 50 HZ. In addition can of course
produce hot water from cooling sling.

A. WHO can help me to design a good gasifier with primary and secondary
combustion.

B Who can help me to construct a Stirling Engine Oscillator Cavity
Power Gen type 220 v 50 HZ ?

Please reply to

tobitze@powertech.no

or snail mail to

Stirling Gen
Torbj.Homelien
Vargveien 50
N-2030 NANNESTAD -Norway

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

From arcate at email.msn.com Wed Jan 20 00:58:16 1999
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Charcoal Green Power
Message-ID: <000401be4439$cf316ca0$0100007f@localhost>

Hello Gasification: Happy New Year !

Please revisit my site and help me by forwarding this message to people you
think might be interested in my biomass charcoal energy concepts.

Jim Arcate of Transnational Technology in Honolulu, Hawaii has a biomass
power concept that he would like you to consider. His web site
www.techtp.com discusses converting biomass to charcoal and co-firing
charcoal with coal at electric power plants.

Charcoal co-firing with coal is not a "new" idea. Mixing wood charcoal with
high sulfur coal was proposed in the 1980's. The University of Hawaii,
Hawaii Natural Energy Institute (HNEI) charcoal process with high yields and
short conversion times is "new" and may make the concept economical at a
large scale.

Coal firing at power plants is a major contributor of the Greenhouse Gas,
carbon dioxide. CO2 emissions could be reduced by replacing some of the
coal with charcoal made from closed-loop biomass feedstock.

Waste wood is attractive as a negative cost feedstock. "Waste Wood for Fuel
on Oahu" is on Projects & Prospects
http://www.techtp.com/projects/index.htm and at power online at
http://news.poweronline.com/feature-articles/19981116-3544.html

Jim Arcate wants to locate people interested in commercializing the HNEI
high yield charcoal process. He would appreciate your feedback on the
concept.

Please use the Reply Form on Jim's web site www.techtp.com
=================

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

From dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu Wed Jan 20 08:38:56 1999
From: dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Advice on Design of Gas Generator for a 10 kw Generator with VW Rabbit Engine -Reply
Message-ID: <601A55066596D211A7AD00104BC6FB25073276@catalina.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

-----Original Message-----
From: P Chakravarty [mailto:pchakra@teri.res.in]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 1999 1:34 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Advice on Design of Gas Generator for a 10 kw
Generator with VW Rabbit Engine -Reply

tar and particulate content,
- less than 150ppm total contaminants

consistancy of gas generation,
- consistent gas generation at approx. 800scfm, 150 BTU/scf, It was a
downdraft (stratified) gasifier. The key component the most greatly
effected HHV was the nature of consistency in the gasifier. If the
combustion zone was left uncovered with fresh wood, or if we developed
channels due to bridging etc. the HHV would decrease.

fuel that you use.
- wood waste from the military base landfill, Pallets and clearing debris,
majority pine
The base usually ground the best wood for us. The best wood were pallets,
relatively dry and free of dirt. We dried and screened wood at the plant
prior to feeding the gasifier. All continuos operations.

What kind of specific consumption rate of biomass you
are getting for 1kWhr of electricity.
- Design - .426 KWhr/lb or 2350lbs/hr for 1 MW
- Actual - .194 KWhr/lb or 1800 lbs/hr for 350KW

What mechanisms you use for
cleaning the gas,
- hot cyclone
- shell and tube heat exchangers
- coalescing liquid separators
- impingement filtration

and order of gas cleanliness that you achieve before
and after the cleaning.
- We did not measure the before, prior to the engine the gas was 150 ppm
total contaminants. Before was really dirty, tar and soot. It plugged up
the primary heat exchanger.

Did you open the engine manifold to see the effect
of 100hrs of operation on the engine.
-No, but you could see tar collecting on the tops of the pistons when
looking down through the open spark plug hole.

Is your gasifier an open top design.
- yes, but not wide open, we pulled air into the top of the reactor via a
manifold, However the top was not sealed and much tramp air entered through
the manhole etc.

Also can you throw some light on relative differences (based on practical
experiences) between an open top vis-a-vis a close top design.
- By closed top, I assume you mean Imbert style gasifier where air in
brought in through nozzles at a throat. I have no experience running Imbert
gasifiers, but they look like they produce very little tar and basically the
same gas quality. The disadvantage, depending on design, is that you do not
have good control over char removal rate. The stratified gasifier allows
you to use char removal as an operating variable. Imbert gasifiers are
great batch reactors, and Ankur Scientific, an Indian Company, has proven
them to be reliable continuous reactors, but I have not had the privilege to
see it for myself.

Shall really be keen to hear from you

With warm regards and seasons grreeting for a joyful 1999.

