BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

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

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

October 1999 Gasification Archive

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

From apchick at dmu.ac.uk Fri Oct 1 05:09:05 1999
From: apchick at dmu.ac.uk (Andy Chick)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Efficiency
Message-ID: <37F47B08.C69C4FEE@dmu.ac.uk>

Hi,

Is there a standard method for measuring the actual efficiency of an
operational gasifier, and not the theoretical value?

I understand that the efficiency of the system is calculated from the
energy value of the feedstock against volumetric flowrate and energy
value of the gas.

For a small scale system (10-50kW) running an IC engine the engine speed
will effect the gas flow through the gasification system. Therefore on a
low load the gas flow will drop, and the temperature within the system
will drop? Will the drop in temperature change the efficiency of the
gasifier? If this is the case, and you scale up the system to 500kW+
will the same efficiency changes occur, or is a larger system likely to
absorb temperature changes/and changes in efficiency?

The reason I ask is:

I have a small 5-10kW gasification system running on dual fuel. On
diesel alone I get a engine efficiency of 30% (as you would expect).
With Dual fuel the efficiency of the engine drops to 11% at half load
and 21% at full load. The calculations for the efficiency assume that
the gasifier is running at 100% efficient ( which of course it is not!).
Therefore, to get a realistic total engine efficiency I have to assume a
gasifier efficiency of between 50-70%. Assuming the gasifier is 60%
efficient give a far better engine efficiency of 25%. So, back to my
original question, how do I measure the efficiency, rather than assuming
the efficiency?

Andrew

--
________________________________________________________________________

Andrew P Chick apchick@dmu.ac.uk
De Montfort University http://www.dmu.ac.uk/ln/itc
School of Agriculture Tel 01400 275625
Caythorpe, Grantham Fax 01400 275656
Lincolnshire UK
NG32 3EP Home Email:
andrew.chick@tesco.net
________________________________________________________________________

 

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

 

From snkm at btl.net Fri Oct 1 07:35:04 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Efficiency
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19991001053715.00770540@wgs1.btl.net>

 

At 10:12 AM 10/1/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Is there a standard method for measuring the actual efficiency of an
>operational gasifier, and not the theoretical value?

Hi Andrew;

For the generation of electrical power from biomass I use this system --
for deriving over all efficiency.

KWH Output
------------------------------------------------------
Total Fuel value in BTU - (% moisture) divided by 3414

 

So --

Processing 3000 lbs of 50% humidity fuel at 8000 BTU per pound (dry) in one
hour -- yielding 1000KW of electricity for one hour (1000 KWH)

50% of 8000BTU = 4000BTU

4000BTU times 3000 = 12,000,000 BTU

12,000,000 BTU divided by 3414 = 3514.9 KWH

1000KWH divided by 3514.9 KWH = 28.5% over all efficiency

This gives real net efficiency for electrical power generation!

Does not include all the waste heat that everyone is so endeared to
claiming as part of energy out so as to get such wonderful results -- on
paper!

One can get a real increase in over all efficiency figures simply by using
the waste heat to dry the fuel.

If your very lucky -- you will get 17% over all efficiency with gasifier to
engine. But 15% is more common.

A modern bagasse burning furnace -- 50% humidity bagasse -- will run at
17.5% over all efficiencies. (90 Ton Boiler, 650 psig/750FTT, 190,000 pph)
The boiler running at 65% efficiency due to preheating combustion air.

Capital cost around $1090 per KWH.

If one dried the fuel to 10% so it would work in a gasifier (plus all the
fancy fuel conditioning required -- right size and consistency -- one would
achieve the same over all efficiency as a gasifier.

I have yet to be able to find the capital costs of an equivalent size
gasifier (fluid bed) per KWH. And no one knows about reliability compared
to the boiler/steam turbine set up -- never mind maintenance costs. These
figures being reliably established for the boiler configuration -- but so
far "unknown" for the gasifier config.

Talk about compulsive gamblers!! It will be a few years as of yet before we
know, apparently!

Excuse the old English terms. The formula works if converted to metric. Be
my guest!

I personally believe the future of biomass "power" lays in biomass
reformation. A non combustion process.

Very little is being done in this domain as of yet. They have to finish
beating fluid bed gasifiers to death first!

(Re: racing flat head Harleys, Honda over engineered nightmares, and Yamaha
two strokes with tuned exhaust systems -- we are presently at the Honda
stage of development!)

Our only hope regarding ever finding out about Fluid Bed Gasifiers is
(apparently) the Vermont project. We can only wait and deduce -- hoping to
get figures based on the above formula -- and not the ones including waste
heat of part of the power out.

The industry has been "bogged" down under the concept of using "waste"
biomass products -- where over all efficiencies are not of importance!

But in organized biomass production for electrical generation -- over all
efficiencies are so very important. The Arbre project being one such
example -- again -- yet to be observed in operation.

There are huge amounts of funds presently invested -- and as in all
developing technologies -- there are huge amounts of funds to be lost yet!

There you go --

Please -- any comments from the list?? I would just love to get the
"straight" figures on gasification!! And especially, to be proved wrong in
my assumptions above!! I would like gasifiaction to come in at greater
efficiency, simpler fuel processing and handling, long term reliability,
and well under $1000 per KWH capital costs. But pinning that down has been
extremely difficult to date -- in "real", funtional, terms!

Peter Singfield
"Medicine Man"
Xaibe Village
Corozal District
Belize, Central America
Tel 501-4-35213
E-mail: snkm@btl.net
Url: http://www.wireworm.com/snkm/index.htm
Url: http://www.caske2000.org/snakeman.htm

>
>Andrew P Chick apchick@dmu.ac.uk
>De Montfort University http://www.dmu.ac.uk/ln/itc
>School of Agriculture Tel 01400 275625
>Caythorpe, Grantham Fax 01400 275656
>Lincolnshire UK
>NG32 3EP Home Email:
>andrew.chick@tesco.net
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From snkm at btl.net Fri Oct 1 08:29:49 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Efficiency
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19991001063640.00f5c6b8@wgs1.btl.net>

 

At 10:12 AM 10/1/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Is there a standard method for measuring the actual efficiency of an
>operational gasifier, and not the theoretical value?

Hi Andrew;

For the generation of electrical power from biomass I use this system --
for deriving over all efficiency.

