March 1999 Gasification Archive

From Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz Mon Mar 1 13:05:18 1999
From: Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz (Anne & Dean)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:00 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BOUNCE gasification@crest.org: Admin request of type /^\s*which\s*$/i at line 7
Message-ID: <001a01be640d$ebeec9c0$566860cb@Dean-Anne.Corson>

Hi there again Art - What I was really trying to say when I said "not
necessarily the most economic" was give me ideas not economic sense, some
peoples vision these days are clouded by the dollar sign. Size reduction has
always been an option just though thier might have been a way I could have
avoided it. Thanks for the help.

Dean

-----Original Message-----
From: by way of Tom Miles <tmiles@teleport.com>
<owner-gasification@crest.org>
To: undisclosed-recipients:; <undisclosed-recipients:;>
Date: Monday, 1 March 1999 07:10
Subject: GAS-L: BOUNCE gasification@crest.org: Admin request of type
/^\s*which\s*$/i at line 7

>Approved: xerxe5
>From: "Art Krenzel" <phoenix@transport.com>
>To: <gasification@crest.org>
>Subject: Re: GAS-L: Carbonise Tree Trunks
>Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 22:03:15 -0800
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Priority: 3
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Hi Dean,
>
>
>> Hi Art - The tree trunks I have considered are in the order of at least 3
>> feet in diameter with length optional. What do you think of the idea of
>> drilling strategic holes around and down the length of the tree truck
>which
>> will expose the centre of the trunk and increase surface area?.
>
>What is the limit to size reduction if you are willing to drill enough
>holes to make swiss cheese out of the tree? A chainsaw is a pretty low
>tech size reduction machine - much less energy intensive than drilling a
>bunch of holes, no?
>I guess
>> splitting is an option, will inreacse surface area and make ease of
>> handling, thought on this?.
>
>The problems revolve around the exchange of time, temperature and thickness
>of the wood. If you have thick wood, it takes alot more time and a higher
>temperature to distill off the core products of decompostion than if the
>wood pieces are thinner. 3 ft tree trunks can be carbonized in several
>hours in an intense forest fire and might take days to weeks if the
>temperatures are not so intensive. What exchange of time and money are you
>willing to make to facilitate the formation of "large tree charcoal"?:)
>
>Where in the world are you proposing to accomplish this?
>
>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 REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Mar 2 10:20:31 1999
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Update- Carbonising Sawdust.
Message-ID: <199903021021_MC2-6C6C-6DF2@compuserve.com>

Dear Skip:

Depending on the temperature, limestone could be good or bad. It certainly
could contribute unwanted CO2. I never it tried it, so it is second hand
info. Let us know how it works.

TOM

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

From jphillips at alumni.stanford.org Thu Mar 4 10:05:04 1999
From: jphillips at alumni.stanford.org (Jeffrey N. Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 5 MW Biomass Gasification Cogen Plant in UK
Message-ID: <000201be664c$e3d9c500$da1f29d8@jnphatch.gis.net>

"Gasifiers",

I saw this short article in the Jan/Feb 1999 issue of Diesel & Gas Turbine
Worldwide:

****
Alstom has won a $4.1 million USD order to supply a Typhoon gas turbine
generating set and associated equipment for a new biomass gasification
cogeneration plant in Eggborough, South Yorkshire in the U.K. The gas
turbine will run on LCV gas produced primarily from forestry residue. The
gas will have an approximate heating value of 5.4 MJ/Nm3 and the Typhoon
will be rated at 4.73 MW at 10 deg. C. The plant is due to become operation
by November 1999.

****
Does anyone out there know more about this project? Who is supplying the
gasification technology? What sort of clean-up steps will the gas pass
through before it reaches the gas turbine? Who is putting up the money for
the project?

I just heard that the IGT Renugas bagasse IGCC in Hawaii is being torn down.
Ugh! Not a good message for the biomass gasification community. Let's hope
this project in Eggborough is more successful. Is there anything we can do
to make it so?

Also, while I'm on the subject of big biomass gasification power projects,
what's up with the Vermont project? The last word I heard (at the EPRI
Gasification Conference in Oct.) they were having lots of problems with
carryover of sand from the gasifier. This was slipping past the cyclone and
overwhelming the scrubber.

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

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

From JIRVING104 at aol.com Thu Mar 4 11:09:39 1999
From: JIRVING104 at aol.com (JIRVING104@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 5 MW Biomass Gasification Cogen Plant in UK
Message-ID: <d32a0fcf.36deb09a@aol.com>

I believe the project you're referring to is the Arbre Project, which is
sponsored by EU-Thermie. They are using TPS technology and last I heard was
scheduled for startup this year. It is 8 MWe, fueled by short rotation
forestry.

The Vermont Project is overcoming the startup problems but slowly. Sand
getting by the cyclones is still an issue, but manageable. Major improvements
were made in the last month or two in the fuel feed, sand circulation and
sludge areas. These are in the process of shakedown currently. One more
major upgrade is scheduled for April, where the product gas quench system will
be improved significantly.

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

From R.E.Sims at massey.ac.nz Thu Mar 4 14:18:09 1999
From: R.E.Sims at massey.ac.nz (Ralph Sims)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 5 MW Biomass Gasification Cogen Plant in UK
In-Reply-To: <000201be664c$e3d9c500$da1f29d8@jnphatch.gis.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19990305080730.0074aa30@mail.massey.ac.nz>

Jeff,

This is the Yorkshire Arbre project which is NFFO funded.

Last I heard it was intending to use an 8MW Swedish TPS gasifier.

John Buttle, Min of Energy laid the foundation stone some weeks ago after 3
or 4 years of planning and testing. Aim is to use willow feedstock from
short rotation coppice but it has not proved easy to encourage sufficient
farmers to plant so using mainly wood waste initially.

Ralph

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 phoenix at transport.com Thu Mar 4 23:36:03 1999
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 5 MW Biomass Gasification Cogen Plant in UK
Message-ID: <199903050438.UAA22306@s.transport.com>

Dear John:

> Subject: Re: GAS-L: 5 MW Biomass Gasification Cogen Plant in UK
> Date: Thursday, March 04, 1999 8:11 AM
>
> I believe the project you're referring to is the Arbre Project, which is
> sponsored by EU-Thermie. They are using TPS technology and last I heard
was
> scheduled for startup this year. It is 8 MWe, fueled by short rotation
> forestry.

Where can I learn more about TPS technology and what their success rates
have been like?

Thanks!

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

From jim.birse at dial.pipex.com Fri Mar 5 02:42:17 1999
From: jim.birse at dial.pipex.com (Jim Birse)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 5 MW Biomass Gasification Cogen Plant in UK
Message-ID: <002301be66db$933752e0$f86945c2@jims>

Dear Jeffrey,

Project ARBRE is indeed running on a TPS updraft gassifier that I beleive
has been well tested in Sweden.

Total power output is around 10 MWe with some power used on site in fuel
processing etc giving 8MWe DNC.

The project is owned by a partnership including TPS and Schal (spelling) of
the Netherlands but dominated by Yorshire Environmental, a subsidiary of
Yorkshire Water (the UK's largest[?] regional warter co. by area).

Until recently ARBRE had probelms recruiting farmers to grow SRC but recent
striling work by MAFF officials with the officials in Brussels has won equal
subsidy treatment for the crop along with an additional establishment grant
to help cover the initally high establishment (low volume, imature maket)
costs and to help oercome farmer resistance to a relatively untried crop (in
the UK). I belive a couple of hundred Hectares have been planted so far and
some 500 more will be planted this spring. In total I think they plan to
plant 2000 Ha. In the start up phase the plant will run on forestry
residues. The plant is now under construction ad (I think) will be
commissioned sometime in 2000.

For more information on this and two other bioenergy gasification plant beng
developed in the UK check out the MAFF web site:
www.maff.gov.uk/farm/acu/Acuren-4.htm

For other links to UK sites and listings of industry contacts in the UK have
a look at our web site. Please get in touch if you need more info on the UK
scene.

Best Regards,

Jim Birse

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey N. Phillips <jphillips@alumni.stanford.org>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: 04 March 1999 15:14
Subject: GAS-L: 5 MW Biomass Gasification Cogen Plant in UK

>"Gasifiers",
>
>I saw this short article in the Jan/Feb 1999 issue of Diesel & Gas Turbine
>Worldwide:
>
>****
>Alstom has won a $4.1 million USD order to supply a Typhoon gas turbine
>generating set and associated equipment for a new biomass gasification
>cogeneration plant in Eggborough, South Yorkshire in the U.K. The gas
>turbine will run on LCV gas produced primarily from forestry residue. The
>gas will have an approximate heating value of 5.4 MJ/Nm3 and the Typhoon
>will be rated at 4.73 MW at 10 deg. C. The plant is due to become
operation
>by November 1999.
>
>****
>Does anyone out there know more about this project? Who is supplying the
>gasification technology? What sort of clean-up steps will the gas pass
>through before it reaches the gas turbine? Who is putting up the money for
>the project?
>
>I just heard that the IGT Renugas bagasse IGCC in Hawaii is being torn
down.
>Ugh! Not a good message for the biomass gasification community. Let's
hope
>this project in Eggborough is more successful. Is there anything we can
do
>to make it so?
>
>Also, while I'm on the subject of big biomass gasification power projects,
>what's up with the Vermont project? The last word I heard (at the EPRI
>Gasification Conference in Oct.) they were having lots of problems with
>carryover of sand from the gasifier. This was slipping past the cyclone
and
>overwhelming the scrubber.
>
>Jeff Phillips
>Fern Engineering, Inc.
>P.O. Box 3380 / 55 Portside Drive
>Pocasset, MA 02559
>USA
>1-508-563-7181 (phone) 1-508-564-4851 (fax)
>www.capecod.net/ferneng
>
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

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

From Luiz-Carlos.deSousa at psi.ch Fri Mar 5 02:56:10 1999
From: Luiz-Carlos.deSousa at psi.ch (Luiz Carlos de Sousa)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 5 MW Biomass Gasification Cogen Plant in UK
In-Reply-To: <199903050438.UAA22306@s.transport.com>
Message-ID: <36DF8E7D.9B25AFC7@psi.ch>

Dear List

information on the ARBRE project can be found in the Internet at

http://www.arbre.co.uk/

Regards

Luiz de Sousa

begin:vcard
n:de Sousa;Luiz Carlos
tel;fax:+41 56 310 21 99
tel;work:+41 56 310 40 60
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.psi.ch
org:Paul Scherrer Institute;Element Cycles
adr:;;OLGA/215;Villigen - PSI;;CH-5232;Switzerland
version:2.1
email;internet:Luiz-Carlos.deSousa@psi.ch
x-mozilla-cpt:;-5408
fn:Luiz Carlos de Sousa
end:vcard

From a.i.vanberkel at mep.tno.nl Fri Mar 5 04:37:15 1999
From: a.i.vanberkel at mep.tno.nl (A.I. van Berkel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 5 MW Biomass Gasification Cogen Plant in UK
In-Reply-To: <002301be66db$933752e0$f86945c2@jims>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19990305103548.006b2cf4@fmt1>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19990305/8aac65d7/attachment.bin
From rolando at ket.kth.se Fri Mar 5 05:35:03 1999
From: rolando at ket.kth.se (Rolando Zanzi)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Olle_Lindstr=F6m_Symposium?=
Message-ID: <4.1.19990305113110.009368b0@kemitek.ket.kth.se>

The second call of the Symposium is now available on:
http://www.ket.kth.se/rolando/OLsymp/

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

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

If you are interested in present a paper , please, do not hesitate to
contact me (rolando@ket.kth.se).

Best regards

*****************************************
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 terrafuels at cwix.com Fri Mar 5 15:23:50 1999
From: terrafuels at cwix.com (Rick vonHuben)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Where is Int'l Enviroenergy?
Message-ID: <v01540b00b305df81c739@[166.62.38.145]>

I have not been able to find International Enviroenergy. The last time I
looked they were in Vancouver, BC, but they have moved, and without a
trace. Anyone know what the story is?

Rick vonHuben
terrafuels@cwix.com

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

From Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz Fri Mar 5 20:34:25 1999
From: Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz (Anne & Dean)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Charcoal Gasifier
Message-ID: <023501be6771$55c51fa0$656560cb@Dean-Anne.Corson>

Hi all - Does anyone have design specs of a simple, reliable, and low
maintenance charcoal fuelled gasifier, down draft or otherwise, which can be
scaled up or down? The feed will be chip or pelleted charcoal. No cleaning of
the gas product necessary, I do not think charcoal fed gasifiers have much of a
gas contamination problem anyway, do they?.
Any idea what the energy content of producer gas made from charcoal, say 10%
ash?
Thanks for your help
Regards
Dean

From costich at pacifier.com Fri Mar 5 22:01:31 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Charcoal Gasifier
Message-ID: <001601be677d$ef5bdb20$788c41d8@costich.pacifier.com>

Ann and Dean: The gasifier I have built
and operated for some years is appropriate for pyrolysing charcoal.

see <A
href="http://members.tripod.com/~costich">http://members.tripod.com/~costich
What do you think?
Contact Art Krenzel if you want impartial questions answered. thanks Dale

<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
-----Original Message---- Anne
& Dean <<A
href="mailto:Dean-Anne.Corson@xtra.co.nz">Dean-Anne.Corson@xtra.co.nz>To:
gasification@crest.org
<<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>Date:
Friday, March 05, 1999 5:38 PMSubject: GAS-L: Charcoal
Gasifier

Hi all - Does anyone have design specs of a simple, reliable, and low
maintenance charcoal fuelled gasifier, down draft or otherwise, which can be
scaled up or down? The feed will be chip or pelleted charcoal. No cleaning
of the gas product necessary, I do not think charcoal fed gasifiers have
much of a gas contamination problem anyway, do they?.
Any idea what the energy content of producer gas made from charcoal, say
10% ash?
Thanks for your help
Regards
Dean

From bpaulos at terracom.net Sun Mar 7 16:09:15 1999
From: bpaulos at terracom.net (Ben Paulos)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BioEnergy '98 web site updated
Message-ID: <199903072109.QAA10111@solstice.crest.org>

ANNOUNCEMENT
March 1, 1999

BIOENERGY '98 WEB SITE UPDATED (http://www.cglg.org/bioenergy98)

BioEnergy '98, the eighth biennial conference on biomass energy, took place
in Madison, Wisconsin, on October 4-8, 1998. The conference drew 500
participants from around the world, featured dozens of expert workshops and
tours, and produced 152 technical papers on a range of biomass energy topics.

The web site for the conference, www.cglg.org/bioenergy98, has now been
updated. The site includes:

- Abstracts and table of contents for all conference papers
- Audio recordings of speeches by DOE Assistant Secretary Dan Reicher and
R. James Woolsey, former director of the CIA
- Photos from the conference, the trade show and the tours
- The ability to order the conference proceedings online (on CD-ROM only)

The conference was hosted by the Great Lakes Regional Biomass Energy
Program, and sponsored by DOE's Office of Transportation Technologies,
DOE's Office of Utility Technologies, the Energy Center of Wisconsin, the
Wisconsin Energy Bureau, and others. For more information on the
conference and the web site, contact Fred Kuzel at the Great Lakes Regional
Biomass Energy Program, at 312-407-0177, or fkuzel@cglg.org.

Be sure to visit http://www.cglg.org/bioenergy98.