P. Chakravarty
Biomass Energy Technology Applications

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 taykenne at iastate.edu Wed Jan 20 14:47:50 1999
From: taykenne at iastate.edu (taykenne@iastate.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: GASIFICATION - TWIN COMBUSTION
In-Reply-To: <199901192327.SAA27628@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <199901201948.NAA01591@isua4.iastate.edu>

> WHO can help me to design a wood two step gasifier for heating, and after
> that
> to design a working cavity stirling engine without crankcase ?
> Dimentions of double gasifier is 1,5 m x 1 mtr and height is approx 1,3
> mtr + hopper.
>
> Either is intention to heat water for housefloor use, or perhaps the most
> interesting way to design a 5-10 KW Stirling Oscillating Engine with
> cawities-Inducing electricity of 220 v ac 50 HZ. In addition can of course
> produce hot water from cooling sling.
>
> A. WHO can help me to design a good gasifier with primary and secondary
> combustion.
>
> B Who can help me to construct a Stirling Engine Oscillator Cavity
> Power Gen type 220 v 50 HZ ?
>
> Please reply to
>
> tobitze@powertech.no
>
>
> or snail mail to
>
> Stirling Gen
> Torbj.Homelien
> Vargveien 50
> N-2030 NANNESTAD -Norway
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Hi,
I understand that you want to gasify wood (perhaps in pieces either 1,5 m or
1 m long or is there another reason for the dimensions given?) and then burn
the resulting gases to produce heat both to power a Stirling engine and to
provide hot water to be used for heating. Is this correct? I could help with
gasifier design but don't know much about Stirlings.
Cheers,
Bill

William A. Edwards
103 Sandburg Court
Ames, IA 50014
USA
tele 515/296-0168 in care of taykenne@iastate.edu
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From bentermm at convertech.co.nz Wed Jan 20 17:16:40 1999
From: bentermm at convertech.co.nz (Markus M Benter-Lynch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2
Message-ID: <v01540b00b2cc8da7da94@[202.37.189.76]>

Dear bioenergetics and gasifiers,

After 2.5 yrs here, I am about to leave Convertech Group Ltd for a company
called ASCO Carbondioxide. Yes,... they make plants to PRODUCE CO2 and also
sell it directly in some countries.

After I have devoted all my professional life to renewable energy, I am now
going to help to produce MORE CO2. Strange times...
Anyway, that's where the fizz in your soft drinks comes from!

So anyone who has some exhaust gases and thinks there may be a market for
CO2 or dry ice in the area, let me know and we can look into producing
"bio-CO2"! (One interesting application of dry ice that I hadn't heard off
apparently is for "sandblasting" or rather ice-blasting. Rather than having
to clean the sand and eventually having to dispose it of after the
operation, the ice sublimes and leaves behind the removed material on its
own - ready to deal with).

Anyway, I still plan to follow this list to keep in touch with bioenergy.
My new e-mail address will be (from 01. Febr. 1999):

lynchj@kea.lincoln.ac.nz

Keep in touch,
cheers
Markus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Markus M Benter-Lynch
Dipl.-Ing., M.E.
Energy and Process Engineer
Convertech Group Ltd
PO Box 13 776
Christchurch
NEW ZEALAND

e-mail: bentermm@convertech.co.nz
www: http://www.convertech.co.nz

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

From R.E.Sims at massey.ac.nz Thu Jan 21 14:01:17 1999
From: R.E.Sims at massey.ac.nz (Ralph Sims)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2
In-Reply-To: <v01540b00b2cc8da7da94@[202.37.189.76]>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19990122075338.00711580@mail.massey.ac.nz>

Good luck for the future Markus.
Maybe you should ship the dry ice to Antartic as a carbon sink!

Ralph Sims

At 11:20 AM 1/21/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear bioenergetics and gasifiers,
>
>After 2.5 yrs here, I am about to leave Convertech Group Ltd for a company
>called ASCO Carbondioxide. Yes,... they make plants to PRODUCE CO2 and also
>sell it directly in some countries.
>
>After I have devoted all my professional life to renewable energy, I am now
>going to help to produce MORE CO2. Strange times...
>Anyway, that's where the fizz in your soft drinks comes from!
>
>So anyone who has some exhaust gases and thinks there may be a market for
>CO2 or dry ice in the area, let me know and we can look into producing
>"bio-CO2"! (One interesting application of dry ice that I hadn't heard off
>apparently is for "sandblasting" or rather ice-blasting. Rather than having
>to clean the sand and eventually having to dispose it of after the
>operation, the ice sublimes and leaves behind the removed material on its
>own - ready to deal with).
>
>Anyway, I still plan to follow this list to keep in touch with bioenergy.
>My new e-mail address will be (from 01. Febr. 1999):
>
>lynchj@kea.lincoln.ac.nz
>
>Keep in touch,
>cheers
>Markus
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>Markus M Benter-Lynch
>Dipl.-Ing., M.E.
>Energy and Process Engineer
>Convertech Group Ltd
>PO Box 13 776
>Christchurch
>NEW ZEALAND
>
>e-mail: bentermm@convertech.co.nz
>www: http://www.convertech.co.nz
>
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
>
Ralph E H Sims