KWH Output
------------------------------------------------------
Total Fuel value in BTU - (% moisture) divided by 3414

 

So --

Processing 3000 lbs of 50% humidity fuel at 8000 BTU per pound (dry) in one
hour -- yielding 1000KW of electricity for one hour (1000 KWH)

50% of 8000BTU = 4000BTU

4000BTU times 3000 = 12,000,000 BTU

12,000,000 BTU divided by 3414 = 3514.9 KWH

1000KWH divided by 3514.9 KWH = 28.5% over all efficiency

This gives real net efficiency for electrical power generation!

Does not include all the waste heat that everyone is so endeared to
claiming as part of energy out so as to get such wonderful results -- on
paper!

One can get a real increase in over all efficiency figures simply by using
the waste heat to dry the fuel.

If your very lucky -- you will get 17% over all efficiency with gasifier to
engine. But 15% is more common.

A modern bagasse burning furnace -- 50% humidity bagasse -- will run at
17.5% over all efficiencies. (90 Ton Boiler, 650 psig/750FTT, 190,000 pph)
The boiler running at 65% efficiency due to preheating combustion air.

Capital cost around $1090 per KWH.

If one dried the fuel to 10% so it would work in a gasifier (plus all the
fancy fuel conditioning required -- right size and consistency -- one would
achieve the same over all efficiency as a gasifier.

I have yet to be able to find the capital costs of an equivalent size
gasifier (fluid bed) per KWH. And no one knows about reliability compared
to the boiler/steam turbine set up -- never mind maintenance costs. These
figures being reliably established for the boiler configuration -- but so
far "unknown" for the gasifier config.

Talk about compulsive gamblers!! It will be a few years as of yet before we
know, apparently!

Excuse the old English terms. The formula works if converted to metric. Be
my guest!

I personally believe the future of biomass "power" lays in biomass
reformation. A non combustion process.

Very little is being done in this domain as of yet. They have to finish
beating fluid bed gasifiers to death first!

(Re: racing flat head Harleys, Honda over engineered nightmares, and Yamaha
two strokes with tuned exhaust systems -- we are presently at the Honda
stage of development!)

Our only hope regarding ever finding out about Fluid Bed Gasifiers is
(apparently) the Vermont project. We can only wait and deduce -- hoping to
get figures based on the above formula -- and not the ones including waste
heat of part of the power out.

The industry has been "bogged" down under the concept of using "waste"
biomass products -- where over all efficiencies are not of importance!

But in organized biomass production for electrical generation -- over all
efficiencies are so very important. The Arbre project being one such
example -- again -- yet to be observed in operation.

There are huge amounts of funds presently invested -- and as in all
developing technologies -- there are huge amounts of funds to be lost yet!

There you go --

Please -- any comments from the list?? I would just love to get the
"straight" figures on gasification!! And especially, to be proved wrong in
my assumptions above!! I would like gasifiaction to come in at greater
efficiency, simpler fuel processing and handling, long term reliability,
and well under $1000 per KWH capital costs. But pinning that down has been
extremely difficult to date -- in "real", funtional, terms!

Peter Singfield
"Medicine Man"
Xaibe Village
Corozal District
Belize, Central America
Tel 501-4-35213
E-mail: snkm@btl.net
Url: http://www.wireworm.com/snkm/index.htm
Url: http://www.caske2000.org/snakeman.htm

>
>Andrew P Chick apchick@dmu.ac.uk
>De Montfort University http://www.dmu.ac.uk/ln/itc
>School of Agriculture Tel 01400 275625
>Caythorpe, Grantham Fax 01400 275656
>Lincolnshire UK
>NG32 3EP Home Email:
>andrew.chick@tesco.net
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

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

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Sun Oct 3 19:25:44 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Submission from ["Cornel Ticarat" <ticu@rdsor.ro>]
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19991003163332.00db5360@mail.teleport.com>

This message posted to the Stoves list should be of interest to some here on the gasification list. Tom
========================

From: "Cornel Ticarat" <ticu@rdsor.ro>
Subject: Producing charcoal.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 99 05:36:45 PDT

Dear Sirs,

We are a Romanian company interested in producing charcoal and we need information to
establish a plant. Will You kindly let us have that infornation and tell us what are Your terms of co-operation.
We mention we would like to use "pyrolsis method".

Our address:
S.C. MANNA COM PLUS S.R.L.
Bd. Decebal, no. 5
Bl. P 18, ap. 13
Oradea, 3700, Romania
Tel: +40.59.160.372
Fax: +40.59.479.002
E-mail: ticu@rdsor.ro

 

With our best thanks,

Director,
Cornel Ticarat

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

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Oct 3 22:31:44 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Efficiency
Message-ID: <c946bd0f.25296c65@cs.com>

Dear Peter et al:

Peter's calculation of efficiency was perfect - as far as it went. I
couldn't figure out however, what his example represeted. Steam turbine
(typically 10-15%)? Gasifier system (typically 20-25%?

As to the waste heat, yes, use for drying and the exhaust of an engine is
both hot and non oxidizing. Or any other use. It is conveniently hot at
500-700 C to have a lot of energy above the sink temperature of 150 C for
drying or 90 C for making hot water.

Efficiency is important, but let's not get hung up on it.

TOM REED BEF
PS: I am trying to find Edan Prabhu's E mail address, but the web couldn't
locate him.
Are you out there?

In a message dated 10/1/99 8:37:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

<<
Hi Andrew;

For the generation of electrical power from biomass I use this system --
for deriving over all efficiency.

KWH Output
------------------------------------------------------
Total Fuel value in BTU - (% moisture) divided by 3414




So --

Processing 3000 lbs of 50% humidity fuel at 8000 BTU per pound (dry) in one
hour -- yielding 1000KW of electricity for one hour (1000 KWH)

50% of 8000BTU = 4000BTU

4000BTU times 3000 = 12,000,000 BTU

12,000,000 BTU divided by 3414 = 3514.9 KWH

1000KWH divided by 3514.9 KWH = 28.5% over all efficiency

This gives real net efficiency for electrical power generation!
>>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From snkm at btl.net Mon Oct 4 01:10:18 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Efficiency
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19991003231550.00e27370@wgs1.btl.net>

Thanks Tom;

>Peter's calculation of efficiency was perfect - as far as it went. I
>couldn't figure out however, what his example represeted. Steam turbine
>(typically 10-15%)? Gasifier system (typically 20-25%?

I simply pulled the figures for that example out of "thin-air". They
represent nothing but random numbers to demonstrate a mathematical model.