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

From JColqu at aol.com Sun Mar 7 16:09:22 1999
From: JColqu at aol.com (JColqu@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: wood spontaneous combustion
Message-ID: <cb26b5f8.36e02075@aol.com>

I am storing wood pellets in large volumes and have a concern
about the possibilities of self ignition. The pellets are stored in
warehouses having volumes of up to 30,000 m. tons and , for the
most part, the stock piles are stored at temperatures in the
magnitude of 15-35 degrees and for periods of up to 60 days. The
moisture content of the wood pellets is in the area of 6% to 8%.
The pellets are made from both sawdust and bark from soft wood
species.

Does anyone have any experience or opinions concerning the
possibilities that we might have a spontaneous ignition?

John Colquitt
jcolqu@aol.com

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

From heat-win at cwcom.net Sun Mar 7 16:09:20 1999
From: heat-win at cwcom.net (T J Stubbing)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 5 MW Biomass Gasification Cogen Plant in UK
Message-ID: <199903072109.QAA10136@solstice.crest.org>

Dear Jeff et al,

This is the Arbre project, see the following. I think one main
contractor is Schelde of The Netherlands but don't know whose gasifier
is being used.

Regards,

Thomas J Stubbing

THE TEXT OF THE FRONT PAGE FEATURE FROM THE DECEMBER 1998 ISSUE
OF 'BIOMASS FARMER & USER':
(Edited and published bi-monthly by George Macpherson of Home Grown
Energy, The Barton,
Laneast, Launceston, Cornwall PL15 8PN, UK,
Tel: +44 (0) 1566 86001, Fax: +44 (0) 1566 86013, E-mail:
gmacpherson@farmline.com)

"Bond ... Kevin Bond ... licensed to energise

Chief executive of Yorkshire Water, Dr Kevin Bond, galvanised the
British BioGen annual
conference by throwing down the gauntlet to other major UK companies to
‘put the biomass show
on the road'.
Kcvin Bond instilled hope into well-over-a-hundrcd members of the UK
biomass industry with his
stirring speech at Newbury Racecourse last month. First, however, he
challenged British Biogen
members.
“If we in the UK biomass industry want to be commercial we have to
fundamentally change the
way we do business." he said. It was no good mincing about on the
margins of big business. We
have to think big to get big.
“Yorkshire Watcr is no newcomer to renewable energy. We have a track
record. We have three
windpower uniits. A waste-to-encrgy. plant at Nottingham: we have two
landfill plants up and
running and five more coming: we have a sludge digestion energy
production unit. In total some
fifteen percent of Yorkshire Water's power is from renewable resources.”

"We have the ARBRE project. the first willow-fuellcd power station of
its kind in Europe. Despite
all that, we have been unable to raise money in the City because we have
'no track record'!"
If this industry is to take off we MUST have large players getting
involved!" By this he meant
companies that could afford to invest their own money without having to
convince bankers of its
security; companies whosc very name inspired confidence.
“The potential is enormous." he said. “There could be a huge
non-food crop serving high market
demand with additional ecological benefits. It feels right and
politicians love it!"
"Within Europe there is the driver that CO2 emission reduction of
eight per cent has been agreed
at Kyoto. Biomass energy would increase the use of home-produccd fuels

throughout the Union. It
would reduce dependence on fossil fuel imports and it would make use of
surplus farmland."
Dr Bond predicted that by 2020 energy crops would provide 31% of
Europe’s energy. Farm and
other residues would produce 15%, town waste 25%, hydro-power 13%, wind
power 4%,
photovoltaics 4% and other sources 7%.
“It would be criminal for Government to miss this opportunity.” He
acknowledged that for
ARBRE the EU, the DTI and MAFF had all been very helpful in its
establishment.. But what was
now needed was two or three other ‘large corporates’ to be given a
one-GigaWatt NFFO
contract. That would set everything going. If necessary, NFFO should
be changed to
accommodate such a contract. Then he threw down his challenge.
“I challenge Shell and other big companies to get off their backsides
and set this industry in
motion! We at Yorkshire Water are going to make money out of biomass
energy. It has good
customer perception. We have support from the farming community and the
public and it gives us a
good recycling outlet for our waste product.
What’s more we are able to use skills that most major companies know
well - like getting
planning permission, preparing contracts and obtaining finance. This is
a real business opportunity
and a real push is needed now!”
“The target of 1,000 MW by 2010 will need £1.5-£2bn of new
investment by UK industry. It
will provide opportunities for agriculture, developers, financiers,
construction companies and
suppliers - and thousands of jobs, many of which are in the
countryside.”
He said the methodology for such development was all in place. It
had been checked out by the
Swedish ‘Natural Step’ movement (chaired by Sweden’s King). Whereas
technologies such as
photovoltaic energy production had proved to have major problems with
use of metals, for example,
biomass energy carried no such snags.
“But scale of operation is very, very important. Huge power
stations bring huge transport
problems - the scale needed is that of the ‘embedded’ notion of energy
production. It will require
a whole new supply chain for home use and will provide many
opportunities for exporting such
technlogy and systems.”
He said that the first ARBRE power station needs 2000ha of willow.
It also hopes to bring in
several more units by 2008.
“Now is the time to make the commitment. We have made that
commitment. We shall replicate
the 35-40MW plants to obtain the required efficiency and profit levels.
We are looking for sites
around the UK, suitable for fuel and transport.”
He called on Government and OFFER to “give us the scale and we can
get the price of electricity
right down. You cannot do that with a one-off power station - we must
have several.”
Contact the ARBRE project on
+44 (0) 113 231 2248
or fax +44 (0) 113 231 2707"

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Mar 7 16:09:23 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Charcoal Gasifier
Message-ID: <d4a2606.36e26f87@cs.com>

Dear Dean-Anne et al:

Interesting question. Charcoal gasification was the preferred mode for engine
operation in the 1930s, but, because of the low energy recovery (30%) in
making charcoal, gasification switched to wood as soon as reliable wood
gasifiers developed. So there isn't much written on charcoal gasification.

I believe that gasifiers suitable for wood/biomass can be used with charcoal
and don't require the cleanup train. Also I believe that the charcoal
producer gas energy is somewhat lower, say 4.0-4.5 MW/Nm3 rather than the
4.5-5.0 MW/Nm3 for "producer gas from biomass. However, I hope that someone
with more exact knowledge will inform us about charcoal producer gas, and I'll
keep my eyes open.

I don't think that the ash content of the charcoal affects the energy content
of the gas.

Tentative for now.... TOM REED

In a message dated 3/5/99 6:39:39 PM Mountain Standard Time, Dean-
Anne.Corson@xtra.co.nz
writes:

<<
Hi all - Does anyone have design specs of a simple, reliable, and low
maintenance charcoal fuelled gasifier, down draft or otherwise, which can be
scaled up or down? The feed will be chip or pelleted charcoal. No cleaning of
the gas product necessary, I do not think charcoal fed gasifiers have much of
a gas contamination problem anyway, do they?.
Any idea what the energy content of producer gas made from charcoal, say 10%
ash?
Thanks for your help
Regards
Dean >>

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

From yanjy at ket.kth.se Mon Mar 8 08:01:46 1999
From: yanjy at ket.kth.se (J. Yan)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 5 MW Biomass Gasification Cogen Plant in UK
In-Reply-To: <199903072109.QAA10136@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <5698BD1142@kemitek.ket.kth.se>

The developer of gasifier is Swedish company TPS. see http://www.tps.se/

Jinyue Yan

At 16:09 1999-03-07 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Jeff et al,
>
>This is the Arbre project, see the following. I think one main
>contractor is Schelde of The Netherlands but don't know whose gasifier
>is being used.
>
>Regards,
>
>Thomas J Stubbing
>
>THE TEXT OF THE FRONT PAGE FEATURE FROM THE DECEMBER 1998 ISSUE
>OF 'BIOMASS FARMER & USER':
> (Edited and published bi-monthly by George Macpherson of Home Grown
>Energy, The Barton,
> Laneast, Launceston, Cornwall PL15 8PN, UK,
> Tel: +44 (0) 1566 86001, Fax: +44 (0) 1566 86013, E-mail:
>gmacpherson@farmline.com)
>
> "Bond ... Kevin Bond ... licensed to energise
>
> Chief executive of Yorkshire Water, Dr Kevin Bond, galvanised the
>British BioGen annual
>conference by throwing down the gauntlet to other major UK companies to
>‘put the biomass show
>on the road'.
> Kcvin Bond instilled hope into well-over-a-hundrcd members of the UK
>biomass industry with his
>stirring speech at Newbury Racecourse last month. First, however, he
>challenged British Biogen
>members.
> “If we in the UK biomass industry want to be commercial we have to
>fundamentally change the
>way we do business." he said. It was no good mincing about on the
>margins of big business. We
>have to think big to get big.
> “Yorkshire Watcr is no newcomer to renewable energy. We have a track
>record. We have three
>windpower uniits. A waste-to-encrgy. plant at Nottingham: we have two
>landfill plants up and
>running and five more coming: we have a sludge digestion energy
>production unit. In total some
>fifteen percent of Yorkshire Water's power is from renewable resources.”
>
> "We have the ARBRE project. the first willow-fuellcd power station of
>its kind in Europe. Despite
>all that, we have been unable to raise money in the City because we have
>'no track record'!"
> If this industry is to take off we MUST have large players getting
>involved!" By this he meant
>companies that could afford to invest their own money without having to
>convince bankers of its
>security; companies whosc very name inspired confidence.
> “The potential is enormous." he said. “There could be a huge
>non-food crop serving high market
>demand with additional ecological benefits. It feels right and
>politicians love it!"
> "Within Europe there is the driver that CO2 emission reduction of
>eight per cent has been agreed
>at Kyoto. Biomass energy would increase the use of home-produccd fuels
>
>throughout the Union. It
>would reduce dependence on fossil fuel imports and it would make use of
>surplus farmland."
> Dr Bond predicted that by 2020 energy crops would provide 31% of
>Europe’s energy. Farm and
>other residues would produce 15%, town waste 25%, hydro-power 13%, wind
>power 4%,
>photovoltaics 4% and other sources 7%.
> “It would be criminal for Government to miss this opportunity.” He
>acknowledged that for
>ARBRE the EU, the DTI and MAFF had all been very helpful in its
>establishment.. But what was
>now needed was two or three other ‘large corporates’ to be given a
>one-GigaWatt NFFO

>contract. That would set everything going. If necessary, NFFO should
>be changed to
>accommodate such a contract. Then he threw down his challenge.
> “I challenge Shell and other big companies to get off their backsides
>and set this industry in
>motion! We at Yorkshire Water are going to make money out of biomass
>energy. It has good
>customer perception. We have support from the farming community and the
>public and it gives us a
>good recycling outlet for our waste product.
> What’s more we are able to use skills that most major companies know
>well - like getting
>planning permission, preparing contracts and obtaining finance. This is
>a real business opportunity
>and a real push is needed now!”
> “The target of 1,000 MW by 2010 will need £1.5-£2bn of new
>investment by UK industry. It
>will provide opportunities for agriculture, developers, financiers,
>construction companies and
>suppliers - and thousands of jobs, many of which are in the
>countryside.”
> He said the methodology for such development was all in place. It
>had been checked out by the
>Swedish ‘Natural Step’ movement (chaired by Sweden’s King). Whereas
>technologies such as
>photovoltaic energy production had proved to have major problems with
>use of metals, for example,
>biomass energy carried no such snags.
> “But scale of operation is very, very important. Huge power
>stations bring huge transport
>problems - the scale needed is that of the ‘embedded’ notion of energy
>production. It will require
>a whole new supply chain for home use and will provide many
>opportunities for exporting such
>technlogy and systems.”
> He said that the first ARBRE power station needs 2000ha of willow.
>It also hopes to bring in
>several more units by 2008.
> “Now is the time to make the commitment. We have made that
>commitment. We shall replicate
>the 35-40MW plants to obtain the required efficiency and profit levels.
>We are looking for sites
>around the UK, suitable for fuel and transport.”
> He called on Government and OFFER to “give us the scale and we can
>get the price of electricity
>right down. You cannot do that with a one-off power station - we must
>have several.”
> Contact the ARBRE project on
> +44 (0) 113 231 2248
> or fax +44 (0) 113 231 2707"
>
>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 JIRVING104 at aol.com Mon Mar 8 08:48:01 1999
From: JIRVING104 at aol.com (JIRVING104@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: wood spontaneous combustion
Message-ID: <d337daa8.36e3d570@aol.com>

We have had experience with spontaneous combustion storing wood chips, but
only with higher moisture content,(+40%), and for storage time exceeding 4
months. We limit the height of stored wood to 35 ft and configure the storage
piles to allow the dissipation of heat. I doubt you'll have a problem with
the moisture content and storage duration you are talking about. John Irving
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu Mon Mar 8 09:48:48 1999
From: dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: wood spontaneous combustion
Message-ID: <601A55066596D211A7AD00104BC6FB250732D6@catalina.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

Based on my experience I would say you have nothing to worry about. 6 to 8%
moisture is very low and unlikely to cause any problems. At one time I had
at least 50 tons of pellets sitting around for about 8 months in covered
storage in a high humidity climate - North Carolina. I've seen spontaneous
combustion problems first hand, at farms when bailing hay that was too wet.
Spontaneous combustion is always a concern and should not be ignored.
Ignition temperature for wood is 523°F. A good safeguard is to monitor the
temperature of your storage piles. With coal it is recommended to move the
pile once a temperature of 120°F is reached.

I don't have documented rules of thumb for wood, but here are some things to
think about. In the case of small farms spontaneous combustion usually
results in the loss of the barn - so if you can manage your wood storage
with fire protection in mind you could eliminate the loss of major
structures or equipment. To prevent combustion 3 things need to be
minimized, 1. heat, 2. oxygen, and 3. fuel.
Respectively:
1. Good drying prior to storage - in your case 6 - 8% is great. Ventilation
can remove heat, but also bring oxygen to the fuel so be careful.
2. Densification and packed storage eliminates oxygen - in your case the
pellets are densified already you only need to worry about the loose
material.
3. Smaller dispersed storage piles will minimize the amount of fuel put at
risk.

-----Original Message-----
From: JColqu@aol.com [mailto:JColqu@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 12:21 PM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: wood spontaneous combustion

I am storing wood pellets in large volumes and have a concern
about the possibilities of self ignition. The pellets are stored
in
warehouses having volumes of up to 30,000 m. tons and , for the
most part, the stock piles are stored at temperatures in the
magnitude of 15-35 degrees and for periods of up to 60 days. The
moisture content of the wood pellets is in the area of 6% to
8%.
The pellets are made from both sawdust and bark from soft wood
species.

Does anyone have any experience or opinions concerning the
possibilities that we might have a spontaneous ignition?

John Colquitt
jcolqu@aol.com

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

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Mon Mar 8 12:59:20 1999
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Canadian gasification query
Message-ID: <000801be698c$c2269940$6ee637d2@graeme>

Canadian Gasification

Can anyone provide an update on state funded gasification projects in
Canada. I seem to recall that I have read a report stating that updraught
gasification has been specifically excluded where the project objectives is
to fuel engines for power generation. If anyone can throw any light on this
I would be extremely grateful.

Doug Williams.
Fluidyne.

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

From bedwards at iastate.edu Mon Mar 8 15:14:02 1999
From: bedwards at iastate.edu (William A. Edwards)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Charcoal Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <d4a2606.36e26f87@cs.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990308141956.006de450@pop-3.iastate.edu>

At 07:22 AM 3/7/99 EST, you wrote:
>Dear Dean-Anne et al:
>
>Interesting question. Charcoal gasification was the preferred mode for
engine
>operation in the 1930s, but, because of the low energy recovery (30%) in
>making charcoal, gasification switched to wood as soon as reliable wood
>gasifiers developed. So there isn't much written on charcoal gasification.
>
>I believe that gasifiers suitable for wood/biomass can be used with charcoal
>and don't require the cleanup train.