Director, Massey University Centre for Energy Research
Associate Professor, Sustainable Energy

Institute of Technology and Engineering
College of Sciences
Massey University
Private Bag 11222
Palmerston North
New Zealand

Tel: +64 (0)6 3505288
Fax: +64 (0)6 3505640
E-mail: R.E.Sims@massey.ac.nz

Home: +64 (0)6 3573257
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From james at sri.org.au Thu Jan 21 17:24:32 1999
From: james at sri.org.au (James Joyce)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2
Message-ID: <19990122082457james@jj_lap.sri.org.au>

If Antartica was cold enough to keep CO2 frozen we wouldn't have a
problem in the first place. Then again what would the plants live on ?

> Good luck for the future Markus.
> Maybe you should ship the dry ice to Antartic as a carbon sink!
>
> Ralph Sims
>

On a more serious note Markus, what does this mean for Convertech ? Are
they still moving along towards their goal of a carbon economy ?

As for CO2 "sand blasting" I have heard of that before. Interestingly
enough sand is not permitted for most sand blasting operations in
Australia now, due to concerns about the inhalation of Silica dust.
Copper slag (a waste product of copper refining) is generally used
instead. However it is getting increasingly difficult to find suitable
disposal routes for copper slag after it has been used for sand
blasting (due to concerns about metals leaching into groundwater). So
CO2 sounds like a good thing (the equipment requirements sound
expensive though).

As for bio-CO2 recovery. I'd reckon a unit running off the cooled
exhaust of a biogas fired gas turbine would be ideal, as the
particulate levels would be very low and the gases should be almost
pure CO2 and H2O. We just need to get biomass IGCC technology
commercialised first. Just imagine Greenhouse friendly Coke-a-Cola !

Best of luck Markus.

James Joyce
Engineer
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay Australia
ph. (07) 4952 7698
intl ph. INTL + 61 7 4952 7600
fax (07) 4952 1734

> At 11:20 AM 1/21/99 +0100, you wrote:
> >Dear bioenergetics and gasifiers,
> >
> >After 2.5 yrs here, I am about to leave Convertech Group Ltd for a
> company
> >called ASCO Carbondioxide. Yes,... they make plants to PRODUCE CO2
> > and also sell it directly in some countries.
> >
> >After I have devoted all my professional life to renewable energy,
> >I am now going to help to produce MORE CO2. Strange times...
> >Anyway, that's where the fizz in your soft drinks comes from!
> >
> >So anyone who has some exhaust gases and thinks there may be a
> >market for CO2 or dry ice in the area, let me know and we can look
> > into producing "bio-CO2"! (One interesting application of dry ice
> > that I hadn't heard off apparently is for "sandblasting" or rather
> > ice-blasting. Rather than having to clean the sand and eventually
> > having to dispose it of after the operation, the ice sublimes and
> > leaves behind the removed material on its own - ready to deal
> > with).

snip

> >cheers
> >Markus

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

From Wilms at aol.com Thu Jan 21 19:08:39 1999
From: Wilms at aol.com (Wilms@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification
Message-ID: <692a31c2.36a7a0e7@aol.com>

sir,
i read with interest your dilema ref biomass gasification, would suggest
you contact mr . D Withthsinge at Lanka Tractors Nawala rd Columbo. and ask
him to put you in touch with BEAVER POWER or MAYPHIL U.K. mr R Medora, who
will gladly supply turn key units to run on LANDFILL, DIGESTER,&
PRODUCER(WOOD)GAS,also tailgas(carbon black bi-product 33%H2)..

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

From thermogenics at worldnet.att.net Thu Jan 21 19:40:54 1999
From: thermogenics at worldnet.att.net (Steve Brand)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification
Message-ID: <199901220040.TAA04023@solstice.crest.org>

Dear Sir:

We at Thermogenics are actively pursuing the development of gasification
projects in Sri Lanka. Please take a look at our web page
www.thermogenics.com for more information about us.

May I have your name, affiliation and address (including telephone and fax)
as I would like to be in touch further with you.