The one system I have to study is getting 17.4% in real terms. (15 megawatt
net power out -- capital cost -- $1094 US per KWH -- July 15th -- 1999!)
>From 50 to 55% bagasse fuel.

And be sure to use the net power produced -- that is after subtracting all
the power needed to operate the power plant! That is not the total power
coming off the generator -- but what goes into the grid!

The boiler efficiency in the example I have at hand was 65% using extensive
(and expensive) preheating of combustion air and bagasse of moisture
content of 50 to 55%.

Bagasse furnaces not using preheat get 55% "boiler" efficiency -- and less
than 17.4% over all efficiencies -- probably around 15%.

A gasifier would need the fuel dried to 15% -- and if we ran bagasse of 15%
in that boiler -- the "boiler" efficiency would be much higher!!

While we have tons of hard data for boiler/steam turbines -- I have not
found much real operating data on large gasifier power plants.

For small gasifiers I was kindly supplied with figures I trust from Prof P
P Parikh of India. 15 to 17% over all efficiencies for gasifiers powering
IC engines. This in small (to 400 KWH) set-ups -- something difficult to
achieve cost effectively with a small boiler/steam turbine setup. So a real
niche application there.

Many thanks to Professor Parikh -- who thus saved me a lot of researching!

I am very curious to hear the results from the Vermont project! When they
get it running steady enough to measure fuel in and KWH (net!!) out.

I suspect some very expensive lessons are about to be learned in the
"developing" industry of biomass power generation.

I certainly learned a lot in the past few months! In my efforts to make
sure we get the best "Program for Belize".

And I have the people on this list to thank for that! Be assured that I
will be supplying honest figures on what we achieve here -- as time goes by
-- as "pay-back". The kind where you can weight the truck load of fuel
coming in and the KWH going out to the grid.

Thanks again Tom for making this excellent list available to the world!

Peter / Belize

At 10:35 PM 10/3/99 EDT, Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
>Dear Peter et al:
>
>Peter's calculation of efficiency was perfect - as far as it went. I
>couldn't figure out however, what his example represeted. Steam turbine
>(typically 10-15%)? Gasifier system (typically 20-25%?
>
>As to the waste heat, yes, use for drying and the exhaust of an engine is
>both hot and non oxidizing. Or any other use. It is conveniently hot at
>500-700 C to have a lot of energy above the sink temperature of 150 C for
>drying or 90 C for making hot water.
>
>Efficiency is important, but let's not get hung up on it.
>
>TOM REED BEF
>PS: I am trying to find Edan Prabhu's E mail address, but the web couldn't
>locate him.
>Are you out there?
>
>In a message dated 10/1/99 8:37:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
>writes:
>
><<
> Hi Andrew;
>
> For the generation of electrical power from biomass I use this system --
> for deriving over all efficiency.
>
> KWH Output
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Total Fuel value in BTU - (% moisture) divided by 3414
>
>
>
>
> So --
>
> Processing 3000 lbs of 50% humidity fuel at 8000 BTU per pound (dry) in one
> hour -- yielding 1000KW of electricity for one hour (1000 KWH)
>
> 50% of 8000BTU = 4000BTU
>
> 4000BTU times 3000 = 12,000,000 BTU
>
> 12,000,000 BTU divided by 3414 = 3514.9 KWH
>
> 1000KWH divided by 3514.9 KWH = 28.5% over all efficiency
>
> This gives real net efficiency for electrical power generation!
> >>
>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 heat-win at cwcom.net Mon Oct 4 12:11:06 1999
From: heat-win at cwcom.net (T J Stubbing)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: activated charcoal
Message-ID: <199910041611.MAA23579@solstice.crest.org>

Warning
Could not process message with given Content-Type:
multipart/mixed; boundary="------------C572FB10869FF4D8330932E9"

 

From armenon at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 20:26:22 1999
From: armenon at yahoo.com (Abhilash Menon)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: URGENT!
Message-ID: <199910060026.UAA12515@solstice.crest.org>

 

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a student of Chemical Engineering
at the University of Twente, Netherlands.
I am cuurently working on a project related to biomass
gasification of agricultural wastes at supercritical
conditions in the fluidized bed condition.
Can you please help me in any way regarding this
topic?

Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours truly,
Abhilash Menon.

=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

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

 

From clydon at ntsdev.com Tue Oct 5 20:26:24 1999
From: clydon at ntsdev.com (Cheryl Lydon)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <199910060026.UAA12526@solstice.crest.org>

For more information:
http://www.globeex.com
NEWS RELEASE
August 24,
1999

Alternative Energy: Barriers to Commercialization
EPA, USDA DOE and Whitehouse to Participate in Panel at GlobeEx 2000

Las Vegas, NV - Richard Bradshaw, Special Assistant for Policy at the U.S.
Department of Energy, will moderate a panel discussion on interagency policy
barriers to commercialization of alternative energy as part of GlobeEx 2000
- The Global Energy Exposition, July 23 -28, in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Participating on the panel will be high-ranking officials from the
Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Whitehouse. The group, led by Bradshaw, will
discuss the diverse missions and policies within each department that are
hindering alternative technology development and commercialization in the
U.S.
"All too frequently, companies developing new technologies for cleaner,
sustainable energy products and more efficient use of energy, encounter
obstacles in deploying, or commercializing these technologies due to federal
laws, regulations and policies that are uncoordinated and sometimes event in
conflict," states Bradshaw, whose primary efforts at the DOE are devoted to
technology policy development and implementation of crosscutting technology
initiatives. According to Bradshaw, "the effect is to scatter R&D efforts,
complicate technology design, raise the risks of deployment and slow market
penetration."
Bradshaw promises 'a no holds barred' discussion with tough questions for
the policy makers as to how the convolutions occur and what the
Administration and agencies are doing to bring at-odds policies into
alignment.
Attendees to GlobeEx 2000 will be able to direct questions to the panel
during the presentation or may e-mail their questions in advance for
possible inclusion in the discussions.
GlobeEx 2000 - encompassing the Global Energy Exposition and Energex 2000,
is a production of the NTS Development Corporation, PGI Exhibitions and the
International Energy Foundation. For more information on this and other
panel presentations, visit www.globeex.com or contact Cheryl
Lydon(clydon@ntsdev.com) 2330 Paseo Del Prado #C101, Las Vegas, NV 89102.