Tom,
Won't ash particulates entrained in the gas stream still need to be
removed? Granted this is easier than tar removal.
??
Bill

> Also I believe that the charcoal
>producer gas energy is somewhat lower, say 4.0-4.5 MW/Nm3 rather than the
>4.5-5.0 MW/Nm3 for "producer gas from biomass. However, I hope that someone
>with more exact knowledge will inform us about charcoal producer gas, and
I'll
>keep my eyes open.
>
>I don't think that the ash content of the charcoal affects the energy content
>of the gas.
>
>Tentative for now.... TOM REED
>
>
>
>
>In a message dated 3/5/99 6:39:39 PM Mountain Standard Time, Dean-
>Anne.Corson@xtra.co.nz
>writes:
>
><<
>Hi all - Does anyone have design specs of a simple, reliable, and low
>maintenance charcoal fuelled gasifier, down draft or otherwise, which can be
>scaled up or down? The feed will be chip or pelleted charcoal. No cleaning of
>the gas product necessary, I do not think charcoal fed gasifiers have much of
>a gas contamination problem anyway, do they?.
>Any idea what the energy content of producer gas made from charcoal, say 10%
>ash?
>Thanks for your help
>Regards
>Dean >>
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Mar 9 10:26:13 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Charcoal Gasifier
Message-ID: <3a0dc93c.36e5298b@cs.com>

Dear Dean-Anne et al:

I don't think that the ash content of the charcoal affects the energy content
of the gas.

Tentative for now.... TOM REED

In a message dated 3/5/99 6:39:39 PM Mountain Standard Time, Dean-
Anne.Corson@xtra.co.nz
writes:

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

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Tue Mar 9 10:26:12 1999
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Old article for home scale gasification
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199903090649410244@classic.msn.com>

Backwoods Home magazine has now posted one of my old articles on steam. You
may notice that in the drawing(which they redrew and missed a few points) I
use a gasifier, which was based on the one I got the plans from Mother Earth
News.
Yes, it does work.
No, it is not easy or practical!
................but it is fun.
See it at: http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/goebel43.html

Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam
"...forget what your mother told you-there is no shame in playing with
fire."

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

From edavis at energyint.com Tue Mar 9 19:56:46 1999
From: edavis at energyint.com (Eric Davis)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification model
Message-ID: <01BE6A4D.EC5593D0@energy4.energyint.com>

I am working on modeling the pyrolysis and microwave gasification of sewage sludge. Does anybody know of a publicly (or commercially) available computer code that models pyrolysis, gasification chemistry, mass flow and heat transfer? I am envisioning some sort of system of plug flow reactors that include surface chemistry (any experience with "Surface CHEMKIN III"?) and a heat transfer model. If I can not find a "canned" code, I hope to develop one based on previous experience modeling combustion with systems of PFRs.

Does anyone have any experience in gasification and/or pyrolysis modeling they would like to share?

Thanks.

Eric Davis
Research Engineer
Energy International, Inc.
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From costich at pacifier.com Tue Mar 9 19:58:09 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Charcoal Gasifier
Message-ID: <000b01be6a91$63cc7b20$028d41d8@costich.pacifier.com>

Good day: I attempted to answer on a previous occasion-- please see
http://members.tripod.com/~costich
my gasifier must first reduce bone dry wood blocks to charcoal then it will
make gas of high enough calorific content to fuel an internal combustion
engine. After a cooling down to 60 to 70 F which densifies the fuel gas its
ready to burn--but the fuel is thin so don't expect your Vette turn a 6
second quarter mile on it. Think of it like old wine or a good Cuban
cigar-enjoy it over a longer period of time. Sincerely, Dale Costich

-----Original Message-----
From: Reedtb2@cs.com <Reedtb2@cs.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 7:31 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Charcoal Gasifier

>Dear Dean-Anne et al:
>
>Interesting question. Charcoal gasification was the preferred mode for
engine
>operation in the 1930s, but, because of the low energy recovery (30%) in
>making charcoal, gasification switched to wood as soon as reliable wood
>gasifiers developed. So there isn't much written on charcoal gasification.
>
>I believe that gasifiers suitable for wood/biomass can be used with
charcoal
>and don't require the cleanup train. Also I believe that the charcoal
>producer gas energy is somewhat lower, say 4.0-4.5 MW/Nm3 rather than the
>4.5-5.0 MW/Nm3 for "producer gas from biomass. However, I hope that
someone
>with more exact knowledge will inform us about charcoal producer gas, and
I'll
>keep my eyes open.
>
>I don't think that the ash content of the charcoal affects the energy
content
>of the gas.
>
>Tentative for now.... TOM REED
>
>
>
>
>In a message dated 3/5/99 6:39:39 PM Mountain Standard Time, Dean-
>Anne.Corson@xtra.co.nz
>writes:
>
><<
>Hi all - Does anyone have design specs of a simple, reliable, and low
>maintenance charcoal fuelled gasifier, down draft or otherwise, which can
be
>scaled up or down? The feed will be chip or pelleted charcoal. No cleaning
of
>the gas product necessary, I do not think charcoal fed gasifiers have much
of
>a gas contamination problem anyway, do they?.
>Any idea what the energy content of producer gas made from charcoal, say
10%
>ash?
>Thanks for your help
>Regards
>Dean >>
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

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

From snkm at btl.net Wed Mar 10 07:12:02 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Super Critical Devices
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990309231826.00707588@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Folks;

Peter Singfield here -- from Belize in Central America.

In the mid 1970's I was working in supercritical steam/water. Pressures up
to 15,000 PSI. I developed the containment vessels, the valving, injection
system, etc.

All this in relation to making "steam" explosions for Siesmic exploration
in deep ocean.
My question to the list is this. A mental engineering exercise.

If I take a wet cellulose -- put it into a reaction chamber,
instantaneously heat it to it's prolysis temperature, hold it under any
pressure require at any temperature (for example -- water heated from 85 F.
to 550 F wants to increase it's volume by (all roughly folks!!) 1/3 and to
resist this a pressure of 15,000 PSI is required. Supercritical state being
a function of pressure as well as temperature.

The valving I designed at that time could release any amount of steam in a
couple of milliseconds (a steam gun) at pressures beyond 20,000 PSI.

The reaction chamber would contain wet cellulose. This dried in seconds
once steam "shot" is applied. The reaction chamber would very quickly
complete the pyrolysis of the cellulose.

What would the flow of gasses be formed like in this case?? The 40%
humidity (this example) would be very quickly converted to steam. This
would be condensed at the top of the reaction cylinder. Once this drying is
accomplished, cellulose temperatures, in contact with the super critical
H2O, would quickly reach pyrolysis temperatures. Now would come the next
class of gas, to also be condensed. Call this "wood gas"?? Now the
pyrolysis, mostly carbon residue, would be gasified -- this gas also
condensing. (We are talking pressures beyond 15,000 PSI if needed!)

The condenser is at one end of the reaction. This means a flow of fresh
steam to this reaction chamber to maintain pressure and temperature That is
a flow can be established through the media to be gasified by repetitious
shots from the steam gun. And pressure/temperature required could be easily
maintained by controlling steam shot and condenser capacities. Dial in
whatever you need. As much water vapor as required could be added. The high
pressures in the condenser would liquify the gasses produced. This could be
"distilled" to low pressure, separating each component. Such as water and
tar. Wasted heat from the condenser would be sufficient to supply most of
the process control power required.

Think of a number of the cylinders -- like a revolver gun -- being charged
and discharged, producing a liquid gas "spurt" into a reservoir -- that can
be easily "distilled" at controlled rates to give a steady output of clean
gas.

I have the technology to do this. Would it be worth while trying?? It seems
to solve a lot of your problems. No need for a fluidized bed to increase
thermal conductivity. Plenty of violent activity -- items such a wood chips
would not have to be dried, pyrolyzed, and crushed/ground before being
presented to the gasifier. The "sonic" effect is extremely powerful -- in
this pulsating, high temperature -- reaction chamber -- never mind the
"muzzle" blast as the "charge" of cellulose slides down to meet the gun
exhaust port.

The gas produced is extremely clean.

At this Url you'll see a patent for a stream gun by Peter Singfield.

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

By from sunny Belize -- where we produce 300,000 tons of bagasse per year
and don't know what to do with it. Maybe steam blast gasification??

Sorry to have made such a long message.

Peter

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Mar 10 11:27:05 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: PRODUCER GAS
Message-ID: <b82c3ba7.36e69db5@cs.com>

Gasification, esp Robb and Art:

While searching for an answer to the question on charcoal gasification, I came
across the following:

"Producer-gas Technolog for Rural Applications", by Ibarra E. Cruz, FAO
Agricultural Services Bulletin #61, Rome 1985. (FAO bulletins are available
through FAO sales agents or directly from distribution and sales, FAO, Via
delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy.) I'm planning to re-read this
book in the next couple of days.

Robb and I had lunch with Cruz in Manilla last November. A very knowledgable
and charming guy, probably still interested in all aspects of gasification. I
wish he would write a sequel to the above telling us why the Philippines
aren't the #1 country in gasification in the world, after all their effort in
the mid 1980s. Or maybe Ali Kaupp can tell us.

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

From Robbcpc at aol.com Wed Mar 10 12:19:24 1999
From: Robbcpc at aol.com (Robbcpc@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: PRODUCER GAS
Message-ID: <35c18bd4.36e6aa03@aol.com>

Tom,

Thanks for the info re Dr. Cruz's publication. Art and I met with him in
Manila. He is working on a USAID funded survey to identify the
electrification status of all barangays in the Philippines.

Do you have a copy of his publication?
Robb

See you Thursday morning at 10.
Robb
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Wed Mar 10 15:24:24 1999
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (William B. Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Rules-o'-thumb.
Message-ID: <000b01be6b3c$e889b020$e4f346cf@newmicronpc>

To: Anybody busy in biomass
power.

I'm interested in the range of variation in
anybody's different "rule of thumb" for electricity production from
biomass in general: kWh/kg. What do you use (Without specific
calculations) and for what specific systems?

Thanks.
<FONT color=#000000
size=2>
W.B.Hauserman

From dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu Wed Mar 10 16:36:29 1999
From: dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Rules-o'-thumb.
Message-ID: <601A55066596D211A7AD00104BC6FB250732E0@catalina.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

Approx. 1.0 kWh/kg Wood gasification to IC engine - 2000lb/hr wood at 10%
moisture.

Did you used to work at the EERC?

-----Original Message-----
From: William B. Hauserman [mailto:hauserman@corpcomm.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 3:28 PM
To: GAS-L
Subject: GAS-L: Rules-o'-thumb.

To: Anybody busy in biomass power.

I'm interested in the range of variation in anybody's different "rule of
thumb" for electricity production from biomass in general: kWh/kg. What do
you use (Without specific calculations) and for what specific systems?
Thanks.
W.B.Hauserman

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

From paisley at BATTELLE.ORG Thu Mar 11 08:51:09 1999
From: paisley at BATTELLE.ORG (Paisley, Mark A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification model
Message-ID: <11C72E011E30D111B13D00A0C98439DF80AFF6@ns-bco-mse5.im.battelle.org>

There is a doctoral thesis by Robert Manuring, Design and Modeling of a
Novel Continuous Open Core Downdraft Rice Husk Gasifier" 1994. University
of Groningen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Davis [SMTP:edavis@energyint.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 7:58 PM
> To: 'gasification@crest.org'
> Subject: GAS-L: gasification model
>
> I am working on modeling the pyrolysis and microwave gasification of
> sewage sludge. Does anybody know of a publicly (or commercially)
> available computer code that models pyrolysis, gasification chemistry,
> mass flow and heat transfer? I am envisioning some sort of system of plug
> flow reactors that include surface chemistry (any experience with "Surface
> CHEMKIN III"?) and a heat transfer model. If I can not find a "canned"
> code, I hope to develop one based on previous experience modeling
> combustion with systems of PFRs.
>
> Does anyone have any experience in gasification and/or pyrolysis modeling
> they would like to share?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Eric Davis
> Research Engineer
> Energy International, Inc.
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Thu Mar 11 20:54:56 1999
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (William B. Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Search.
Message-ID: <004e01be6c34$4c847180$e3f346cf@newmicronpc>

To: Professor Mukunda, Bangalore,
India.

I believe you're on this
list. I need to contact you, semi-urgently. I cannot make a connection
with your new e-mall address and, in the course of moving, have lost your FAX
number. So -- if you see this, please contact me:

Bohut
dhanyabad!
<FONT color=#000000
size=2>
<A
href="mailto:hauserman@corpcomm.net">hauserman@corpcomm.net

From iti at connect-2.co.uk Fri Mar 12 07:43:24 1999
From: iti at connect-2.co.uk (ITI)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Search for Pelletising Plants.
Message-ID: <003801be6c85$a14a3dc0$0101a8c0@ian>

>Jim Dunham
>Environmental Engineering Corp
>Kansas City, MO
>815-452-3500 fax-452-6663

Dear Jim,

I have been trying to get in touch with you to obtain more information about
your briquetting plants, but was unable to contact you at the fax number
given above (which was sourced from the Gas List on 27th February).

My particular interest is in sourcing a briquetting machine which would be
capable of processing around 500 kg/hour maximum of MDF board dust (all
finer than 1mm seive). The finished product would need to be solid enough
to maintain its integrity both during handling and combustion. I am
picturing a pellet size of around 50mm diameter by 100mm long.

We have been able to conduct some small-scale experiments at the local
university in Belfast, so we know that the material will pelletise given
sufficient temperature and pressure.

Perhaps you could offer me some alternative contacts if your own machinery
does not fulfil these criteria.

Hoping to hear from you shortly,

Brian Russell.

Innovation Technologies (Ireland) Ltd.
fax +44 1960 378039
email iti@connect-2.co.uk

I would also of course be interested in receiving information from any other
potential suppliers who happen to receive mail from the Gas List Archive.

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

From terrafuels at cwix.com Fri Mar 12 08:26:22 1999
From: terrafuels at cwix.com (Rick vonHuben)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Scale-up
Message-ID: <v01540b04b30eb707838d@[206.24.136.237]>

If I have a design for a fluidized bed gasifier that needs to be scaled up
to double its current capacity, how does the vessel change? Do you double
the diameter? Any general rule-of -thumb would be appreciated.

Thanks

Rick vonHuben
TerraFuels, Inc
terrafuels@cwix.com

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

From costaeec at kcnet.com Fri Mar 12 10:16:02 1999
From: costaeec at kcnet.com (Jim Dunham)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Search for Pelletising Plants.
Message-ID: <000e01be6ca1$5abca700$bc64f0d1@default>

Brian, Sorry for the lack of response. I just returned from long trip, and
have many inquiries to acknowledge. Fax is working fine and that is right
number.
Yes we have high density briquetters of your exact description. They work
with virtually any reasonably dry biomass material. I will fax basic
materials to your number and await your response. (also have a good used
one)

Best regards,

Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: ITI <iti@connect-2.co.uk>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Cc: Sam McCrea <info@sammouldings.co.uk>
Date: Friday, March 12, 1999 5:48 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Search for Pelletising Plants.