Regards,

Stephen C. Brand
Vice President, General Manager
Thermogenics, Inc
Tel; (505) 344.4846
Fax: (505) 344.6090.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wilms@aol.com <Wilms@aol.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Thursday, January 21, 1999 5:13 PM
Subject: GAS-L: gasification

>sir,
> i read with interest your dilema ref biomass gasification, would
suggest
>you contact mr . D Withthsinge at Lanka Tractors Nawala rd Columbo. and ask
>him to put you in touch with BEAVER POWER or MAYPHIL U.K. mr R Medora, who
>will gladly supply turn key units to run on LANDFILL, DIGESTER,&
>PRODUCER(WOOD)GAS,also tailgas(carbon black bi-product 33%H2)..
>
>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 bentermm at convertech.co.nz Thu Jan 21 22:30:09 1999
From: bentermm at convertech.co.nz (Markus M Benter-Lynch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2
Message-ID: <v01540b00b2ce26fc7aac@[202.37.189.76]>

Hi James,

Thanks for your good wishes. Convertech is still working its way towards a
biomass refinery. Ian Bywater, I am sure, can give you more details if you
wish.

How are you getting on with your gasifier and feeder development efforts?

Keep in touch
Cheers
Markus
----------------
>If Antartica was cold enough to keep CO2 frozen we wouldn't have a
>problem in the first place. Then again what would the plants live on ?
>
>> Good luck for the future Markus.
>> Maybe you should ship the dry ice to Antartic as a carbon sink!
>>
>> Ralph Sims
>>
>
>On a more serious note Markus, what does this mean for Convertech ? Are
>they still moving along towards their goal of a carbon economy ?
>
>As for CO2 "sand blasting" I have heard of that before. Interestingly
>enough sand is not permitted for most sand blasting operations in
>Australia now, due to concerns about the inhalation of Silica dust.
>Copper slag (a waste product of copper refining) is generally used
>instead. However it is getting increasingly difficult to find suitable
>disposal routes for copper slag after it has been used for sand
>blasting (due to concerns about metals leaching into groundwater). So
>CO2 sounds like a good thing (the equipment requirements sound
>expensive though).
>
>As for bio-CO2 recovery. I'd reckon a unit running off the cooled
>exhaust of a biogas fired gas turbine would be ideal, as the
>particulate levels would be very low and the gases should be almost
>pure CO2 and H2O. We just need to get biomass IGCC technology
>commercialised first. Just imagine Greenhouse friendly Coke-a-Cola !
>
>Best of luck Markus.
>
>
>James Joyce
>Engineer
>Sugar Research Institute
>Mackay Australia
>ph. (07) 4952 7698
>intl ph. INTL + 61 7 4952 7600
>fax (07) 4952 1734
>
>
>
>> At 11:20 AM 1/21/99 +0100, you wrote:
>> >Dear bioenergetics and gasifiers,
>> >
>> >After 2.5 yrs here, I am about to leave Convertech Group Ltd for a
>> company
>> >called ASCO Carbondioxide. Yes,... they make plants to PRODUCE CO2
>> > and also sell it directly in some countries.
>> >
>> >After I have devoted all my professional life to renewable energy,
>> >I am now going to help to produce MORE CO2. Strange times...
>> >Anyway, that's where the fizz in your soft drinks comes from!
>> >
>> >So anyone who has some exhaust gases and thinks there may be a
>> >market for CO2 or dry ice in the area, let me know and we can look
>> > into producing "bio-CO2"! (One interesting application of dry ice
>> > that I hadn't heard off apparently is for "sandblasting" or rather
>> > ice-blasting. Rather than having to clean the sand and eventually
>> > having to dispose it of after the operation, the ice sublimes and
>> > leaves behind the removed material on its own - ready to deal
>> > with).
>
>snip
>
>> >cheers
>> >Markus
>
>
>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 phoenix at transport.com Thu Jan 21 23:20:20 1999
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2
Message-ID: <199901220420.UAA24234@mail2.transport.com>

Dear James,

Regarding the following message:

> >As for bio-CO2 recovery. I'd reckon a unit running off the cooled
> >exhaust of a biogas fired gas turbine would be ideal, as the
> >particulate levels would be very low and the gases should be almost
> >pure CO2 and H2O. We just need to get biomass IGCC technology
> >commercialised first. Just imagine Greenhouse friendly Coke-a-Cola !
> >
> >Best of luck Markus.
> >
> >
> >James Joyce
> >Engineer
> >Sugar Research Institute
> >Mackay Australia
> >ph. (07) 4952 7698
> >intl ph. INTL + 61 7 4952 7600
> >fax (07) 4952 1734

Inorder to limit the exhaust gas temperatures of a gas turbine, the turbine
uses excess air. Typically in gas turbines, only 10 - 20% of the available
oxygen is consumed in the combustion so the exhaust gases contain the
unconsumed oxygen, a great deal of nitrogen, plus appropriate amounts of
carbon dioxide and water vapor. The jet engines I flew compressed 13 times
the air needed for complete combustion and produced an Exhaust Gas
Temperature to the exhaust turbine of 635 Degrees C at full power.