Note: If you are not interested in renewable energy issues and do not wish
to receive further e-mails on this subject, simple type remove in the
subject line and Reply to Sender.

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

 

From eeco at eeco.net Wed Oct 6 17:36:52 1999
From: eeco at eeco.net (EEC)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: URGENT!
Message-ID: <01d901bf1046$2ace9500$1d1c0ece@win98>

Dear Abhilash Menon,

Please feel free to visit our main website and click on "waste-to-energy".
Best of luck.

T. Rondio

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, (EEC)
Renewable Energy Division http://www.eeco.net
Pollution Control Division http://www.eeco.net/pollution
E-mail eeco@eeco.net
294 9th Avenue · San Francisco · California · 94118 ·
USA
TEL (415)386-6424 · FAX (415)386-6484

EEC . . . for a cleaner and healthier natural environment through advanced,
cost effective technologies.

-----Original Message-----
From: Abhilash Menon <armenon@yahoo.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 5:36 PM
Subject: GAS-L: URGENT!

>
>Dear Sir/Madam,
> I am a student of Chemical Engineering
>at the University of Twente, Netherlands.
>I am cuurently working on a project related to biomass
>gasification of agricultural wastes at supercritical
>conditions in the fluidized bed condition.
>Can you please help me in any way regarding this
>topic?
>
>Thanking you in anticipation.
>
>Yours truly,
>Abhilash Menon.
>
>=====
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.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 Fri Oct 8 10:14:19 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Harvesting biomass
Message-ID: <0.449f702b.252f5711@cs.com>

Dear All:

At the risk of repeating some of the previous messages on this subject, I'll
add my 2 c worth.

Mother Nature is the greatest recycler of all, but even she makes mistakes.
If she had better recycling we wouldn't have peat swamps - and oil - and
coal, and there would be a lot more CO2 in the air and we'd be back in the
middle of the paleozoic.

When I first became intersted in biomass as a RENEWABLE energy source, I
worried a lot about the same things bothering Toni and others.

There may still be some worries unaccounted for, but

1) Mature trees are 95% stored dead lignocellulosic material - no nitrogen or
phosphorus, so tree mulch isn't very good fertilizer. All of the good stuff
is stored in the leaves and dropped on the forest floor for recycle.

2) Roots and particularly tree roots are continually releasing useful
minerals locked up in clays. So we have hurricanes every 30 years or so to
topple the trees and bring up this rich stuff.

3) Our harvesting of the food or wood part of biomass leaves lots of
residues to be recycled.

4) If you are worried about the nitrogen content, use the energy in the
residues to make urea and nitrates - that's why humans were created.

So, I'll continue to work on the conversion end of biomass, knowing that
there's lots of biomass to be recycled that surely won't bother our long
range prospects. I'll keep my eye out for those that do.

Onward.... TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 10/7/99 2:23:00 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Davost@aol.com
writes:

<<
<< Even the fastest growing biomass still depletes
soils and aquifers and hampers future generations ability to meet their
needs. >>

Toni, the above statement is not even close to the truth. By establishing
perennial crops, say trees, the record shows increases in soil fertility
rather than the other way around, the reason being soil mineralization by
root-produced organic acids and leaf recycling. You may want to find out
what happens to farmed ground when it's planted back to trees. There is all
kinds of data on this but you may want to study the land put in to farming
in
SE Asia and Brazil. According to your statement, sterile Minnesota corn
ground could never grow trees without fertilization. I invite you to come
and look for yourself.
>>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Fri Oct 8 11:13:31 1999
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Harvesting biomass
In-Reply-To: <0.449f702b.252f5711@cs.com>
Message-ID: <15055750916224@domain1.bigpond.com>

Dear All,

In response to a recent message Tom Reed writes:

> Mother Nature is the greatest recycler of all, but even she makes
> mistakes. If she had better recycling we wouldn't have peat swamps - and
> oil - and coal, and there would be a lot more CO2 in the air and we'd be
> back in the middle of the paleozoic.

Maybe Mother Natures solution is to create an organism with the
need and capacity to recycle this locked up carbon....

Why does everyone believe that we are outside Mother Natures
plans ? As someone who works with the land I am not that vain. In
terms of life the world was a much richer place in the paleozoic. I
just wonder when we have finally completed our role whether there
will still be a place for us.....

Cheers,
Peter
Peter M Davies
"Neikah"
Colinton NSW Australia 2626
Ph: 02 64 544 009
mobile:0142 833 466
Email: p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From Koele at btg.ct.utwente.nl Sat Oct 9 16:10:28 1999
From: Koele at btg.ct.utwente.nl (Hans Jurgen Koele)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: URGENT!
In-Reply-To: <199910060026.UAA12515@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <19991007113538702.AAA360@btgf43>

Abhilash Menon.

Please walk down the stairs at your faculty building and
look for room nr. 1773 to find gasification experts of the
BTG biomass energy group B.V..

Hans Jurgen Koele.

At 08:26 PM 10/5/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Dear Sir/Madam,
> I am a student of Chemical Engineering
>at the University of Twente, Netherlands.
>I am cuurently working on a project related to biomass
>gasification of agricultural wastes at supercritical
>conditions in the fluidized bed condition.
>Can you please help me in any way regarding this
>topic?
>
>Thanking you in anticipation.
>
>Yours truly,
>Abhilash Menon.
>
>=====
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.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 balaji_mudaliar at mumbai.tcs.co.in Tue Oct 12 07:01:04 1999
From: balaji_mudaliar at mumbai.tcs.co.in (balaji_mudaliar@mumbai.tcs.co.in)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: producer gas engines
Message-ID: <65256808.003D0925.00@svraimain.mumbai.tcs.co.in>

 

I am interested in biomass gasification and have certain specific queries.

How much producer gas is generated from 1 kg firewood in a standard gasifier?
What is the calorific value of producer gas?
How much producer gas is required to operate a 5 hp dual-fuel engine-based
pump for 1 hour (for a water level of 15 metres)?
What is the efficiency of the engine?
What modifications are required in a diesel engine to convert it to producer
gas-based engine?
What are the state-of-the-art gasifier technologies that I can use?

Thanks and best regards,

Balaji G Mudaliar
Tata Consultancy Services

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

 

From dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu Tue Oct 12 09:46:00 1999
From: dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: producer gas engines
Message-ID: <601A55066596D211A7AD00104BC6FB254CE532@catalina.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

I have inserted answers after your questions, in your message.

Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
Energy & Environmental Research Center
PO Box 9018
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202
dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu
Ph (701) 777-5120
Fax (701) 777-5181

I am interested in biomass gasification and have certain specific queries.

How much producer gas is generated from 1 kg firewood in a standard
gasifier?
What is the calorific value of producer gas?
3m^3

How much producer gas is required to operate a 5 hp dual-fuel
engine-based
pump for 1 hour (for a water level of 15 metres)?

2.4 m^3 and assuming no engine derate, Need to know at what rate you want
to pump water to figure actual hp.

What is the efficiency of the engine?
Probably 20%

What modifications are required in a diesel engine to convert it to
producer
gas-based engine?
It can be simple - just valved in, or you can purchase commercial natural
gas carburetors for diesel engines. You will have to look at your diesel
fuel injectors. As low Btu gas is added, the injectors will need to
automatically decrease the diesel fuel flow.

What are the state-of-the-art gasifier technologies that I can use?
If you are from India, check out Ankur, or search for BG Technologies
webpage to see information about Ankur's gasification system. Otherwise go
to WWW.webpan.com/BEF/small.htm and see a list of small gasifiers. Or build
your own, check out a paper from the 4th biomass conference of the Americas
"Adaptation and Evaluation of a Rice Hull Gasifier in the Philippines" This
is an excellent example of a simple approach for building a gasifier to run
pumps.

Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
Energy & Environmental Research Center
PO Box 9018
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202
dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu
Ph (701) 777-5120
Fax (701) 777-5181Thanks and best regards,

Balaji G Mudaliar
Tata Consultancy Services

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 Tue Oct 12 09:54:49 1999
From: dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: producer gas engines
Message-ID: <601A55066596D211A7AD00104BC6FB254CE533@catalina.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

Calorific value is 150 Btu/scf or 5580kJ/m^3

Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
Energy & Environmental Research Center
PO Box 9018
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202
dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu
Ph (701) 777-5120
Fax (701) 777-5181

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Schmidt, Darren [mailto:dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 8:44 AM
To: 'gasification@crest.org'
Subject: RE: GAS-L: producer gas engines

I have inserted answers after your questions, in your message.

Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
Energy & Environmental Research Center
PO Box 9018
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202
dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu
Ph (701) 777-5120
Fax (701) 777-5181

I am interested in biomass gasification and have certain specific queries.

How much producer gas is generated from 1 kg firewood in a standard
gasifier?
What is the calorific value of producer gas?
3m^3

How much producer gas is required to operate a 5 hp dual-fuel
engine-based
pump for 1 hour (for a water level of 15 metres)?

2.4 m^3 and assuming no engine derate, Need to know at what rate you want
to pump water to figure actual hp.

What is the efficiency of the engine?
Probably 20%

What modifications are required in a diesel engine to convert it to
producer
gas-based engine?
It can be simple - just valved in, or you can purchase commercial natural
gas carburetors for diesel engines. You will have to look at your diesel
fuel injectors. As low Btu gas is added, the injectors will need to
automatically decrease the diesel fuel flow.

What are the state-of-the-art gasifier technologies that I can use?
If you are from India, check out Ankur, or search for BG Technologies
webpage to see information about Ankur's gasification system. Otherwise go
to WWW.webpan.com/BEF/small.htm and see a list of small gasifiers. Or build
your own, check out a paper from the 4th biomass conference of the Americas
"Adaptation and Evaluation of a Rice Hull Gasifier in the Philippines" This
is an excellent example of a simple approach for building a gasifier to run
pumps.

Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
Energy & Environmental Research Center
PO Box 9018
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202
dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu
Ph (701) 777-5120
Fax (701) 777-5181Thanks and best regards,

Balaji G Mudaliar
Tata Consultancy Services

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 balaji_mudaliar at mumbai.tcs.co.in Tue Oct 12 10:14:31 1999
From: balaji_mudaliar at mumbai.tcs.co.in (balaji_mudaliar@mumbai.tcs.co.in)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: producer gas engines
Message-ID: <65256808.004EC11B.00@svraimain.mumbai.tcs.co.in>

 

Thanks a ton! I really appreciate your quick response.

Thanks again and best regards,

Balaji

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

 

From rick at terrafuels.com Tue Oct 12 10:16:42 1999
From: rick at terrafuels.com (Rick vonHuben)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: History
Message-ID: <l03130300b428f51951ea@[199.179.163.3]>

Dear List:

Does anyone out there have the data that could be used in creating a brief
timeline of significant dates relating to gasification technology?

Thanks

Rick vonHuben

--------------------------------------------------------
Rick vonHuben
Dir. of Development
TerraFuels, Inc.
602 Smith Ave
Lake Bluff, IL 60044
847-735-0168 Phone/Fax
rick@terrafuels.com
--------------------------------------------------------

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

 

From snkm at btl.net Thu Oct 14 10:35:13 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Rec'd Paper - 10/13/99
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19991014074535.00f92124@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Cordner,

Received the paper you sent last evening. Fascinating material. Did not
realize you people are involved with fast pyrolysis and bio-diesel!

I must look over your WWW site:

http://www.care.demon.co.uk/

We are presently engaged in investigating different alternatives; tree
farming and wood chip biomass conversion to energy; here in Belize.

Thank you for the "package"! Will get back to you as soon as I review all
the material.

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

At 12:52 AM 9/19/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Peter,
>
>If you enclose your postal address, I can send you a paper covering all
>the conversion options-gasifier +engine, pyrolysis +engine, IGCC and
>combustion at different capacities. The overall system efficiencies were
>calcualted by a colleague of mine, Dr. Toft, so it is public domain.
>
>Cordner Peacocke
>

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

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Oct 14 19:27:35 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Producer Gas Facts of Life
Message-ID: <0.72bb739f.2537c1cb@cs.com>

Dear Balaji et al:

Ordinarily I wouldn't answer your questions directly, but would refer you to
the CREST archives (www.crest.org) where they are scattered about. However,
since your questions are very relavant and concise, I'll answer them here for
all of us in gasification and stoves to see.

How much producer gas is generated from 1 kg firewood in a standard
gasifier?

1 kg biomass (dry ash free basis) reacts with 1.5 kg of air to make 2.5 kg
(approx 2.5 m3) of producer gas

What is the calorific value of producer gas?