>>Jim Dunham
>>Environmental Engineering Corp
>>Kansas City, MO
>>815-452-3500 fax-452-6663
>
>Dear Jim,
>
>I have been trying to get in touch with you to obtain more information
about
>your briquetting plants, but was unable to contact you at the fax number
>given above (which was sourced from the Gas List on 27th February).
>
>My particular interest is in sourcing a briquetting machine which would be
>capable of processing around 500 kg/hour maximum of MDF board dust (all
>finer than 1mm seive). The finished product would need to be solid enough
>to maintain its integrity both during handling and combustion. I am
>picturing a pellet size of around 50mm diameter by 100mm long.
>
>We have been able to conduct some small-scale experiments at the local
>university in Belfast, so we know that the material will pelletise given
>sufficient temperature and pressure.
>
>Perhaps you could offer me some alternative contacts if your own machinery
>does not fulfil these criteria.
>
>Hoping to hear from you shortly,
>
>
>Brian Russell.
>
>
>Innovation Technologies (Ireland) Ltd.
> fax +44 1960 378039
> email iti@connect-2.co.uk
>
>
>I would also of course be interested in receiving information from any
other
>potential suppliers who happen to receive mail from the Gas List Archive.
>
>
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Mar 12 15:48:00 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: PRODUCER GAS
Message-ID: <d09d671c.36e97de0@cs.com>

I do in fact have one copy. You are welcome to borrow BUT I don't want to
lose it. Why not order one for the CORPORATE library?? Or TWO?

TOM
<<
Tom,

Thanks for the info re Dr. Cruz's publication. Art and I met with him in
Manila. He is working on a USAID funded survey to identify the
electrification status of all barangays in the Philippines.

Do you have a copy of his publication?
Robb

See you Thursday morning at 10.
Robb >>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From Robbcpc at aol.com Fri Mar 12 17:21:04 1999
From: Robbcpc at aol.com (Robbcpc@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:01 2004
Subject: GAS-L: PRODUCER GAS
Message-ID: <73ef6ca.36e993ab@aol.com>

Yes. We need to order one. The next time I have the honor of visiting the
Reed Laboratory, I would like to peruse your copy of Dr. Cruz's publication.
Thanks
Robb
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From james at sri.org.au Sat Mar 13 00:57:37 1999
From: james at sri.org.au (James Joyce)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Scale-up
Message-ID: <19990313160003james@jj_lap.sri.org.au>

Rick if you want to double the thermal output then roughly speaking you
need to double the cross sectional area of the gasifier (ie. increase
the diameter by 1.41 (the square root of 2, area is proportional to
diameter squared).

Watch out for your fludising gas distribution ... it gets more
difficult to evenly fludise a bed as the diameter gets larger. This can
mean hot spots which cause fuel agglomeration which eventually lead to
the loss of fluidisation.

> If I have a design for a fluidized bed gasifier that needs to be
> scaled up to double its current capacity, how does the vessel
> change? Do you double the diameter? Any general rule-of -thumb
> would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
> Rick vonHuben
> TerraFuels, Inc
> terrafuels@cwix.com
>
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

James Joyce - Engineer
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay, Australia
ph. (07) 4952 7698
www.sri.org.au
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From sylva at iname.com Sat Mar 13 17:10:57 1999
From: sylva at iname.com (sylva@iname.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Search for Pelletising Plants.
Message-ID: <9903131712483P.15959@weba8.iname.net>

At 08:59 12-03-99 -0700, you wrote:
>Brian, Sorry for the lack of response. I just returned from long trip, and
>have many inquiries to acknowledge. Fax is working fine and that is right
>number.

>Best regards,
>
>Jim
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ITI <iti@connect-2.co.uk>
>To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
>Cc: Sam McCrea <info@sammouldings.co.uk>
>Date: Friday, March 12, 1999 5:48 AM
>Subject: GAS-L: Search for Pelletising Plants.
>
>
>>>Jim Dunham
>>>Environmental Engineering Corp
>>>Kansas City, MO
>>>815-452-3500 fax-452-6663
No! I think the code should be (+1) 816-452 6663
for the voice line, BT (my provider does not recognise the fax number at all. I would still like a reply on a similar query and feedstock a little further across the water from you than Brian!
AJH

---------------------------------------------------------
Get free personalized email at http://geocities.iname.com
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From phoenix at transport.com Sat Mar 13 22:34:33 1999
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Search for Pelletising Plants.
Message-ID: <199903140336.TAA22146@mail3.transport.com>

Hi Jim,

Your information would be of interest to alot of out here in the newsgroup.
Would you mind posting the pelletizing information for all of us to see.

Thanks!

Art Krenzel

----------
> From: Jim Dunham <costaeec@kcnet.com>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Cc: Sam McCrea <info@sammouldings.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Search for Pelletising Plants.
> Date: Friday, March 12, 1999 7:59 AM
>
> Brian, Sorry for the lack of response. I just returned from long trip,
and
> have many inquiries to acknowledge. Fax is working fine and that is right
> number.
> Yes we have high density briquetters of your exact description. They work
> with virtually any reasonably dry biomass material. I will fax basic
> materials to your number and await your response. (also have a good used
> one)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ITI <iti@connect-2.co.uk>
> To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
> Cc: Sam McCrea <info@sammouldings.co.uk>
> Date: Friday, March 12, 1999 5:48 AM
> Subject: GAS-L: Search for Pelletising Plants.
>
>
> >>Jim Dunham
> >>Environmental Engineering Corp
> >>Kansas City, MO
> >>815-452-3500 fax-452-6663
> >
> >Dear Jim,
> >
> >I have been trying to get in touch with you to obtain more information
> about
> >your briquetting plants, but was unable to contact you at the fax number
> >given above (which was sourced from the Gas List on 27th February).
> >
> >My particular interest is in sourcing a briquetting machine which would
be
> >capable of processing around 500 kg/hour maximum of MDF board dust (all
> >finer than 1mm seive). The finished product would need to be solid
enough
> >to maintain its integrity both during handling and combustion. I am
> >picturing a pellet size of around 50mm diameter by 100mm long.
> >
> >We have been able to conduct some small-scale experiments at the local
> >university in Belfast, so we know that the material will pelletise
given
> >sufficient temperature and pressure.
> >
> >Perhaps you could offer me some alternative contacts if your own
machinery
> >does not fulfil these criteria.
> >
> >Hoping to hear from you shortly,
> >
> >
> >Brian Russell.
> >
> >
> >Innovation Technologies (Ireland) Ltd.
> > fax +44 1960 378039
> > email iti@connect-2.co.uk
> >
> >
> >I would also of course be interested in receiving information from any
> other
> >potential suppliers who happen to receive mail from the Gas List
Archive.
> >
> >
> >
> >Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> >
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From nova at org.ktu.lt Sun Mar 14 12:10:06 1999
From: nova at org.ktu.lt (nova)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Scale-up
In-Reply-To: <19990313160003james@jj_lap.sri.org.au>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19990314113810.007b81a0@vingis.sc-uni.ktu.lt>

At , you wrote:
>Rick if you want to double the thermal output then roughly speaking you
>need to double the cross sectional area of the gasifier (ie. increase
>the diameter by 1.41 (the square root of 2, area is proportional to
>diameter squared).
>
>Watch out for your fludising gas distribution ... it gets more
>difficult to evenly fludise a bed as the diameter gets larger. This can
>mean hot spots which cause fuel agglomeration which eventually lead to
>the loss of fluidisation.
>
>> If I have a design for a fluidized bed gasifier that needs to be
>> scaled up to double its current capacity, how does the vessel
>> change? Do you double the diameter? Any general rule-of -thumb
>> would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Rick vonHuben
>> TerraFuels, Inc
>> terrafuels@cwix.com
>>
>>
>> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>>
>
>
>James Joyce - Engineer
>Sugar Research Institute
>Mackay, Australia
>ph. (07) 4952 7698
>www.sri.org.au
>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 costaeec at kcnet.com Mon Mar 15 22:56:31 1999
From: costaeec at kcnet.com (Jim Dunham)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Update- Carbonising Sawdust.
Message-ID: <000601be6f67$0ba17d80$fd64f0d1@default>

Very true Tom.

BUT...whereas processing and briquetting or pelletizing (densifying) biomass
materials does indeed require one-time additional capital, it usually
results in lower labor and maintenance costs, which are ongoing, and a far
more acceptable fuel product.

Compare to coal. It can be burned in big, dirty chunks, straight from the
ground, but is normally processed into clean, pulverized, uniform particles,
which can be totally automated regarding handling, storage, stoking, and
control.

If we want to minimize investments, consider elliminating oil refineries.
Crude oil could be burned, but it would put a rather severe kink in the
family automobile operation. A simple trip to the grocer could require an
engineering and operating staff and major emission fines. Simpler to invest
more up front and refine the crude before trying to burn it.

Same with biomass. When you try to use it in crude form, massive resistence
develops. It is usually based on the costs and hassle of handling, storing,
transporting, feeding, and filth. Once densified, it can be totally
automated and used at a much lower cost than in raw form.

Do it right in the first place (invest what is required--don't be cheap) and
the results are vastly more profitable.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
To: Jim Dunham <costaeec@kcnet.com>; Karsted, Elsen L. <elk@net2000ke.com>;
STOVES <stoves@crest.org>; GASIFICATION <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 1999 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: Update- Carbonising Sawdust.

>Dear ELK and Jim:
>
>Briquetting the sawdust makes a cleanburning fuel with 3 times the energy
>of the original sawdust. Unfortunately it requires capitalization of
>several hundred thousand $. Such plants are BEGINNING to appear in the
>U.S., Canada and Europe. I can buy 1/4" sawdust pellets in many of my
>hardware stores for $2.50 - $3 for a 40 lb plastic bag - and I do for my
>gasifier experiments. We can buy 3/8"peanut hull pellets from Birdsong
>Peanuts in Georgia for $40/ton. Great fuels.
>
>We have occasionally used a "STONE GRATE". Put appropriate size stones on
>top of your metal grate that will pass the necessary air. Limestone breaks
>down, but maintains size.
>
>Alternatively, a higher heat loss at the grate would help. Try a pool of
>water underneath.
>
>I'd love to see your operation. How do I get myself there?
>
>Your pal,
>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 projso at popeye.kt.dtu.dk Wed Mar 17 16:21:38 1999
From: projso at popeye.kt.dtu.dk (samer)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: mbr
Message-ID: <199903172121.QAA01133@solstice.crest.org>

Hello
We are a Msc. Environmental Engineering students at (Denmark Technical
University) DTU.
We are engaged in industrial wastewater treatment using membrane
bio-reactor (MBR) for our final thesis.

The water is mainly laundry wastewater from textile industry.
There is not any treatment for that water now. It is collected and
treated with the municipal waste waster.
Q=60m3/day
COD=2000 mg/l
BOD=1000 mg/l
SS=400-500 mg/l
Salt=2000 mg/l
+ mineral oil and heavy metals
We wonder if the problems that will face us running a MBR pilot plan,
will be physical or biological problems or both?
We would like to learn more about the design and installation of the
MBR, pilot and full scale plan?
Can you please send us the available information.

Post address

Samer Othman & Hany Mustafa
c/o Gunnar Jonsson
Denmark Technical university
Chemical Departmet, Buliding 227
2800 Lyngby

Sincerely yours
samer & hany

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

From VHarris001 at aol.com Thu Mar 18 23:05:13 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Vibratory Conveyors & Gasifiers
Message-ID: <ebb93cda.36f1cd52@aol.com>

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

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

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

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

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

Any feedback on benefits/problems would be greatly appreciated.

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

From james at sri.org.au Thu Mar 18 23:33:46 1999
From: james at sri.org.au (James Joyce)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Vibratory Conveyors & Gasifiers
Message-ID: <19990319143557james@jj_lap.sri.org.au>

>
> Does anyone in the gasification group have experience with or
> knowledge about
> vibratory conveyors?

> Vernon Harris

I don't know much about vibratory conveyors but by coincidence I was
reading about them in the InProcess newsletter (VOL 1 Issue 1) from
Transfield, which was inserted in the Feb/March issue of Australian
Bulk Handling Review. Bulk Handling review also had an article about
the practical issues associated with using blow tank feeders for those
of you how would like to pneumatically feed granular biomass feedstocks
into vessels at backpressures of up to 400 kPa (27 psi).

Transfield have been in the materials handling business for 40 years
and have 30 years experience with vibratory coal feeders, the
newsletter says.

At $78 Australian per year for overseas subscriptions I reckon is Aus
Bulk Handling Review is good value for biomass project developers.
McCormack Publishing produce it. Their phone number is Australia, Area
code 2, 9476 8256 (fax 8258)

If you want a complimentary copy of InProcess from Transfield
apparently you can email them at process@transfield.com.au

Hope that helps

James Joyce - Engineer
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay, Australia
ph. (07) 4952 7698
www.sri.org.au
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From jphillips at alumni.stanford.org Fri Mar 19 08:24:51 1999
From: jphillips at alumni.stanford.org (Jeffrey N. Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Vibratory Conveyors & Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <19990319143557james@jj_lap.sri.org.au>
Message-ID: <000201be720c$5896bb80$ee1f29d8@jnphatch.gis.net>

Vernon,

I have experience with vibrating conveyors and gasifiers, but not at the
same plant! The conveyors were used at a Shell Chemical plant that I worked
at to move rubber "crumb" around various parts of the process. In general
they worked quite well, rarely clogging, and they were also quite useful for
rejecting materials over or under a desired size (by using a vibrating
screen to separate out the smaller pieces). The only major problem we had
was with a diverter valve which basically shook itself apart because it
wasn't isolated from the vibrating sections.

The supplier of the Carrier Vibrating Equipment, Inc. of Louisville, KY.
You can contact them via cve@carriervibrating.com
Web page is www.carriervibrating.com

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 James Joyce
Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 9:36 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Vibratory Conveyors & Gasifiers

>
> Does anyone in the gasification group have experience with or
> knowledge about
> vibratory conveyors?

> Vernon Harris

Transfield have been in the materials handling business for 40 years
and have 30 years experience with vibratory coal feeders, the
newsletter says.

If you want a complimentary copy of InProcess from Transfield
apparently you can email them at process@transfield.com.au

Hope that helps

James Joyce - Engineer
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay, Australia
ph. (07) 4952 7698
www.sri.org.au
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

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

From dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu Fri Mar 19 08:42:16 1999
From: dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Vibratory Conveyors & Gasifiers
Message-ID: <601A55066596D211A7AD00104BC6FB25073305@catalina.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

Kinergy Corporation

They make good wood screens also. I used to be very skeptical because I
thought the screen would just plug up and become a problem. They use a ball
deck underneath the screen to push lodged material back up through the
screen. I works quite well and is very reliable. We used a 5' X 2' 1/2"
flat screen ball deck for screening dry wood at 2000 lbs/hr. Cost - $4000.
The only drawback is noise.

-----Original Message-----
From: VHarris001@aol.com [mailto:VHarris001@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 1999 10:07 PM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Vibratory Conveyors & Gasifiers

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

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

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

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

Any feedback on benefits/problems would be greatly appreciated.