Combustion is not as simple as pure CO2 and water vapor in the exhaust
gases and the diluting gases are the hard ones to remove inorder to make
pure CO2.

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

From james at sri.org.au Thu Jan 21 23:48:46 1999
From: james at sri.org.au (James Joyce)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2
Message-ID: <19990122144908james@jj_lap.sri.org.au>

Sorry, Art. I always forget the Nitrogen, freeloader that it is. As for
the gas temperature, I wouldn't dream of using the gas straight out of
a turbine exhaust without recovering as much of the waste heat as
possible first.

Separation of the N2, O2 and other trace gases should actually be
fairly simple as they will still be in the gas phase after CO2 is
solidified (and presuming you remove the H2O first). Admittedly you may
have to freeze, melt and re-freeze a couple of times (or solidify
slowly at a low pressure) if you want to expel any dissolved gases or
included contaminant gas bubbles. NOx and SOx are fairly readily water
scrubbed.

Apart from that what harm would a bit of N2 and O2 do in a can of Coke
? (as long as there is no NOx and SOx - not that these would affect the
pH at all ... it is already less than 3)

On a more serious note has anyone out there gasified any cane field
harvesting trash (under atmospheric or pressurised conditions) ?

James Joyce
Engineer
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay Australia
ph. (07) 4952 7698
intl ph. INTL + 61 7 4952 7600
fax (07) 4952 1734

> Dear James,
>
> Regarding the following message:
>
> > >As for bio-CO2 recovery. I'd reckon a unit running off the
> cooled
> > >exhaust of a biogas fired gas turbine would be ideal, as the
> > >particulate levels would be very low and the gases should be
> almost
> > >pure CO2 and H2O. We just need to get biomass IGCC technology
> > >commercialised first. Just imagine Greenhouse friendly Coke-a-Cola
> !
> > >
> > >Best of luck Markus.
> > >
> > >
>
> Inorder to limit the exhaust gas temperatures of a gas turbine, the
> turbine uses excess air. Typically in gas turbines, only 10 - 20%
> of the available oxygen is consumed in the combustion so the exhaust
> gases contain the unconsumed oxygen, a great deal of nitrogen, plus
> appropriate amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor. The jet
> engines I flew compressed 13 times the air needed for complete
> combustion and produced an Exhaust Gas
> Temperature to the exhaust turbine of 635 Degrees C at full power.
>
> Combustion is not as simple as pure CO2 and water vapor in the
> exhaust gases and the diluting gases are the hard ones to remove
> inorder to make pure CO2.
>
> Art Krenzel
> 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 crnkbate at pacbell.net Fri Jan 22 23:39:15 1999
From: crnkbate at pacbell.net (Vernon Ellis)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: boilers
Message-ID: <199901230439.XAA20687@solstice.crest.org>

I have recently published a website to advertise used equipment,
including boilers. It is http://www.vernsusedequipment.com
If you would like to advertise your units here contact me at
sales@vernsusedequipment.com. The rates are very inexpensive, and I am
in the progress of getting more recognition for my site, thru search
engine submittal, etc. Thanks, Vern Ellis

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

From pgcarey at dmv.com Fri Jan 22 23:44:55 1999
From: pgcarey at dmv.com (Paul G. Carey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Chicken litter gasification
Message-ID: <199901230444.XAA21157@solstice.crest.org>

Could you send me information as to the BTU = output of gasified checken litter with a moisture of between 25 to30% = ? Thank you for your help.

Paul G. Carey
P.O.Box 457
Nassau, DE = 19969-0457

From tmiles at teleport.com Fri Jan 22 23:53:21 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Chicken litter gasification
In-Reply-To: <199901230444.XAA21157@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <199901230454.UAA13424@mail.easystreet.com>

Paul,

In your area it's about 4700 Btu/lb. It's different there than in other areas
of the US.

If you have a gasifier, staged combustor or boiler than can burn the litter I
would be interested in hearing about it. We're looking at systems and
applications on Delmarva where litter can be used for energy.

Regards,

Tom Miles

At 10:44 PM 1/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
> Could you send me information as to the BTU utput of gasified checken litter
> with a moisture of between 25 to30% Thank you for your help. Paul G. Carey
> P.O.Box 457 Nassau, DE 9969-0457 ------extPart_000_0004_01BE4658.B45E5520--
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>
> <http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive>http://www.cres
> t.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

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

From rbaileys at prmenergy.com Sat Jan 23 13:46:01 1999
From: rbaileys at prmenergy.com (Ronald W. Bailey, Sr.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Chicken litter gasification
In-Reply-To: <199901230454.UAA13424@mail.easystreet.com>
Message-ID: <199901231846.NAA13124@solstice.crest.org>

Dear Tom:

Are you aware of the gasification of chicken litter by PRiMEnergy, Inc.
in the PRME gasifier along with the development of a potentially
marketable ash residue from chicken litter?