Typically 4.5-5.5 MJ/m3, but can go much higher is special processes or with
enthusiastic advertising

How much producer gas is required to operate a 5 hp dual-fuel engine-based
pump for 1 hour (for a water level of 15 metres)?
What is the efficiency of the engine?

Given the above energy relations, this is a question we would ask our 2nd
year engineering students. The answer is quite specific and I won't do your
homework for you.

What modifications are required in a diesel engine to convert it to
producer
gas-based engine?

You can go
Pilot diesel operation, using 20% diesel, 80% producer gas by just adding
PG to the inlet air

Or, preferably you can convert the engine to spark ignition, maybe reduce
the compression ratio to 12/1. Talk to Ms P. P. Parikh at IIT Bombay and she
will give any amount of answer you need.

What are the state-of-the-art gasifier technologies that I can use?

See "Survey of Biomass Gasification - 2000", issued this week by the Biomass
Energy Foundation Press" (attached book list).

I know that TATA is a very big company in India, but you run TERI and they
know a lot about gasification. See book entries on IIT Bombay, IISc
Bangalore, TERI etc. India is the lead developer of small scale gasifiers,
since they have both the need, the brains and the money. Some other
countries have the brains and money, and too many others have the need, but
India has both.

I hope this is sufficient answer to get you on the right track.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

BOOKS FROM THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS

PURPOSES OF THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS: Biomass energy and
particularly biomass gasification is a field where publications are often
difficult to find. We make available information - sometimes old, sometimes
new - on biomass at reasonable prices in attractive "lie flat" bindings.
See our webpage at www.webpan.com/bef or write us at Reedtb2@cs.com

Biomass Energy Books - Description and Order Blank

NEW: A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: T. Reed and S. Gaur have
surveyed the biomass gasification scene for the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and the Biomass Energy Foundation. 180 pages of large gasifiers
systems, small gasifiers and gasifier research institutions with descriptions
of the major types of gasifiers and a list of most world gasifiers.
180 pp $25 _________

NEW: BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: T.
Milne, N. Abatzoglou, & R. J. Evans. Tars are the Achilles Heel of
gasification. This thorough work explores the chemical nature of tars, their
generation, and methods for testing and destroying them.
ISBN 1-890607-15-6 180 pp $25________

NEW: EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES FOR THE
TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - W. Niessen et al. 1996 NREL report by
Camp Dresser and McKee on MSW conversion processes. ISBN 1-890607-13-6
198 pp $25_______

NEW: FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP, CLEAN FUEL FROM
FREE VEGETABLE OIL: J. & K. Tickell, (1998) Resale from Greenteach
Publishing Co. Tickell has done an excellent job of collecting both theory
and praxis on producing Biodiesel fuel from vegetable oils, particularly used
oil. Nice instructions for kitchen or large scale. ISBN 0-9664616-0-6
90 pp $20 __________

NEW/OLD: DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: Tom Reed and Becky
Bryant, A "State of the Art evaluation of densified biomass fuels" with
documentation of processes, energy balance, economics and applications.
First published in 1978, & still good. ISBN 1-890607-14-6 35 pp
$12 __________

******
BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: T. Reed and A. Das,
(SERI-1988) Over a million wood gasifiers were used to power cars and trucks
during World War II. Yet, after over two decades of interest, there are only
a few companies manufacturing gasifier systems. The authors have spent more
than 20 years working with various gasifier systems, In this book they
discuss ALL the factors that must be correct to have a successful "gasifier
power system." Our most popular book, the "new Testament" of gasification
ISBN 1-890607-00-2 140 pp $25 ________

GENGAS: THE SWEDISH CLASSIC ON WOOD FUELED VEHICLES: English translation,
(SERI-1979) T.Reed, D. Jantzen and A. Das, with index. This is the "Old
Testament" of gasification, written by the people involved in successfully
converting 90% of transportation of WW II Sweden to wood gasifiers.
ISBN 1-890607-01-0 340 pp. $30 ________

SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER-ENGINE SYSTEMS: A. Kaupp and J. Goss. (Veiweg,1984)
Updates GENGAS and contains critical engineering data indispensable for the
serious gasifier projects. Ali Kaupp is thorough and knowledgeable. ISBN
1-890607-06-1 278 pp $30 __________

PRODUCER-GAS: ANOTHER FUEL FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT: Ed. Noel Vietmeyer (The U.S.
National Academy of Sciences-1985) A seeing-is-believing primer with
historical and modern pictures of gasifiers. An outstanding text for any
introductory program. ISBN 1-890607-02-6 80 pp $10 _________

FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED DOWNDRAFT
GASIFIER: T. Reed, M. Graboski and B. Levie (SERI 1988). In 1980 the Solar
Energy Research Institute initiated a program to develop an oxygen gasifier
to make methanol from biomass. A novel air/oxygen low tar gasifier was
designed and studied for five years at SERI at 1 ton/d and for 4 years at
Syn-Gas Inc. in a 25 ton/day gasifier. This book describes the theory and
operation of the two gasifiers in detail and also discusses the principles
and application of gasification as learned over eight years by the
author-gasifier team.
ISBN 1-890607-03-7 290 pp $30 ________

CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: A. Das (TIPI 1989). Test
that gas for tar! Long engine life and reliable operation requires a gas
with less than 30 mg of tar and particulates per cubic meter (30 ppm). The
simplified test methods described here are adapted from standard ASTM and EPA
test procedures for sampling and analyzing char, tar and ash in the gas.
Suitable for raw and cleaned gas. New edition & figures, 1999. ISBN
1-890607-04-5 32 pp $10 _________

TREE CROPS FOR ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION ON FARMS: Tom Milne (SERI 1980)
Evaluation of the energy potential to grow trees for energy. ISBN
1-890607-05-3 260 pp $30 _________

WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: Nils Nygards (1973). Translation of recent
results of Swedish Agricultural Testing Institute. ISBN 1-890607-08-8 50
pp. $4_________

CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLIFIED WOOD GAS GENERATOR: H. LaFontaine (1989) - Over
25 drawings and photographs on building a gasifier for fueling IC engines in
a Petroleum Emergency (FEMA RR28). ISBN 1-890607-11-8 68 pp $15________

BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: Ed. T. Reed and M. Graboski, 1982.
Expert articles on conversion of biomass to methanol. ISBN 1-890607-10-X
331 pp $30_________

THE PEGASUS UNIT: THE LOST ART OF DRIVING WITHOUT GASOLINE: N. Skov and M.
Papworth, (1974). Description and beautiful detailed drawings of various
gasifiers and systems from World War II.
ISBN 1-890607-09-6 80 pp $20________

GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: A. Kaupp. (Veiweg, 1984)
Applies gasification to rice hulls, since rice hulls are potentially a major
energy source - yet have unique problems in gasification. ISBN
1-890607-07-X 303 pp $30_________

TREES: by Jean Giono, 1953. While we strongly support using biomass for
energy, we are also very concerned about forest destruction. This delightful
story says more than any sermon on the benefits and methods of
reforestation. ISBN 1-89060712-6 8 pp $1_________

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
ORDER BLANK
TOTAL FOR BOOKS: ___________
-10% if 3 or more books ordered or to booksellers
___________
+ $3 handling + (US & Canada $1.50/book) or (Other foreign, $8/book air)
___________
TOTAL ORDER ___________

SHIP TO:
Name______________________________________________________________________
Address_______________________________________________________________________
_____
E-mail order to reedtb2@CS.com or Mail orders to The Biomass Energy
Foundation Press (BEFP), or mail to 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401; FAX
303-278 0560; call 303 278 0558. We'll send invoice with books. Pay by
postal order or check on US Banks, or electronic deposit to Bank No. 10 20000
76, Acct. No. 300800 2911. (No foreign checks - can cost $25 to clear!)

 

In a message dated 10/12/99 5:08:29 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
balaji_mudaliar@mumbai.tcs.co.in writes:

<<

I am interested in biomass gasification and have certain specific queries.

How much producer gas is generated from 1 kg firewood in a standard
gasifier?
What is the calorific value of producer gas?
How much producer gas is required to operate a 5 hp dual-fuel engine-based
pump for 1 hour (for a water level of 15 metres)?
What is the efficiency of the engine?
What modifications are required in a diesel engine to convert it to
producer
gas-based engine?
What are the state-of-the-art gasifier technologies that I can use?

Thanks and best regards,

Balaji G Mudaliar
Tata Consultancy Services
>>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From balaji_mudaliar at mumbai.tcs.co.in Sat Oct 16 10:22:14 1999
From: balaji_mudaliar at mumbai.tcs.co.in (balaji_mudaliar@mumbai.tcs.co.in)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Rec'd Paper - 10/13/99
Message-ID: <6525680C.004F7013.00@svraimain.mumbai.tcs.co.in>

 

Dear Cordner,

With reference to the dialogue between Peter Singfield and yourself, I would
request you to send me material on gasifier+engine. I am working on the
possibility of replacing electricity and diesel based pumpsets with producer gas
based pumpsets. I would also request you to comment on the following:

Woody biomass to producer gas conversion efficiency is around 70 - 75 % (1 kg
wood with a cv of 3,600 kcal / kg gives 2.5 to 3 cu.m. producer gas with a cv
of 1,000 kcal/cu.m.)
Efficiency of electric motor or diesel engine is normally specified by
supplier (i.e. electrical or heat energy to mechanical energy). By how much
will this efficiency reduce if I use producer gas?
Efficiency of electric motor or diesel engine-based pumpsets is normally
inversely proportional to the water head. For a given water head, if the
efficiency of electricity or diesel based pump is 50%, what will the
efficiency be for a producer gas based pumpset?

Please note that in point # 2, I am talking only about the electric motor and
diesel engine, while in point # 3, I am interested in the next step i.e. the
pump itself.

Thanks and regards,

Balaji G Mudaliar
Tata Consultancy Services
9th Floor, Nirmal Building,
Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021
India
Phone: 0091 - 022 - 202 4828 (ext.: 260 / 271)
Fax: 0091 - 022 - 287 5501

 

 

Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net> on 10/14/99 07:17:17 PM

Please respond to gasification@crest.org

To: gasification@crest.org
cc: (bcc: Balaji Mudaliar/MLs/TCSMUMBAI/TCS)

Subject: GAS-L: Rec'd Paper - 10/13/99

 

Hi Cordner,

Received the paper you sent last evening. Fascinating material. Did not
realize you people are involved with fast pyrolysis and bio-diesel!

I must look over your WWW site:

http://www.care.demon.co.uk/

We are presently engaged in investigating different alternatives; tree
farming and wood chip biomass conversion to energy; here in Belize.

Thank you for the "package"! Will get back to you as soon as I review all
the material.

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

At 12:52 AM 9/19/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Peter,
>
>If you enclose your postal address, I can send you a paper covering all
>the conversion options-gasifier +engine, pyrolysis +engine, IGCC and
>combustion at different capacities. The overall system efficiencies were
>calcualted by a colleague of mine, Dr. Toft, so it is public domain.
>
>Cordner Peacocke
>

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 Sun Oct 17 19:03:14 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Capstone and Reflective Technology turbines
Message-ID: <0.6844ff6.253bb091@cs.com>

Dear ALL:

I'm feeling guilty - someone asked me for contact info on Capstone turbines
and I've lost the note. Hope this catches him and is useful to others.

At the Fourth BIomass of the Americas Conference there was a very nice
demonstration of a 30 kW Capstone turbine mouted on a small trailor running
on propane. Look for data at www.capstoneturbine.com.

Edan Prabu of Reflective Energies was a featured lunch speaker. He
distributed information on his company and claims to have a way of using the
Capstone turbine with atmospheric pressure fuel gases (like prdoucer gas from
gasifiers). I hope he sees this and tells us how he does it. You can reach
him at edanprabhu@msn.com.

I hope that soon we will be offering turbine operation with our 10-30 kW
gasifier Small Modular Power Biomass System gasifier.

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

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Oct 19 08:48:23 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Rec'd Paper - 10/13/99
Message-ID: <0.d8d6e667.253dc37a@cs.com>

Dear Tom Miles et al:

I continually get messages that start with "Gas-L", as in << Re: GAS-L:
Rec'd Paper - 10/13/99 >>

What does it mean and can we get rid of it????

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

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Oct 19 08:48:48 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO, Gasifiers, and Wood-gas Stoves
Message-ID: <0.480922a9.253dc379@cs.com>

Dear all...

I have been working in laboratories with producer gas which ALWAYS contains
>10% CO for 25 years now and can't say for sure I have ever had any CO
poisoning symptoms. I'm equally sure I have had small doses. So I was very
interested to read Albert Donnay's recent posting and will acquire the poster
and post it in our new BEF and CPC labs.