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

From tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net Fri Mar 19 10:46:23 1999
From: tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net (Tvoivozhd)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Vibratory Conveyors & Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <ebb93cda.36f1cd52@aol.com>
Message-ID: <36F27D18.9429A237@roanoke.infi.net>

VHarris001@aol.com wrote:

> Does anyone in the gasification group have experience with or knowledge about
> vibratory conveyors? I've been looking into problems arising from the
> gasification project I'm working on and think that vibratory conveyors may
> simultaneously provide a good solution to several problems. A vibratory
> conveyor should solve the problem of bridging and channeling without having to
> introduce a stirrer (and associated air seals and cooling). A vibratory
> conveyor should solve the ash removal problem without having to introduce a
> screw conveyor (and associated air seals). A vibratory conveyor should assist
> in stabilization of the deep bed or assist in bed fluidization as the case may
> be.
>
> Vibratory conveyors can be made infinitely variable from zero to 100%
> conveyance, will convey dry material up a 20 % incline, have no moving parts
> on the conveyor bed (electromagnetic vibratory conveyors have no moving parts
> at all), are reasonably quiet, and don't need to be built with alloys like
> stirrers and augers.
>
> For controlling bridging and channeling, the vibrator can remain active
> without actually conveying material. When ash needs to be removed, the
> conveyor action can be started and ash can be removed as needed.
>
> The only problem I immediately forsee is that additional turbulance will cause
> additional ash carryover. However, this may actually be a benefit since ash
> needs to be removed from the fuel surface so that oxygen has better contact
> with the fuel surface.
>
> Conveyors can be built in any size or capacity. Even small conveyors (18" in
> width) can convey up to 100 tons per hour of sand or stone, so I would think a
> very small conveyor could be used on gasifiers. Does anyone know of specific
> manufacturers they would recommend or have an idea about approximate cost?
>
> Any feedback on benefits/problems would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Vernon Harris
> VHarris001@aol.com
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

>>>tvoivozhd---Back about 1980 I put together a system for recycling polycarbonate
that incorporated a vibratory conveyor ahead of a slat coneyor and between two
stages of granule reduction. The vibratory conveyor worked like a charm---lead
pipe simple, u;ltra-reliable, maintenance-free. Lots of them around cheap on used
industrial equipment sites---a very good one up in New Jersey (forgot name), and
though I did not examine the contents in a recently received brochure, Alan Ross
Machinery generally has them.

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

From scsben at scsenergy.com Sat Mar 20 20:33:12 1999
From: scsben at scsenergy.com (Ben Fischer)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Vibratory Conveyors & Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <ebb93cda.36f1cd52@aol.com>
Message-ID: <199903210133.UAA10856@solstice.crest.org>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------F63DDFABCB120F191FCE10D6
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------33D999520A5A7F2D80317DED"

--------------33D999520A5A7F2D80317DED
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

SCS Energy has experience with vibrating grate systems in different boilers
and
gasifiers. SCS Energy, Detroit Stoker and Hoffman have both water cooled and
air cooled systems designed specifically for combustion systems. For
gasification systems, water cooled is generally preferred. The cost of this
type of system is substantially higher than a fixed bed firing system.
Justification for these costs can be found in reducing ash handling costs,
providing a more even fuel bed which improves combustion and in providing a
safe continuous operating environment.

Versus a fixed grate design, a vibrating system may send more ash as carryover
during shaking. A stirring mechanism also causes additional carryover. As
long as gas velocities, burnout times and ash characteristics are carefully
considered, problems related to ash carryover can be avoided.

One major difference between the SCS Energy vibrating grate and other designs
is with the location of springs and other moving components that need regular
maintenance. These components are accessible during operation with the SCS
Energy design. They are not accessible and are normally in a severe, hot
environment for other designs.

SCS Energy is a diversified energy solution provider. Please look at our web
site, <http://www.scsenergy.com/>www.scsenergy.com, or call us at
423.624.1727
if you have any questions.

Ben Fischer, PE
SCS Energy

VHarris001@aol.com wrote:

> Does anyone in the gasification group have experience with or knowledge
about
> vibratory conveyors? I've been looking into problems arising from the
> gasification project I'm working on and think that vibratory conveyors may
> simultaneously provide a good solution to several problems. A vibratory
> conveyor should solve the problem of bridging and channeling without having
to
> introduce a stirrer (and associated air seals and cooling). A vibratory
> conveyor should solve the ash removal problem without having to introduce a
> screw conveyor (and associated air seals). A vibratory conveyor should
assist
> in stabilization of the deep bed or assist in bed fluidization as the case
may
> be.
>
> Vibratory conveyors can be made infinitely variable from zero to 100%
> conveyance, will convey dry material up a 20 % incline, have no moving parts
> on the conveyor bed (electromagnetic vibratory conveyors have no moving
parts
> at all), are reasonably quiet, and don't need to be built with alloys like
> stirrers and augers.
>
> For controlling bridging and channeling, the vibrator can remain active
> without actually conveying material. When ash needs to be removed, the
> conveyor action can be started and ash can be removed as needed.
>
> The only problem I immediately forsee is that additional turbulance will
cause
> additional ash carryover. However, this may actually be a benefit since ash
> needs to be removed from the fuel surface so that oxygen has better contact
> with the fuel surface.
>
> Conveyors can be built in any size or capacity. Even small conveyors
(18" in
> width) can convey up to 100 tons per hour of sand or stone, so I would think
a
> very small conveyor could be used on gasifiers. Does anyone know of
specific
> manufacturers they would recommend or have an idea about approximate cost?
>
> Any feedback on benefits/problems would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Vernon Harris
> VHarris001@aol.com
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>
<http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive>http://www.crest.
org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

--------------33D999520A5A7F2D80317DED
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
SCS Energy has experience with vibrating grate systems in different boilers
and
gasifiers. SCS Energy, Detroit Stoker and Hoffman have both water cooled and
air cooled systems designed specifically for combustion systems. For
gasification systems, water cooled is generally preferred. The cost of this
type of system is substantially higher than a fixed bed firing system.
Justification for these costs can be found in reducing ash handling costs,
providing a more even fuel bed which improves combustion and in providing a
safe continuous operating environment.

SCS Energy is a diversified energy solution provider. Please look at our web
site, <http://www.scsenergy.com/index.htm>www.scsenergy.com, or call us at
423.624.1727 if you have any questions.

Ben Fischer, PE
SCS Energy

VHarris001@aol.com wrote:
>
> Does anyone in the gasification group have experience with or knowledge
about
>
> vibratory conveyors? I've been looking into problems arising from the
> gasification project I'm working on and think that vibratory conveyors may
> simultaneously provide a good solution to several problems. A vibratory
> conveyor should solve the problem of bridging and channeling without having
> to
> introduce a stirrer (and associated air seals and cooling). A vibratory
> conveyor should solve the ash removal problem without having to introduce a
> screw conveyor (and associated air seals). A vibratory conveyor should
> assist
> in stabilization of the deep bed or assist in bed fluidization as the case
> may
> be.
>
> Vibratory conveyors can be made infinitely variable from zero to 100%
> conveyance, will convey dry material up a 20 % incline, have no moving
parts
> on the conveyor bed (electromagnetic vibratory conveyors have no moving
parts
>
> at all), are reasonably quiet, and don't need to be built with alloys like
> stirrers and augers.
>
> For controlling bridging and channeling, the vibrator can remain active
> without actually conveying material. When ash needs to be removed, the
> conveyor action can be started and ash can be removed as needed.
>
> The only problem I immediately forsee is that additional turbulance will
> cause
> additional ash carryover. However, this may actually be a benefit since
ash
> needs to be removed from the fuel surface so that oxygen has better contact
> with the fuel surface.
>
> Conveyors can be built in any size or capacity. Even small conveyors
(18" in
>
> width) can convey up to 100 tons per hour of sand or stone, so I would think
> a
> very small conveyor could be used on gasifiers. Does anyone know of
specific
>
> manufacturers they would recommend or have an idea about approximate cost?
>
> Any feedback on benefits/problems would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Vernon Harris
> VHarris001@aol.com
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>
> <http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive>http://www.cres
> t.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

--------------33D999520A5A7F2D80317DED--

--------------F63DDFABCB120F191FCE10D6
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="scsben.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Ben Fischer
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="scsben.vcf"

begin:vcard
n:Fischer, P.E.;SCS-Ben
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Steam & Control Systems, Inc.
adr:;;;Chattanooga;Tennessee;;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:scsben@scsenergy.com
title:SCS Energy
tel;fax:423/624-2727
tel;work:423/624-1727 ext.11
note:Please visit our website at <http://www.scsenergy.com/>www.scsenergy.com
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:SCS-Ben Fischer, P.E.
end:vcard

--------------F63DDFABCB120F191FCE10D6--

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

From zebley1 at email.com Sat Mar 20 20:33:13 1999
From: zebley1 at email.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Vibratory Conveyors & Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <ebb93cda.36f1cd52@aol.com>
Message-ID: <199903210133.UAA10866@solstice.crest.org>

Our company uses vibrating conveyors to screen (1-1/2"x1-1/2") biomass fuel
during the
transfer from storage to the metering bins. They are very reliable, use
less energy
than conventional conveyors and require almost zero maintenance. An added
benefit of
their utilization is the removal of some of the dirt from bark chips before
introduction into our system.

Gene.

Tvoivozhd wrote:

> VHarris001@aol.com wrote:
> > Does anyone in the gasification group have experience with or knowledge
about
> > vibratory conveyors? I've been looking into problems arising from the
> > gasification project I'm working on and think that vibratory conveyors may
> > simultaneously provide a good solution to several problems. A vibratory
> > conveyor should solve the problem of bridging and channeling without
having to
> > introduce a stirrer (and associated air seals and cooling). A vibratory
> > conveyor should solve the ash removal problem without having to
introduce a
> > screw conveyor (and associated air seals). A vibratory conveyor should
assist
> > in stabilization of the deep bed or assist in bed fluidization as the
case may
> > be.
> >
> > Vibratory conveyors can be made infinitely variable from zero to 100%
> > conveyance, will convey dry material up a 20 % incline, have no moving
parts
> > on the conveyor bed (electromagnetic vibratory conveyors have no moving
parts
> > at all), are reasonably quiet, and don't need to be built with alloys like
> > stirrers and augers.
> >
> > For controlling bridging and channeling, the vibrator can remain active
> > without actually conveying material. When ash needs to be removed, the
> > conveyor action can be started and ash can be removed as needed.
> >
> > The only problem I immediately forsee is that additional turbulance
will cause
> > additional ash carryover. However, this may actually be a benefit
since ash
> > needs to be removed from the fuel surface so that oxygen has better
contact
> > with the fuel surface.
> >
> > Conveyors can be built in any size or capacity. Even small conveyors
(18" in
> > width) can convey up to 100 tons per hour of sand or stone, so I would
think a
> > very small conveyor could be used on gasifiers. Does anyone know of
specific

> > manufacturers they would recommend or have an idea about approximate
cost?
> >
> > Any feedback on benefits/problems would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Vernon Harris
> > VHarris001@aol.com

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

From cmurphy at pressenter.com Tue Mar 23 08:38:11 1999
From: cmurphy at pressenter.com (Craig P. Murphy)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: NO MESSAGES RECVD
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990323074017.014548dc@pop.pressenter.com>

I AM NO LONGER GETTING POSTINGS FROM YOUR SITE.
WAS MY ADDRESS DELETED, DID I NOT DO SOMETHING I SHOULD HAVE?
THANKS
CRAIG MURPHY
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Mar 23 17:33:39 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: NO MESSAGES RECVD
Message-ID: <24536adc.36f81729@cs.com>

Tom Miles, Craig:

This is the second message of this type in a few days. Is there anything
new/wrong at CREST?

TOM REED

In a message dated 3/23/99 6:43:51 AM Mountain Standard Time,

cmurphy@pressenter.com writes:

<<
I AM NO LONGER GETTING POSTINGS FROM YOUR SITE.
WAS MY ADDRESS DELETED, DID I NOT DO SOMETHING I SHOULD HAVE?
THANKS
CRAIG MURPHY
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 Murat.Dogru at newcastle.ac.uk Wed Mar 24 06:41:45 1999
From: Murat.Dogru at newcastle.ac.uk (Murat DOGRU)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: SW with LS
In-Reply-To: <001201be758b$cda06f20$0100007f@localhost>
Message-ID: <199903241118.LAA07668@cheviot.ncl.ac.uk>

Dear gasification folks,

We have successfully gasified undigested sewage sludge with a
downdraft throated 30 kWe output gasifier. Calorific value of the
produced gas was around 4.5 MJ/m3.
Unfortunately, in the meantime, we had a clinker formation problem
around the throat and above the grate and this caused bridging in the
gasifier. I believe, the possible reason for this could be low fusion
temperature of sewage sludge comparing the other biofuels (i.e. wood,
hazelnut shells, etc...).

We are planning to mix sewage sludge with lime stone (CaCO3)
to prevent above problems.

I would like have any comments and discussions about sewage sludge
downdraft gasification and posibble solutions for above problems in
downdraft gasifiers.

Regards
Murat DOGRU
University of Newcastle
UK
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From PletkaRJ at bv.com Wed Mar 24 13:08:36 1999
From: PletkaRJ at bv.com (Pletka, Ryan J.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Particulate emissions
Message-ID: <61BCB4275920D211AA5700A0C9DB18FB44434C@BVMAIL02>

Does anyone know the particulate loading from the Battelle gasifier after
gas clean-up?
-OR-
What level of producer gas particulate loading can a gas turbine withstand?

Thanks for your help
Ryan Pletka

--
Ryan Pletka
Black & Veatch
913-458-8222; 913-458-2934 (fax)
pletkarj@bv.com

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

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Mar 24 18:01:35 1999
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: ..congratulations on your sewer sludge gas, was: GAS-L: SW with LS
In-Reply-To: <001201be758b$cda06f20$0100007f@localhost>
Message-ID: <36F96D34.CC6E250B@c2i.net>

Hi, congratulations on your sewer sludge gasification!

..did you run it thru' an engine? Back in July1996, we fed gas
from the flare fan housing to the mower engine driving the flare
fan. A gimmick we added was coupling the start-up carb
with an union coupling, allowing us to unscrew the carb and hand
it over to our guests to hold, on demos. Major part of gas was
dumped to the flare. Invisible in daylight exept heat turbulence,
blueish violet at night.
"We", are Arnt Karlsen, Onar Åm and Tore Valen.

Murat DOGRU wrote:

> Dear gasification folks,
>
> We have successfully gasified undigested sewage sludge with a
> downdraft throated 30 kWe output gasifier. Calorific value of the
> produced gas was around 4.5 MJ/m3.

..we managed to lay our hands on a few hundred kilogrammes of the
_digested_ and pelletized stuff produced at Mekjarvik, look it up at
joint utility's URL: http://www.ivar.rl.no/
I've got no idea on the gas heat value, but the fan ran _just_ fine.
Flare flame size ~1/2 to 3/4 diameter by 1 to1.5 meters tall on full
fan power, gas outlet is 2.5 inches, flame nozzle 4 in dia, gasifier
throat is 114mm dia, external dims are 315mm dia by 900mm tall,
plus fuel hopper on top, and auger spool plus service valve below.

When we came back for more pellets, this was _no_ longer possible.
"...but, in Rio, mrs Brundtland said..." ;-D ..so we tried other stuff
like selfmade chicken manure pellets, shredded auto tires, MSW...

> Unfortunately, in the meantime, we had a clinker formation problem
> around the throat and above the grate and this caused bridging in the
> gasifier.

..yeah, our box would make gas for about 15 minutes until running out
of carbon inside the pellet cores. Pellet dims ~10mm dia by 10 to 30mm
long. We found these pellets to contain 50 to 60 wht% sand and ash.

..remove the grate, add an auger spool and a service valve below it.
Throttle ash replaces the grate. Sneeze away bridges, see figure.
..on sizing safety valves, we also learned to make satellite dishes...