Regards,
Ron Bailey

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

From tmiles at teleport.com Sat Jan 23 14:24:07 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Chicken litter gasification
In-Reply-To: <199901230454.UAA13424@mail.easystreet.com>
Message-ID: <199901231925.LAA26471@mail.easystreet.com>

Ron,

I do know about the PrimEnergy testing which is well documented at their website and at the recent (October 1998) Bioenergy Meeting in Madison.

As you know poultry litter is not a friendly fuel. It presents interesting challenges, with high nitrogen and ash including high chlorine, high sulfur, high phosphorous, and high potassium.

We're always on the prowl for field experiences with poultry litter and alternative gasification or combustion systems that have the potential of handling difficult fuels. Some of these are: rotary kiln gasifiers, moving grate gasifiers and staged combustors, fixed and fluidized bed gasifiers and combustors.

Chlorine, at 1% of the fuel, is one of the big challenges. You can see severe chlorine damage in any of the manure combustors or gasifiers that have been tried in recent years.

If we can learn to handle poultry litter economically then we can learn to handle a variety of other residues.

Thanks,

Tom

At 01:46 PM 1/23/99 -0500, Ronald W. Bailey, Sr. wrote:
>Are you aware of the gasification of chicken litter by PRiMEnergy, Inc.
>in the PRME gasifier along with the development of a potentially
>marketable ash residue from chicken litter?
>
>Regards,
>Ron Bailey
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
T.R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
1470 SW Woodward Way http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles
Portland, OR 97225
Tel 503-292-0107 Fax 503-605-0208
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Sun Jan 24 20:16:13 1999
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: DURABOARD REFRACTORY
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199901250116250863@classic.msn.com>

Just shipped two of 5 units i am building. These have fireboxes with grates
that are 3'x3' and that is a lot of space for a max of 10hp, but, the big deal
here was that the customer wanted to use large fuel and charge every half
hour.
Most importantly, I used 'Duraboard' as a refractory. It was shielded with #9
expanded metal. Stainless would have been nice, but we decided to go the
sacrifical route. $40 replacement a year is reasonable. The duraboard is
only 1/2" thick too! I was going to use 1" but this seems to work ok. Code
boilers-(Hurst, Mr. Zebley) sit upon the fireboxes-or digesters as some of you
might call them and all is well.
Because of so much fire being available, we had steam in 15 mins from cold and
produced power in 20 mins. This was with garbage cedar wood.
Of note is that the fire became so intense due to the duraboard that once
established, we were throwing wet wood in with no problem. Flame height was
greatly reduced and smoke only occured during wet wood charges and not long at
that. BTW...there was no stack! The boiler draws well due to 2" tubes and
ash from 120 lbs of fuel amounted to what fit in a gallon jug. My customer
was one happy camper.
I am really sold on the Duraboard and my old favorite, 'Cerablanket'. The
duraboard was cut and fit, which saved a lot of time thought.
I still get a great catalytic reaction from the expanded metal over the board
and it stays red hot under all conditions. When the firebox was turned upside
down for shipping there was NO soot. Hospital clean.
Both units including the steam engine powered gensets (30volt, 300 amp) all
fit in a Ryder rental truck with plenty to spare which says a lot about
modular design.
summary:
If you are in the under 1000/lbs/hr catagory, small modular units with
large(fireboxes) that utilize large fuel(not hogged) are the way to go. The
less material handling the better.
Of note, maintaining 3' above the grate gives plenty of time for the
combustion to be completed, temps low, co low and makes for one happy boiler.
If you can live with a little priming, a 5 hp (40'sq) boiler (vft) will give a
lot more than 134 lbs/hr. In fact, 300 continuous is available as long as
water level is kept down. Those Hurst boilers live up to their rep all right!
final
The rest of the units will utilize a small refractored plenium to enhance
secondary combustion which was to be in the original design.

I'm back, Jack!

Skip
Sensible Steam
www.sensiblesteam.com

ps...moving to larger facility in Springfield, MO next month and will be open
to the public.