> I believe, the possible reason for this could be low fusion
> temperature of sewage sludge comparing the other biofuels (i.e. wood,
> hazelnut shells, etc...).
>
> We are planning to mix sewage sludge with lime stone (CaCO3)
> to prevent above problems.

..why mess with chemicals! exept for research? Co-feed MSW.
In metropolitan Stavanger, Norway, I'm told 2000 tons of sewer
sludge pellets is produced a year. And landfilled with the other
annual 125 000 to 240 000 tons of MSW. (#'s depend on who u ask)

..one thing is the 250 kW a hobbyist here could feed to the grid
from the sewer pellet feed, would pay off his backyard plant in
a few years. More worthwhile is the 40-80 MWe plus 50-100 MW
of district heat from the MSW, even with Norwegian energy pricing.
We're just talking 1-2 US cents per kWh when selling to the grid.
Buying is another story ;-)

The landfill here, is full. The utility is looking for a new landfill
site.
It will serve metropolitan Stavanger's 185 000 taxpayers for a
new 20 year period. A few hundred million bucks down the drain.
Statoil and Shell has struck a deal where Shell will shut down its
refinery here, just outside Stavanger. Shell must also remove the
refinery plant and clean up the plant site, and be prepared to
return it to the city. Another few hundred millions... ;-D

..most of you guys on this list know how to make gas. Some are
pretty good at it. Most of you know electricity and heat can be
made from this gas we make. A few of you guys know how to
make stuff like methanol and gasoline from syngas.

..this means you guys know how to help the idiots here, make
over 50 000 tons of gasoline a year, building on 3'rd Reich
technology, without running over their current investment budgets...
The _hard_ part here is common sense, I'm open for realistic offers
and _happy_ to relocate...

> I would like have any comments and discussions about sewage sludge
> downdraft gasification and posibble solutions for above problems in
> downdraft gasifiers.
>
> Regards
> Murat DOGRU
> University of Newcastle
> UK
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gif00019.gif
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 25110 bytes
Desc: ""
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19990324/f170031b/gif00019.obj
From tmiles at teleport.com Wed Mar 24 18:17:09 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: ..congratulations on your sewer sludge gas, was: GAS-L: SW with LS
In-Reply-To: <001201be758b$cda06f20$0100007f@localhost>
Message-ID: <199903242317.SAA21542@solstice.crest.org>

Arnt,

I like your 'Sneeze valve'. "Sneeze away bridges"

Wonderful.

Tom

At 11:54 PM 3/24/99 +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>..remove the grate, add an auger spool and a service valve below it.
>Throttle ash replaces the grate. Sneeze away bridges, see figure.
>..on sizing safety valves, we also learned to make satellite dishes...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 tmiles at teleport.com Wed Mar 24 18:17:09 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: ..congratulations on your sewer sludge gas, was: GAS-L: SW with LS
In-Reply-To: <001201be758b$cda06f20$0100007f@localhost>
Message-ID: <199903242317.SAA21543@solstice.crest.org>

Arnt,

I like your 'Sneeze valve'. "Sneeze away bridges"

Wonderful.

Tom

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Mar 24 19:55:42 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Vibratory Conveyors & Gasifiers
Message-ID: <4756fdcb.36f989f4@aol.com>

Thanks to everyone for their response about vibratory conveyors.

A question to Ben Fischer at SCS Energy: I briefly looked at your web site
and saw vibratory feeder conveyors but didn't see anything about ash
conveying. Can you list specific sites that are operating with vibratory
conveyors serving as an integral part (the bottom) of the gasifier? Also,
since the conveyor would act as part of the gasifier, it seems that you could
not cool the conveyor bottom without significant deterioration of the
gasification process, unless the ash bed were very deep. How do you deal with
this issue?

Thanks,
Vernon Harris

In a message dated 3/20/99 8:37:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
scsben@scsenergy.com writes:

> SCS Energy has experience with vibrating grate systems in different boilers
> and
> gasifiers. SCS Energy, Detroit Stoker and Hoffman have both water cooled
> and
> air cooled systems designed specifically for combustion systems. For
> gasification systems, water cooled is generally preferred. The cost of
this
> type of system is substantially higher than a fixed bed firing system.
> Justification for these costs can be found in reducing ash handling costs,
> providing a more even fuel bed which improves combustion and in providing a
> safe continuous operating environment.

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

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Mar 24 20:12:33 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Closed-loop incinerators
Message-ID: <2cd89060.36f98df6@aol.com>

A recent article in Waste News indicated that an inventor, Dae Sik Kim has
developed a closed-loop incinerator to power vehicles. The "clean burn
system" destroys waste at temperatures above 1,800 deg F AND DRAWS LIQUIDS OUT
OF THE WASTE STREAM (emphasis mine) before they enter the combustion zone.
Kim says the U.S. Navy expressed interest in using the system aboard ships but
later dropped its support. The article states that Navy researches began work
on closed-loop incinerators for shipboard use in 1993, but that no one has
found a way to make closed-loop incinerators economical.

Does any one have more information about the actual details of this "closed-
loop incineration?" Is this actual excess air incineration or are they trying
to produce biofuel for use in internal combustion engines?

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

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Mar 24 20:36:44 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: ..congratulations on your sewer sludge gas, was: GAS-
Message-ID: <945a062f.36f99359@aol.com>

Dear Arnt,

I read your post and viewed the attached figure with great interest. I've
been working on a grateless gasifier design of my own as the best solution for
continuous gasification of unprocessed MSW. If you wouldn't mind, I do have a
few questions.

Do you find the ash to adequately serve as a grate replacement?
Why do you call it throttle ash? I would call it "bottom ash?"
Can you explain fully the operation of the auger, sneeze valve, purge gas
valve, etc?

I did want to mention that, at least here in USA, there is intense opposition
to high temperature incineration of MSW due to suspicions about the products
of combustion (POC). Few gasification projects exist and it is rumored that
most are rife with technical difficulties. Thus, no new incinerators get
built and old ones get shut down. New mega-landfills with rail-haul systems
are springing up to accept the ever increasing solid waste stream . . .

Thanks for the diagram of your gasifier.

Vernon Harris

In a message dated 3/24/99 6:06:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, arnt@c2i.net
writes:

> > Unfortunately, in the meantime, we had a clinker formation problem
> > around the throat and above the grate and this caused bridging in the
> > gasifier.
>
> ..yeah, our box would make gas for about 15 minutes until running out
> of carbon inside the pellet cores. Pellet dims ~10mm dia by 10 to 30mm
> long. We found these pellets to contain 50 to 60 wht% sand and ash.
>
> ..remove the grate, add an auger spool and a service valve below it.
> Throttle ash replaces the grate. Sneeze away bridges, see figure.
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Mar 24 20:51:02 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: sewer sludge gasification
Message-ID: <d65c2847.36f996b9@aol.com>

Dear Murat,

Could it be that bridging or channeling of the sludge is causing excessive
heat, which in turn is causing the formation of clinker? That might be a
particular problem in a high-moisture feedstock that dries significantly -
causing caking prior to gasification.

Do you have a stirrer or vibrator for your gasifier?

Vernon Harris

> > Unfortunately, in the meantime, we had a clinker formation problem
> > around the throat and above the grate and this caused bridging in the
> > gasifier.
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Mar 24 22:47:05 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification model
Message-ID: <bc7992e6.36f9b221@aol.com>

Dear Eric,

Try the following gasification list archive:

http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-
archive/9802/msg00031.html

The Nasatech site may no longer have the info on their web page. You may have
to order a hard copy. I believe ordering info is on the web page.

Good luck,
Vernon Harris

In a message dated 3/9/99 8:01:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
edavis@energyint.com writes:

> I am working on modeling the pyrolysis and microwave gasification of sewage
> sludge. Does anybody know of a publicly (or commercially) available
computer
> code that models pyrolysis, gasification chemistry, mass flow and heat
> transfer? I am envisioning some sort of system of plug flow reactors that
> include surface chemistry (any experience with "Surface CHEMKIN III"?) and a
> heat transfer model. If I can not find a "canned" code, I hope to develop
> one based on previous experience modeling combustion with systems of PFRs.
>
> Does anyone have any experience in gasification and/or pyrolysis modeling
> they would like to share?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Eric Davis
> Research Engineer
> Energy International, Inc.
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Mar 24 23:02:26 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Scale-up
Message-ID: <28e37ec2.36f9b588@aol.com>

Dear James Joyce,

There has been some discussion on this list about using a fluidised bed
configuration in the shape of a funnel - small at the bottom and wide at the
top (I think it was Skip Goebel who last mentioned this subject). I see from
your note below that the larger a fluidised bed becomes, the more difficult it
is to evenly fluidise. I would assume that means a funnel shaped bed would be
even more difficult?

What solutions are there for this problem? How about for a funnel shaped bed?
Will vibratory equipment will assist in evenly fluidizing a bed?

Thanks,
Vernon Harris

In a message dated 3/13/99 1:05:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, james@sri.org.au
writes:

> Rick if you want to double the thermal output then roughly speaking you
> need to double the cross sectional area of the gasifier (ie. increase
> the diameter by 1.41 (the square root of 2, area is proportional to
> diameter squared).
>
> Watch out for your fludising gas distribution ... it gets more
> difficult to evenly fludise a bed as the diameter gets larger. This can
> mean hot spots which cause fuel agglomeration which eventually lead to
> the loss of fluidisation.
>
> > If I have a design for a fluidized bed gasifier that needs to be
> > scaled up to double its current capacity, how does the vessel
> > change? Do you double the diameter? Any general rule-of -thumb
> > would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Rick vonHuben
> > TerraFuels, Inc
> > terrafuels@cwix.com
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From larceri at ari.ansaldo.it Thu Mar 25 04:08:49 1999
From: larceri at ari.ansaldo.it (Larceri Filippo)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TAR separation
Message-ID: <9903250900.AA08437@ari.ansaldo.it>

I am involved with the problem about gas cleaning from TAR. I must clean
fuel gas coming from RDF and biomass (wood and hazelnut shells) gasifiers.
Does somebody know some WEB site dealing with this topic ?

thank you

Larceri Filippo
______________________________________________________________________

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

From dfknowles at bigfoot.com Thu Mar 25 10:05:56 1999
From: dfknowles at bigfoot.com (Dave Knowles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Vanarmo Status
Message-ID: <199903251505.KAA01292@solstice.crest.org>

Does anyone have firsthand and or reliable information on the status of
the biomass gasification plant at Vanarmo, Sweden?
Is it still operating?
How many hours has it operated?
What problems have been encountered?
What about the economics?
Is anyone marketing the technology?

David Knowles
dknowles@antares.org

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

From woolsey at netins.net Thu Mar 25 11:33:25 1999
From: woolsey at netins.net (Edward Woolsey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: US Renewable Portfolio Standard (Help Needed)
Message-ID: <003c01be76dd$702e8720$87168ea7@woolsey.netins.net>

Greetings
(Sorry, this is not technical, but without a
market the technology is mute)
This just came in from "Renewable Energy
Today".
We need some renewable folks
in Arkansas to apply some pressure ....er ...give Sen. Murkowski some good
information.
Any ideas? Do we have supporters in Arkansas? How
about PRM?

Ed Woolsey

Senator Opposes Forthcoming Deregulation Bill
Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee,
Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK), recently expressed opposition to an expected
renewable portfolio mandate in the Clinton Administration's updated electricity
deregulation bill. Speaking at a recent restructuring conference,
Murkowski said the White House renewable portfolio mandate is unattainable
because "the technology is simply not there." Murkowski said he
expects the Department of Energy (DOE) to introduce a comprehensive bill that
calls for a 7.5 percent renewable portfolio mandate, excluding hydropower. The
Administration's 1998 bill included a 5.5 percent renewable mandate.
Renewable power, excluding hydropower, currently accounts for only 0.2
percent of total U.S. generation. Murkowski said reaching the 7.5 percent
mandate would be "impossible," especially without hydropower, which
has been excluded because it is politically unpopular. Contact: Senator
Murkowski, e-mail <A
href="mailto:email@murkowski.senate.gov">email@murkowski.senate.gov.

From rbwilliams at ucdavis.edu Thu Mar 25 12:01:09 1999
From: rbwilliams at ucdavis.edu (Rob Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: US Renewable Portfolio Standard (Help Needed)
In-Reply-To: <003c01be76dd$702e8720$87168ea7@woolsey.netins.net>
Message-ID: <v04003a01b3201c7e2f83@[169.237.89.27]>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 747 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19990325/420a1997/attachment.bin
From woolsey at netins.net Thu Mar 25 12:15:20 1999
From: woolsey at netins.net (Edward Woolsey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: US Renewable Portfolio Standard (Help Needed)
Message-ID: <008b01be76e3$4b971980$87168ea7@woolsey.netins.net>

OOPS
Frank "North Slope" Murkowski is a senator from Alaska.
Ed
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">

Greetings
(Sorry, this is not technical, but without a
market the technology is mute)
This just came in from "Renewable
Energy Today".
We need some renewable
folks in Arkansas to apply some pressure ....er ...give Sen. Murkowski some
good information.
Any ideas? Do we have supporters in Arkansas?
How about PRM?

Ed Woolsey

Senator Opposes Forthcoming Deregulation Bill
Chairman of the Senate Energy
Committee, Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK), recently expressed opposition to
an expected renewable portfolio mandate in the Clinton Administration's
updated electricity deregulation bill. Speaking at a recent
restructuring conference, Murkowski said the White House renewable portfolio
mandate is unattainable because "the technology is simply not
there." Murkowski said he expects the Department of Energy (DOE) to
introduce a comprehensive bill that calls for a 7.5 percent renewable
portfolio mandate, excluding hydropower. The Administration's 1998 bill
included a 5.5 percent renewable mandate. Renewable power, excluding
hydropower, currently accounts for only 0.2 percent of total U.S.
generation. Murkowski said reaching the 7.5 percent mandate would be
"impossible," especially without hydropower, which has been
excluded because it is politically unpopular. Contact: Senator Murkowski,
e-mail <A
href="mailto:email@murkowski.senate.gov">email@murkowski.senate.gov.

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Mar 25 14:19:53 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Renewable energy
Message-ID: <3b43fcc5.36fa8cb1@aol.com>

Dear Senator:
Renewable energy is only not being used because of the cheap prices on
imported oil which is draining the United States coffers and supporting
foreign governments. The real costs of foreign oil must include the terrorist
actions, military actions which are not fully compensated nor accounted for,
and political support for regimes which drain our political and economic
resources.
Although a regulatory incentive for incorporation of biomass utilization and
other renewable resources, these alternative sources would become immediately
incorporated if the true economics of petroleum resources are accounted for.
The proposed 7.5% renewable content involved in utility deregulation would be
minimal if real petroleum economy were realized. This artificial economic
structure cannot be sustained for indefinitely and as such, renewable
resources such as biomass will ultimately become a massively important staple
of the economy.
Wasting vast resources of biomass such as municipal waste by burying it has
an impact upon the future such as mining the landfills and reusing this buried
biomass for it's energy content and reuse of the vital land. Literally
millions of barrels of oil equivalents are being squandered each day from our
waste streams and with a combination of political and technical courage, can
be positively converted into positive economics for our energy hungry culture.
Not doing this makes the current politically correct policy of recycling
hollow.
Inconsistent policies have for a long time been mitigated by political
courage such as the deregulation of the airline industry which resulted in
lowered costs to the consumer which means that regulated industry increased
the cost to the consumer. Political courage to address the massive economic
hemorrhage of using foreign oil needs to be addressed to prevent the
continuous economic dislocations of our domestic system and the loss of
cultural value by pumping resources into foreign treasuries. This will be an
eventuality and the sooner the conclusion is arrived as, the bettering term
benefits for the consumer.
Although I do not agree with pure mandates for economic incentives because
historically they do not solve the problem, merely hide it or create worse
ones, the inducements for deregulation of the utility industry should be
economic, not purely political, otherwise, it merely replaces one artifice
with another. I have seen mandates for meeting certain artificial targets such
as 50% recycling of waste streams merely political eyewash and not
accomplished. This makes future political mandates less genuine and
achievable. It results in a lack of credibility in the long run. However,
without the political will to deal with the hemorrhaging American Economy to
foreign oil, such artifices are certainly incentives to reduce the dependency
on foreign suppliers.

Sincerely,

Leland Thomas Taylor
P.S.-This is letter to the "murkowski.senate.com" address which I have
received an error message when sent, as it too long. Is there a correct
address? Tom Taylor
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From james at sri.org.au Thu Mar 25 17:35:27 1999
From: james at sri.org.au (James Joyce)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TAR separation
Message-ID: <19990326083752james@jj_lap.sri.org.au>

TPS, VTT, BTG, the Uni of Twente (Netherlands) and many others have
investgate processes for Tar reduction, catalytic removal and gas
cleaning. There are many papers in Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research on the subject.

Have a look at :

http://www.arbre.co.uk/page3.htm
http://www.tps.se/indexUK.html

http://www.vtt.fi/ene/program/index.html

The BTG State of the art: tar measurement protocols page may provide
the links you are chasing. It is at :

http://btg.ct.utwente.nl/Projects/558/

James Joyce - Engineer
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay, Australia
ph. (07) 4952 7698
www.sri.org.au

> I am involved with the problem about gas cleaning from TAR. I must
> clean
> fuel gas coming from RDF and biomass (wood and hazelnut shells)
> gasifiers.
> Does somebody know some WEB site dealing with this topic ?
>
> thank you
>

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

From james at sri.org.au Thu Mar 25 21:47:54 1999
From: james at sri.org.au (James Joyce)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Scale-up
Message-ID: <19990326125002james@jj_lap.sri.org.au>

> Dear James Joyce,
>
> There has been some discussion on this list about using a fluidised
> bed configuration in the shape of a funnel - small at the bottom and
> wide at the top (I think it was Skip Goebel who last mentioned this
> subject). I see from your note below that the larger a fluidised
> bed becomes, the more difficult it is to evenly fluidise. I would
> assume that means a funnel shaped bed would be even more difficult?
>
> What solutions are there for this problem? How about for a funnel
> shaped bed?

Bearing in mind that I have not yet got my hands dirty gasifying
anything, my understanding is that the solutions to fluidised bed
problems are many and varied and very dependant on the feed stock and
gasification conditions/technque, ie. it is best solved on a case by
case basis.

Some of the aspects for consideration are :

1. Where the feedstock enters the bed (on top, in the middle or in the
bottom). As a rule of thumb low density and wet feedstocks should be
feed in at the middle or bottom and high density or bone dry feedstocks
(eg. pelletised materials and some wood chips) can be feed onto the top
of the bed.

2. Then there is the question of how many feed points there are and
what measures are taken to promote rapid distribution of the incoming
feed throughout the bed. This is what gets harder as the bed gets
bigger.

3. Repeat 1 and 2 for any introduced air, oxygen, hydrogen and/or steam

4. Adjust the operating temperature depending on the aglomeration point
of the feedstock (best identified by experiment as ash chemistry is
much more complicated than simple laboratory sintering point
measurements can describe)

5. Consider different bed materials and/or additives (eg lime,
dolomite) to reduce agglomeration.

I am aware of people using funnel shaped beds for gasifiers of all
sizes (I think spouted bed is the usual chemical engineering term). I
for one like the concept for fuels with a broad particle size and
density distribution. From what I understand spouted beds are easier to
operate at largish scales (> 10 MWt) than conventional fludised beds,
but there are some very fancy (and usually confidential) tricks to
getting them to work (one of these that I have seen mentioned is the
use of tangential air/steam entries). The big benefit is that you don't
need all sorts of nozzle manifolds and distributors, bed supporting
mechanisms, grates etc. to make the thing fluidise.

> Will vibratory equipment will assist in evenly fluidizing a bed?
>
Perhaps, probably hard to know unless you try. The application of
vibratory equpment would probably become technically difficult and
uneconomic at scales greater than 500 kWt I imagine.

James Joyce - Engineer
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay, Australia
ph. (07) 4952 7698
www.sri.org.au
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From wrcarson at tva.gov Fri Mar 26 07:05:22 1999
From: wrcarson at tva.gov (Carson, W. Richard)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Scale-up
Message-ID: <2ADF1FA34AB1D111ADB30000F80148CC02B8AA2B@chachaois2b.cha.tva.gov>

James,

As you know there are two common types of fluidized beds: bubbling and
circulating. Fluidization in a bubbling bed is controlled by having
sufficient pressure drop across the distributor plate. A specially designed
air nozzle prevents bed material from flowing back. The bed depth is
dependent on what you are trying to accomplish. Circulating fluidized beds
have much higher velocities and few feed points.

Rick Carson

> ----------
> From: james@sri.org.au[SMTP:james@sri.org.au]
> Reply To: gasification@crest.org
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 7:50 AM
> To: VHarris001@aol.com
> Cc: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasifier Scale-up
>
> > Dear James Joyce,
> >
> > There has been some discussion on this list about using a fluidised
> > bed configuration in the shape of a funnel - small at the bottom and
> > wide at the top (I think it was Skip Goebel who last mentioned this
> > subject). I see from your note below that the larger a fluidised
> > bed becomes, the more difficult it is to evenly fluidise. I would
> > assume that means a funnel shaped bed would be even more difficult?
> >
> > What solutions are there for this problem? How about for a funnel
> > shaped bed?
>
>
> Bearing in mind that I have not yet got my hands dirty gasifying
> anything, my understanding is that the solutions to fluidised bed
> problems are many and varied and very dependant on the feed stock and
> gasification conditions/technque, ie. it is best solved on a case by
> case basis.
>
> Some of the aspects for consideration are :
>
> 1. Where the feedstock enters the bed (on top, in the middle or in the
> bottom). As a rule of thumb low density and wet feedstocks should be
> feed in at the middle or bottom and high density or bone dry feedstocks
> (eg. pelletised materials and some wood chips) can be feed onto the top
> of the bed.
>
> 2. Then there is the question of how many feed points there are and
> what measures are taken to promote rapid distribution of the incoming
> feed throughout the bed. This is what gets harder as the bed gets
> bigger.
>
> 3. Repeat 1 and 2 for any introduced air, oxygen, hydrogen and/or steam
>
> 4. Adjust the operating temperature depending on the aglomeration point
> of the feedstock (best identified by experiment as ash chemistry is
> much more complicated than simple laboratory sintering point
> measurements can describe)
>
> 5. Consider different bed materials and/or additives (eg lime,
> dolomite) to reduce agglomeration.
>
>
> I am aware of people using funnel shaped beds for gasifiers of all
> sizes (I think spouted bed is the usual chemical engineering term). I
> for one like the concept for fuels with a broad particle size and
> density distribution. From what I understand spouted beds are easier to
> operate at largish scales (> 10 MWt) than conventional fludised beds,
> but there are some very fancy (and usually confidential) tricks to
> getting them to work (one of these that I have seen mentioned is the
> use of tangential air/steam entries). The big benefit is that you don't
> need all sorts of nozzle manifolds and distributors, bed supporting
> mechanisms, grates etc. to make the thing fluidise.
>
>
> > Will vibratory equipment will assist in evenly fluidizing a bed?
> >
> Perhaps, probably hard to know unless you try. The application of
> vibratory equpment would probably become technically difficult and
> uneconomic at scales greater than 500 kWt I imagine.
>
>
> James Joyce - Engineer
> Sugar Research Institute
> Mackay, Australia
> ph. (07) 4952 7698
> www.sri.org.au
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Mar 26 11:30:27 1999
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: ..congratulations on your sewer sludge gas, was: GAS-
In-Reply-To: <945a062f.36f99359@aol.com>
Message-ID: <36FBABA9.53B358DC@c2i.net>

Hi Vernon,

> I read your post and viewed the attached figure with great interest. I've
> been working on a grateless gasifier design of my own as the best solution for
> continuous gasification of unprocessed MSW. If you wouldn't mind, I do have a
> few questions.
>
> Do you find the ash to adequately serve as a grate replacement?

..yeah. Good heat shielding, we use a full bore gate valve, seals are made of
brass for cold water service... Need experienced people? ;-)

> Why do you call it throttle ash? I would call it "bottom ash?"

..varying auger speed raise and lower the ash dome, which again throttles the
gas outlet. Response time here is a function of auger manouvering, for automotive
use you might forcefully auger ash back in, I prefer taking advantage of the
original
throttle response span, our box go from ~15% to full in a second.
A better name for it might be throttle tweak ash or economy ash.

> Can you explain fully the operation of the auger, sneeze valve, purge gas
> valve, etc?

..auger removes (surplus) ash and throttle as above. Sneezing is dosing some
pressurized air thru' the ash dome, as it meets hot syngas....sort of controlled
shot gun action... Purging is combatting auger air leaks by feeding mildly
pressurized syngas to avoid unwanted shotgunning...

> I did want to mention that, at least here in USA, there is intense opposition
> to high temperature incineration of MSW due to suspicions about the products
> of combustion (POC). Few gasification projects exist and it is rumored that
> most are rife with technical difficulties. Thus, no new incinerators get
> built and old ones get shut down. New mega-landfills with rail-haul systems
> are springing up to accept the ever increasing solid waste stream . . .

..we need to teach people, the _differences_ between incineration and
gasification,
incineration is nearly as dumb as rail haul megafills...

..even with Norwegian grid prices, the MSW stream from Oshkosh, Wi. would
produce a pretty worthwhile 20 to 30 MW of electricity...

Arnt

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

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Mar 26 11:30:33 1999
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: ..congratulations on your sewer sludge gas, was: GAS-L: SW with LS
In-Reply-To: <001201be758b$cda06f20$0100007f@localhost>
Message-ID: <36FBB4E2.D03AF9C0@c2i.net>

Hi Tom,

Tom Miles wrote:

> I like your 'Sneeze valve'. "Sneeze away bridges"
>
> Wonderful.
>
> Tom
>
> At 11:54 PM 3/24/99 +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> >..remove the grate, add an auger spool and a service valve below it.
> >Throttle ash replaces the grate. Sneeze away bridges, see figure.
> >..on sizing safety valves, we also learned to make satellite dishes...

..you're gonna _love_ our safety valve: our fuel feed hopper is a chemical
barrel, ie; oil barrel w/ removable lid. On this lid sits a 4" pipe stub w/ a
4" flange, on top of this, a 16mm bolt and mild suction holds down the
mudflap. Sneezing shoots _beautiful_ smoke rings, up ~30 meters...

..before tweeking material use in this thinwalled design any further to
enter the satellite dish biz, or whatever, I recommend _remote_ controls...

Arnt

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Mar 26 11:57:55 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TAR separation
Message-ID: <835ca251.36fbbd0e@cs.com>

Dear Gasification:

It is important to keep our perspective on the amount of tar from different
gasifiers. UPDRAFT gasifiers produce typically 5%-20% tar (defined as solids
condensing above 100 C); fluidized beds produce 1-5% tar; and DOWNDRAFT
gasifiers produce < 0.2% and sometimes less than 0.01% (Makunda etc.) since
they burn the volatiles and tars to provide the heat of pyrolysis. Catalytic
or other tar destruction and filtering is necessary for the first two, but not
for downdrafts.

Cheers, TOM REED

So fluidized beds spend MUCH more on cleaning gas than downdrafts.

In a message dated 3/25/99 3:40:30 PM Mountain Standard Time, james@sri.org.au
writes:

<< TPS, VTT, BTG, the Uni of Twente (Netherlands) and many others have
investgate processes for Tar reduction, catalytic removal and gas
cleaning. There are many papers in Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research on the subject.

Have a look at :

http://www.arbre.co.uk/page3.htm
http://www.tps.se/indexUK.html

http://www.vtt.fi/ene/program/index.html

The BTG State of the art: tar measurement protocols page may provide
the links you are chasing. It is at :

http://btg.ct.utwente.nl/Projects/558/

James Joyce - Engineer
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay, Australia
ph. (07) 4952 7698
www.sri.org.au
>>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Mar 26 11:57:55 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:02 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TAR separation
Message-ID: <2d7356f3.36fbbd12@cs.com>

Dear Larceri:

Everyone on this site knows a lot about TAR cleanup - maybe a lot all
different.

To read the correspondance, visit www.crest.org and search.

Yours truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 3/25/99 2:13:15 AM Mountain Standard Time,
larceri@ari.ansaldo.it writes:

<< I am involved with the problem about gas cleaning from TAR. I must clean
fuel gas coming from RDF and biomass (wood and hazelnut shells) gasifiers.
Does somebody know some WEB site dealing with this topic ?

thank you

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

From arcate at email.msn.com Sun Mar 28 12:28:17 1999
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Word/Melissa macro virus
Message-ID: <199903281728.MAA04996@solstice.crest.org>

Bioenergy & Gasification:

Remember Happy99 ? Here is another to look out for:

>From MSNBC:
March 26 — If you receive an e-mail with the subject line “Important message
from ... ,” be suspicious. If that message comes with a Word document
attached called “list.doc,” you’ve likely been sent the Word/Melissa macro
virus. And if you open the document, it will send 50 copies of itself to
several e-mail addresses it gleans from your personal e-mail. That gives it
the ability to propagate very quickly — much quicker than the happy99.exe
worm, according to virus experts.

Jim Arcate

www.techtp.com

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

From james at sri.org.au Sun Mar 28 16:58:27 1999
From: james at sri.org.au (James Joyce)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Scale-up
Message-ID: <19990329080035james@jj_lap.sri.org.au>

Yes Rick I should have made that distinction. I was mostly referring to
bubbling beds. The issues for circulating beds are similar, but as you
say less of a problem. However circulating beds come with the
additional complication of how to handle the tars, ash and char that
elutriates from the bed. Many have found this a "fatal" combination as
far as the recycle mechanism is concerned, but of course even these
problems can be overcome.