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

From efeve at telesat.com.co Mon Jan 25 00:50:09 1999
From: efeve at telesat.com.co (LUIS F. VILLEGAS)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: SMALL GAS ELECTRICITY GENERATORS
Message-ID: <199901250550.AAA08963@solstice.crest.org>

I got your e-mail out of a query in = Altavista.
I´m an entrepreneur looking for alternatives = to private and public big electricity suppliers. Since you were looking for the = same kind of information long before I´m doing, I guess you already know = what coul be interesting in the range of 50 - 100 KWA. I apreciate if you take a = time to answer this e-mail either you are willing to give me the information or = you can´t.
best regards.
nbsp; Luis F. Villegas.

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Mon Jan 25 01:33:11 1999
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: SMALL GAS ELECTRICITY GENERATORS
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199901250633130535@classic.msn.com>

i am already doing it.

please referr to my website at www.sensiblesteam.com for a start.

skip

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

From michael.schwerin at internetMCI.com Mon Jan 25 09:32:32 1999
From: michael.schwerin at internetMCI.com (Michael Schwerin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: SMALL GAS ELECTRICITY GENERATORS
Message-ID: <0F640013TDPRSX@PM01SM.PMM.CW.NET>

----------
> From: LUIS F. VILLEGAS <efeve@telesat.com.co>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: SMALL GAS ELECTRICITY GENERATORS
> Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 11:03 PM
>
I got your e-mail out of a query in Altavista.
I´m an entrepreneur looking for alternatives to private and public big
electricity suppliers. Since you were looking for the same kind of
information long before I´m doing, I guess you already know what coul be
interesting in the range of 50 - 100 KWA. I apreciate if you take a time to
answer this e-mail either you are willing to give me the information or you
can´t.
best regards.
Luis F. Villegas.

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

From donaldp at marick.u-net.com Tue Jan 26 06:10:30 1999
From: donaldp at marick.u-net.com (donaldp@marick.u-net.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:57 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Membership
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19990126111025.0079d680@mail.u-net.com>

Marick Gasification Ltd From : Donald C Patrick
3 Farndale Close Date : 25 January 1999
Whittle Hall Ref. DCP/RWL 1
Great Sankey
WARRINGTON WA5 3FX E-Mail: donaldp@marick.u-net.com
GREAT BRITAIN Tel. + 44 (0) 1925 - 71.11 55
FAX : + 44 (0) 1925 - 71.11 55

Biomass Gasification Consultants. Gas Engines & Gas GenSets.

Dear Sirs,
can you please enroll me as a member of your gasification group.

We are a small Company specialising in woody biomass gasification to
produce electricity with CHP.

Projects are on a turn-key basis and includes the reactor, all gas clean up
systems and filtration, including engine and heat recovery.

If I can be of any assistance please do not hesitate to ask.

Kind regards

Donald Patrick
End End

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

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Jan 26 09:47:00 1999
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:58 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Refractories and Insulation
Message-ID: <199901260947_MC2-680F-880D@compuserve.com>

Dear Happy Jack, Stoves and Gasificationl:

The message below indicates the sort of results one can achieve in stoves
and gasifiers with GOOD insulation. I occasionally preach here about using
good insulation. If it is important for large installations, it is VERY
important for small gasifiers and stoves where the surface/volume ratio can
be 10-100 times higher. My impression is that my message falls on deaf
ears.

1) Our terminology is too loose. The word "Refractory" means that the
material will stand up to high temperature, and usually means a ceramic.
There are two categories of refractory. Castable refractories and fire
bricks. They are physically strong, but not very good insulators.

2) The word "Insulation" means the thermal conductivity is very low.
Fibrous refractories in the form of blanket, board and riser sleeves. They
are made by spinning the alumino silicate material mullite, like making
cotton candy, except hotter. Each fiber intercepts radiation and returns
part of it to the source.

They are equally good at withstanding temperature, but not hard wear. They
can be "rigidized" with an amorphous silica spray. I have used rigidized
riser sleeves on my stoves for a decade and they seldom show wear.
However, I don't pound on them.

Checking my North American Combustion Handbook I find that the thermal
conductivity of Firebricks is 10-20 Btu-in/ft2-hr-F at 2000F. Ceramic
fibers and board run 1.5-2.5 of those things, an order of magnitude lower.
You can play an oxyacetylene flame on one side of a 1/2 " thick riser
sleeve and hold your finger on the opposite side for several minutes.

So for successful operation, insulate and rigidize. For mechanical abuse,
add bricks or castable.