> James,
>
> As you know there are two common types of fluidized beds: bubbling
> and
> circulating. Fluidization in a bubbling bed is controlled by
> having
> sufficient pressure drop across the distributor plate. A specially
> designed
> air nozzle prevents bed material from flowing back. The bed depth
> is
> dependent on what you are trying to accomplish. Circulating
> fluidized beds
> have much higher velocities and few feed points.
>
> Rick Carson
>
> > ----------
> > From: james@sri.org.au[SMTP:james@sri.org.au]
> > Reply To: gasification@crest.org
> > Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 7:50 AM
> > To: VHarris001@aol.com
> > Cc: gasification@crest.org
> > Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasifier Scale-up
> >
> > > Dear James Joyce,
> > >
> > > There has been some discussion on this list about using a
> fluidised
> > > bed configuration in the shape of a funnel - small at the
> bottom and
> > > wide at the top (I think it was Skip Goebel who last mentioned
> this
> > > subject). I see from your note below that the larger a
> fluidised
> > > bed becomes, the more difficult it is to evenly fluidise. I
> would
> > > assume that means a funnel shaped bed would be even more
> difficult?
> > >
> > > What solutions are there for this problem? How about for a
> funnel
> > > shaped bed?
> >
> >
> > Bearing in mind that I have not yet got my hands dirty gasifying
> > anything, my understanding is that the solutions to fluidised bed
>
> > problems are many and varied and very dependant on the feed stock
> and
> > gasification conditions/technque, ie. it is best solved on a case
> by
> > case basis.
> >
> > Some of the aspects for consideration are :
> >
> > 1. Where the feedstock enters the bed (on top, in the middle or in
> the
> > bottom). As a rule of thumb low density and wet feedstocks should
> be
> > feed in at the middle or bottom and high density or bone dry
> feedstocks
> > (eg. pelletised materials and some wood chips) can be feed onto
> the top
> > of the bed.
> >
> > 2. Then there is the question of how many feed points there are
> and
> > what measures are taken to promote rapid distribution of the
> incoming
> > feed throughout the bed. This is what gets harder as the bed gets
>
> > bigger.
> >
> > 3. Repeat 1 and 2 for any introduced air, oxygen, hydrogen and/or
> steam
> >
> > 4. Adjust the operating temperature depending on the aglomeration
> point
> > of the feedstock (best identified by experiment as ash chemistry
> is
> > much more complicated than simple laboratory sintering point
> > measurements can describe)
> >
> > 5. Consider different bed materials and/or additives (eg lime,
> > dolomite) to reduce agglomeration.
> >
> >
> > I am aware of people using funnel shaped beds for gasifiers of all
>
> > sizes (I think spouted bed is the usual chemical engineering
> term). I
> > for one like the concept for fuels with a broad particle size and
>
> > density distribution. From what I understand spouted beds are
> easier to
> > operate at largish scales (> 10 MWt) than conventional fludised
> beds,
> > but there are some very fancy (and usually confidential) tricks to
>
> > getting them to work (one of these that I have seen mentioned is
> the
> > use of tangential air/steam entries). The big benefit is that you
> don't
> > need all sorts of nozzle manifolds and distributors, bed supporting
>
> > mechanisms, grates etc. to make the thing fluidise.
> >
> >
> > > Will vibratory equipment will assist in evenly fluidizing a
> bed?
> > >
> > Perhaps, probably hard to know unless you try. The application of
>
> > vibratory equpment would probably become technically difficult and
>
> > uneconomic at scales greater than 500 kWt I imagine.
> >
> >
> > James Joyce - Engineer
> > Sugar Research Institute
> > Mackay, Australia
> > ph. (07) 4952 7698
> > www.sri.org.au
> > 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
>

James Joyce - Engineer
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay, Australia
ph. (07) 4952 7698
www.sri.org.au
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sun Mar 28 18:56:11 1999
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Chemical Engineering Web Page
Message-ID: <ef986010.36fec20c@aol.com>

Dear Gasification Members,

I just happened to stumble across this web page and thought some of you would
be interested in bookmarking it. I found the site after a search on
gasification turned up a post in a chemical engineering newsgroup that
referred a reader to the Crest gasification site. Probably someone who is
already a member of gasification!

Currently there are articles about heat exchanger design, fluidised beds, a
cyclone design spreadsheet, etc. Here is the address:

http://chemengineer.miningco.com/

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

From 146942 at classic.msn.com Sun Mar 28 23:20:31 1999
From: 146942 at classic.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A better way to deal with sewage sludge
Message-ID: <UPMAIL01.199903290255310899@classic.msn.com>

Something I always wanted to do but obviously couldn't, was to take sewage
sludge, mix with a little bit of wood chips or sawdust and then run the whole
thing through a large commercial grape crusher.
I used to work at a winery and got to run that big old hydraulic screw type
press. It was just like a meat grinder but 10 feet tall.
The grape hulls were almost dry and augered into a dump truck. I see no
reason why this wouldn't work with sludge. Any takers?

Here in the Ozarks, they are widening the highway and have cut a swath of
trees 30 miles long and 200 yards wide. It all goes into gigantic chippers
and all the stuff is free for the taking.
God, it hurts to see that much energy just getting buried, but it goes to
show
that material handling is where the cost is and in the real world (non
grant),
it is just not economically feasible to play with wood.

I am trying to work with the city of Branson to at least experiment with the
sludge idea. Who knows? Does anybody know the btu value of grey hair? Blue
hair? Hearing aids and dentures............

Skip
Sensible Steam

www.sensiblesteam.com

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

From Alex.English at adan.kingston.net Mon Mar 29 10:22:55 1999
From: Alex.English at adan.kingston.net (*.english)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: combustion testing
Message-ID: <199903291522.KAA03874@solstice.crest.org>

Hello all,

I have recently been playing around with a home made particulate
emissions sampler based on the Condar dilution tunnel. I understand
that it was also part of Oregon Method 41 ??? for wood stoves.

I have posted two informal webpages.

http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/test/test.htm
has results from tests done on a downdraft cord wood fired outdoor
water stove (boiler).

http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/emissions/emissions.htm
has results from my small natural draft charcoal making burner, using
wood pellet fuel. This is an ideal fuel yielding ideal results, even
without any insulation. Insulation would likely help create ideal
results with less than ideal fuel. The next test will be to see how
much excess air can be tolerated using an insulated combustion
chamber.

Comments are welcome. Alex English

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

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

From costaeec at kcnet.com Mon Mar 29 22:59:55 1999
From: costaeec at kcnet.com (Jim Dunham)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A better way to deal with sewage sludge
Message-ID: <004901be7a67$e8c81740$f264f0d1@default>

Skip,

I gocher grape crusher!

We have done exactly as you have described (except the sludge has to be
dry). Not a big deal except for selling the concept.

When we mention wood waste, or any other waste, as a fuel, eyebrows raise
and heads shake. They envision a massive pile of low BTU, dusty, stinking,
bulky filth. Waste espescially, or biomass in general, is known to be
impossible to handle, transport, store, feed, and most importantly, to
control.

Workers and boilers like consistency, and that is not possible with most
unprocessed waste fuels. Thus, your grape crusher; AKA densifier. (cuber,
briquetter, pelletizer)

You are absolutely right regarding the extent of these problems and the
potential solution. It's not the cure-all in every case, but once densified,
waste fuel can be handled, stored, transported, and automatically stokered.
BTU's are high, while emissions and ash are reduced to acceptable levels.

It would be a pleasure to work with you on a project in our back yard and
favorite fishing area, as most of our jobs are many time zones away. ( I
began making annual trips to Branson in 1954)

Best regards,

Jim Dunham
Environmental Engineernig Corp
Kansas City, MO
816-452-3500 fax-452-6663

-----Original Message-----
From: skip goebel <146942@classic.msn.com>
To: Gasification <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Sunday, March 28, 1999 9:25 PM
Subject: GAS-L: A better way to deal with sewage sludge

>Something I always wanted to do but obviously couldn't, was to take sewage
>sludge, mix with a little bit of wood chips or sawdust and then run the
whole
>thing through a large commercial grape crusher.
>I used to work at a winery and got to run that big old hydraulic screw type
>press. It was just like a meat grinder but 10 feet tall.
>The grape hulls were almost dry and augered into a dump truck. I see no
>reason why this wouldn't work with sludge. Any takers?
>
>Here in the Ozarks, they are widening the highway and have cut a swath of
>trees 30 miles long and 200 yards wide. It all goes into gigantic chippers
>and all the stuff is free for the taking.
>God, it hurts to see that much energy just getting buried, but it goes to
>show
>that material handling is where the cost is and in the real world (non
>grant),
>it is just not economically feasible to play with wood.
>
>I am trying to work with the city of Branson to at least experiment with
the
>sludge idea. Who knows? Does anybody know the btu value of grey hair?
Blue
>hair? Hearing aids and dentures............
>
>Skip
>Sensible Steam
>
>www.sensiblesteam.com
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Mar 30 11:38:10 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Address change, trip of T. Reed
Message-ID: <d90d8bc4.3700fe6c@cs.com>

Dear Cresters:

My address has changed FROM reedtb@compuserve.com to reedtb2@cs.com, due to
the upgrading of compuserve to COMPUSERVE 2000.

CS 2000 is much like AOL and has many good and some not so good features, but
I'm keeping it. I recommend it to others using CS. In particular, it
supports 5 mailboxes for family and others using the base account. They also
intend to refer all mail to my old address to my new address. However, in
case they don't, please change my address in your address book.
~~~~~
I will be travelling to Illinois/Indiana for Easter to see Vivian's and my
cousins. Back Thursday, April 8. I hope I'll have Email with me.

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Mar 30 11:38:45 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Request for Lorena stove design assistance
Message-ID: <100ad06f.3700fe6b@cs.com>

Dear Dean Still and all Stover/gasification list:

I would like to congratulate Aprevecho for the candid review of the early
Lorena stove problems and the improvements possible. It is not often that
truth is given a chance to catch up with error. (See H. L. Mencken's "Great
Bathtub Hoax), and no doubt people will continue to read the early
pronouncements.

Yes, earth and clay, CONTRARY TO GENERAL IMPRESSION, are not good insulators,
at least in a world of good insulation., and they have a high density and heat
capacity. I have been beating the drum for a decade for the necessity of
using GOOD insulation in stove manufacture. Would you insulate your home with
dirt? No, you'd use fiberglas.

It is ironic that those making boilers and gasifiers 1000 times larger use
good insulation, even though the surface to volume ratio (which controls heat
lostt) is 1000 times less. I haven't made any converts. People still love
clay.

Benjamin Thomson, Lord Rumford, inventor of the modern cooking range said that
in his youth the stove cooked the cooks more than it cooked the food. So we
would like to keep heat loss to a minimum for fuel efficiency, high
temperature good combustion etc.

I have recommended fibrous mullite(available in many commercial forms such as
Kaowool) and riser sleeves, (many brands, vacuum formed into sleeves 3 to 12
inches in diameter) for making stoves. I have also experimented successfully
with a vermiculite water-glass mixture and am looking for other suggestions.
I hope we get a few responses from those "skilled in the art".

Yours for better stoves and gasifiers, TOM REED

In a message dated 3/28/99 5:11:43 PM Mountain Standard Time, dstill@epud.org
writes:

<<
Dear Friends,

Aprovecho helped to design the Lorena stove and wrote and published plans for
the stove. But, two decades of use have pointed out serious problems with the
stove. The Lorena has been tested over the years by many researchers and has
generally been found to !
use more firewood than an indoor open fire.

The stove has other attributes. Its chimney takes smoke out of the kitchen
and it is well liked. It is pretty and a nice addition to the house. It is low
cost and can be repaired and even built by the home owner. But, it is not a
fuel saving or low emission!
stove.

The reasons for the poor performance of the Lorena stove are varied but the
main reason was that ( twenty years ago) we mistakenly believed that earth was
insulation. The original books on the Lorena stove repeatedly state that the
insulation provided by th!
e earth makes for higher combustion temperatures which results in more
complete combustion. The designers also hoped that the tunnels of earth in the
Lorena directed the fire at the pot, increasing contact.

These assumption are incorrect. Earth is an example of thermal mass, not
insulation. It is a poor insulator. The R-value of tightly packed earth is
around .25 per inch of thickness. Wood is about 1R per inch of thickness. Good
insulation is made up of small!
pockets of air separated from other small pockets of air by a light weight
low conductive material. Wood ash can be a great insulation, as is charcoal,
pumice rock, vermiculite, etc.. But Lorena mix does not have much air in it.
Instead, the densely packed!
together sand and clay absorb heat easily. Heat also easily passes through
Lorena mix.

When used as the walls of the combustion chamber of a stove, Lorena mix
absorbs a lot of heat lowering combustion temperatures and making more smoke.
As importantly, heat that should have gone into the pot ends up in the body of
the stove. Lowered efficienc!
y of combustion and absorption of heat by the stove body lower the fuel
efficiency of the stove.

It takes hours of heating for the very thick stove body to equilibrate: that
is, when as much heat is coming into the stove body as is leaving it so the
temperature of the stove body stabilizes. Studies show that the stove body
equilibrates at around 275 de!
grees F. When the stove is hot it takes less heat away from the pot, but heat
continues to be lost at the lower rate. The stored heat is only useful if the
fire goes out. But, not many people cook without a fire going in the Lorena so
even the retained heat!
is often wasted. The pot, exposed to flame is usually hotter than 275 F. so
retained heat is not directly useful for cooking food. Heat travels from hot
to cold. If the pot is hotter than the Lorena wall, the heat still just
travels away from the pot towar!
d the colder exterior of the stove.

Another big problem with the Lorena is that only the bottom of the pot is
exposed to the fires' heat. There is poor heat transfer to the pot. Exposing
as much of the pot to the fires heat is the most important way to increase
fuel efficiency in a stove. It !
is much more important than increasing fuel efficiency. The sides of the pot,
and also the top for greatest efficiency, should be exposed to hot flue gases.
The original Lorena does not do this.

Because of 1.)lowered combustion efficiency, 2.)heat absorption into the body
of the stove and3.) poor heat transfer to the pot the Lorena usually uses more
firewood than most indoor three stone fires. Earthen stoves usually suffer
from some of the same pro!
blems. Earth is not insulation, instead it absorbs heat that should have gone
into the pot. The cool earthen walls cool fires and can cause smoking from a
fire.

The problems are easy to address, however.

Complete combustion can be approached by:

metering the fuel

insulating around the combustion chamber

forming a grate out of the wood

burning the wood at the tip

preheating the air that enters the fire chamber

igniting escaping smoke

providing sufficient air and sufficient draft

This combination of principles results in good clean burns so usually
combustion is at 90% or greater. This is the easy part. Using a insulated
chimney 10" high will help to accomplish many of these objectives. Cooking
takes place on top of the chimney.

The hard part is to get the heat into the pot. The best that we're going to
do is to get less than half the total heat into the pot. To optimize heat
transfer you can:

insulate and thermally separate the fire and heat from the stove body

shorten the heat flow path to the pot as much as possible

try to have flame touch or nearly touch the pot (initial clean combustion
suffers less from condensing gases on the pot)

encourage hot flue gases to intimately touch, to rub against, as much of the
pot as possible. This is helped tremendously by putting a skirt around the
sides of the pot. The gap should be about 3/16". This adds about 12%
efficiency to the stove by itself!

There are many variations of these design principles that make up a group of
stoves called "Rocket" stoves. But, Rockets look different in each country
because needs are different and materials are different. In Honduras, a team
from Aprovecho is helping lo!
cal organizations to adapt these principles to a stove that looks a lot like
the Lorena with a grill on top. This stove, called the Loroca, is a Rocket
type stove even though the grill or plancha hinders heat transfer to the pot.
In this case, locals very m!
uch wanted a plancha type stove so only a part of the stoves operation could
be optimized. But, much of the Loroca is a Rocket in a Lorena.

By following these design principles fuel efficiency and low emissions are
much more probable. There are even "New Lorena" designs without planchas. But,
it would seem wasteful to continue building the old Lorena without updating
it.

I can't end without adding that research shows tremendous savings by using
Hayboxes which cook food using 1/4 the fuel we are used to expending to cook
beans, etc. An airtight box with R-7 worth of natural insulation, (wool,
straw, cork, ashes, etc.) will c!
ook pinto beans after only ten minutes of boiling. The retained heat in the
pot without added mass, finishes this once tedious and fuel consuming job!
Hayboxes also help with smoke inhalation because the fire is used for a much
shorter time period. Aprovech!
o has a booklet describing the whole five part cooking system. Reach them at
apro@efn.org

Best Regards,

Dean Still
A.T. Coordinator
Aprovecho Research Center

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

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

March 1999 Gasification Archive