Your pal, TOM
REED

Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>
Just shipped two of 5 units i am building. These have fireboxes with
grates
that are 3'x3' and that is a lot of space for a max of 10hp, but, the big
deal
here was that the customer wanted to use large fuel and charge every half
hour.
Most importantly, I used 'Duraboard' as a refractory. It was shielded with
#9
expanded metal. Stainless would have been nice, but we decided to go the
sacrifical route. $40 replacement a year is reasonable. The duraboard is
only 1/2" thick too! I was going to use 1" but this seems to work ok.
Code
boilers-(Hurst, Mr. Zebley) sit upon the fireboxes-or digesters as some of
you
might call them and all is well.
Because of so much fire being available, we had steam in 15 mins from cold
and
produced power in 20 mins. This was with garbage cedar wood.
Of note is that the fire became so intense due to the duraboard that once
established, we were throwing wet wood in with no problem. Flame height
was
greatly reduced and smoke only occured during wet wood charges and not long
at
that. BTW...there was no stack! The boiler draws well due to 2" tubes and

ash from 120 lbs of fuel amounted to what fit in a gallon jug. My customer

was one happy camper.
I am really sold on the Duraboard and my old favorite, 'Cerablanket'. The
duraboard was cut and fit, which saved a lot of time thought.
I still get a great catalytic reaction from the expanded metal over the
board
and it stays red hot under all conditions. When the firebox was turned
upside
down for shipping there was NO soot. Hospital clean.
Both units including the steam engine powered gensets (30volt, 300 amp) all

fit in a Ryder rental truck with plenty to spare which says a lot about
modular design.
summary:
If you are in the under 1000/lbs/hr catagory, small modular units with
large(fireboxes) that utilize large fuel(not hogged) are the way to go.
The
less material handling the better.
Of note, maintaining 3' above the grate gives plenty of time for the
combustion to be completed, temps low, co low and makes for one happy
boiler.
If you can live with a little priming, a 5 hp (40'sq) boiler (vft) will
give a
lot more than 134 lbs/hr. In fact, 300 continuous is available as long as
water level is kept down. Those Hurst boilers live up to their rep all
right!
final
The rest of the units will utilize a small refractored plenium to enhance
secondary combustion which was to be in the original design.

I'm back, Jack!

Skip
Sensible Steam
www.sensiblesteam.com

ps...moving to larger facility in Springfield, MO next month and will be
open
to the public.

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

From mlefcort at compuserve.com Tue Jan 26 10:39:54 1999
From: mlefcort at compuserve.com (Malcolm D. Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:58 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Refractories and Insulation
Message-ID: <199901261040_MC2-6809-5731@compuserve.com>

Tom,

Not trying to be a nit picker but there is a third form of refractory -
plastic refractory. Plastic refractory is somewhere between castable
refractory and brick refractory. You've already dealt with the
"fiberfrax" ceramic blanket materials with or without ridgidizers.

Castable refractory is a concrete-like material made by adding water to a
powder, pouring it into a mold and then carefully curing it, first at low
tempertures - to drive off the excess water and set up the hydraulic bond
- and then at higher temperatures - to set up the ceramic bond.

Brick refractory is brick. The ceramic bond has been established very
carefully in a brick kiln at the factory.

Plastic is an intermediate form of brick. It is a plastercine-like
material that comes
in about 12" by 12" slabs, 3" or 4" thick. Molds are not needed as for
castable. However the ceramic bond has not been set.

Plastic is usually used around openings in refractory walls and wherever
irregular sections of refractory have to be installed. The slabs of
plastic - or chunks of slabs - are pounded into place using hammers. Holes
are punched through the plastic with, typically, welding rods, to allow
moisture to escape during the cure. Following the cure schedule is
important to establish a good ceramic bond. This is important in areas of
high temperature, high velocity, products of combustion, such as chokes on
cyclonic combustors.

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

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Tue Jan 26 23:01:10 1999
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:58 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Refractories and Insulation
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199901270401310075@classic.msn.com>

One problem with that plastic refractory is that it is hard labor to work
with. Good stuff, but you need to be Arnold Schwarzennegger to work it!
skip

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

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Tue Jan 26 23:01:11 1999
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:58 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Refractories and Insulation
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199901270401290121@classic.msn.com>

Tom
You are definitely correct on all points about the 'obvious' reasons on the
refrac and ins.
however,
Please note that there is a strong catalytic reaction from the material when
it is covered with a web metal. The cera blanket shows the strongest. I
figure this is due to the thousands of 'hairs' that stick above the surface.
The dura board does the same, but not as pronounced.

I feel this is due to the co and air mixing within the surfaces themselves.
The fire, which is low intensity is several inches away and under normal
circumstances would never make the temps necessary to oxidize the co.
However, this is precisely what is going on. Evidenced by the fact that the
protective covering of expanded metal is glowing bright red and when the fire
is gone, there is not even the slightest scorch mark or soot anywhere.
This process could be exploited by say something of the order of taking a 6"
pipe, lining it with fluffed cerablanket that has had a bunch of the silicate
sprayed onto it. The raw gasses would then pass over it and either burn
cleanly or give off another type of gas.
At least it would be a cheap way to 'play'/.
skip

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

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

January 1999 Gasification Archive