Under my BEF PRESS publication hat, I feel a sense of responsibility to
anyone using producer gas and we ALWAYS publish CO warnings in our books.
When wood gasifiers first came into use during WW II there were quite a few
deaths from CO .... then none. There is a long chapter on CO in our
"GEN-GAS" book.

However, I feel equally responsible to put the toxicity of CO in context.
(Remember, I not not an MD, but have collected info for 25 years). Yes, 2
full breaths will kill you and until 1940 when natural gas came into use, the
suicide's best friend was his/her oven. Lots of CO suidices were featured in
old movies! Now instead of the desired suicide, you blow up the house if you
attempt suicide with a natural gas oven. If you try to use your ultra clean
car in a sealed garage for suicide, you die of CO2 suffication which requires
> 5% CO2. So make sure you start with a full tank.

Don't forget, most of the cities of the world (including Poe's Richmond) had
gas light by 1900. So, we have lived safely with CO in the past and can do
it safely again. Humans have lived with lesser amounts of CO from day 1 in
their cooking and heating fires. Wood combustion is almost never ideal and
is sure to leave lots of CO. Smokers intentionally breathe enough CO to keep
their blood level about 100 ppm (?), similarly traffic policemen on busy
corners.

When I first began working on wood-gas stoves, Agua Das was horrified at the
idea of having a CO generator in the home. (Every fire is a CO generator to
some degree, so if we give up CO entirely we will have to give up all
combustion.) However, I quickly realized that the gasifier-stove generates
so much volatile material along with the CO that one is instantly warned if
the fire should go out. These volatiles are like the odourant's they put in
propane, natural gas and manufactured gas to warn of a gas leak. We
recommend that every woodgas stove have a vent, but you should have that
anyway to take the cooking odors out of the house. I regularly burn my
woodgas stove indoors without a vent, now that I know what I am doing. No
odor.

Charcoal combustion and gasification is the real culprit, not wood
gasification. Wood has its built in odorant, but charcoal generated CO is
odorless. Our Turbo stove can also be used in the charcoal mode and that's
where you really need the warning.

So, we who are doing experiments should all have a Nighthawk (?) CO meter in
our labs. (Cost $40-$60). Robb Walt and I once set off it's 200 ppm CO
alarm while developing the Stirling gasifier. Generally however I record 0
CO during my stove tests unless I put the meter directly over the flame and
even then only 0-10 ppm.

Considering the health risks of NOT using producer gas stoves in developing
countries I'm willing to risk the stove, but keep warning everyone involved.

Not being a world expert in CO poisoning, I hope this will generate lots of
comments.

Yours for a long, happy low CO life.... TOM REED BEF
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Oct 19 08:48:54 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RESPONSIBLE Harvesting of Biomass
Message-ID: <0.47d6fee7.253dc37c@cs.com>

Dear Gasification and Stoves:

In my book, Kermit Schlansker (posting below) has the right attitude and
Sierra has gone off the track. Responsible use of biomass is infinitely
sustainable and greatly augmentable. Of course "responsible" is the key
work, but humans are getting slowly more responsible as they get more
civilized. (Fewer children, cleaner rivers and air, more protection of
forests,....)

In the 1940's there was hardly a tree left in China and Korea and they
suffered the "sand dragon". Now both countries are 10% forested and growing.
The U.S. East of the Mississippi probably has two to 3 times the number of
trees of 1900.

Keep cutting.... responsibly. It's called "stewardship" and we all must
practice it.

TOM REED BEF

 

In a message dated 10/15/99 1:36:25 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
kssustain@provide.net writes:

<< Re: Harvesting Biomass

There have been so many messages on this subject that I can't keep
track of them so must speak in general terms.
It is unfortunate that the Sierra Club has taken a position against
harvesting biomass because in the end, we must. When the fossil fuels are
gone then wood will be cut as a means of staying warm and there may be no
possibility of controlling such cutting. It is my belief that oil will be at
very low levels within 50 years and that gas will also become scarce. If
there is going to be any future then we must make realistic plans.
The important thing we must do right now is to plant several billion
trees. We can say that this is for nature, Global Warming, lumber, or fuel
for our grandchildren. In order to do this we must create a Civilian
Conservation Corps, use prisoners, use children, use people on welfare, and
use volunteers in order to get the job done. We need to plant all species in
any location where it appears they will have a chance to grow. Since there is
a 50 year lead time in tree growth we must start immediately. The mass
planting program is an antidote for monoculture, erosion, and unemployment.
Although I am in favor of spending massive sums on solar and wind,
preferably with money from energy taxes, I do not believe that either of
these will provide enough energy to satisfy our needs. High costs of
production, storage, and conversion to vehicular fuel will prevent them from
coming close to replacing fossil fuels. What I can see as being possible is
that about 10% of present use could come from solar, 10% from wind, and about
15% from biomass. For the rest, we will have to learn to do without. Biomass
is by far the cheapest alternate fuel and is the only one which can in raw
state be used to power trains and tractors. If forests are fertilized with
nitrogen, ashes, and sewage then they truly become solar energy. Forget about
the airplanes and cars.
It is my belief that Solar Powered Boilers with Steam Engines may
be cheaper and more useful than Solar Electric Cells. An ultimate project for
solar energy would be a nitrogen fertilizer factory in the desert. Without
this fertilizer there would be mass starvation. Presently nitrogen fertilizer
is made using large amounts of energy and natural gas. The desert factory
would need only sun, air, and water as inputs. The output would be essential
fertilizer which could be easily shipped.
Another thing that is essential is to develop and put into mass
production small steam engines driving alternators which can be used for
Combined Heat and Power and Combined Heat and Manufacturing. There are and
will be tremendous amounts of waste wood and clean solid waste which should
be changed to energy and fertilizer. Every bit of waste burned saves coal
from being burned. Wood stoves, fireplaces, and coal are more polluting than
wood and clean waste burned in well designed installations with good
pollution controls.
The unfortunate thing about solar power junkies like the Sierra
club and A Novelli is that their arguments work against mass tree planting
and the development of means to use waste fuels. In the future we will need
every bit of energy we can get in order to forestall mass starvation.
Conservation is our best tool against Unsustainability. I have a
web page on the subject at http://www.provide.net/~kssustain. There is a good
oil reference at http://dieoff.org/page140.htm. Thanks to Jay Hanson for
publishing so many good references.

Kermit Schlansker PE kssustain@provide.net


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

 

From dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu Tue Oct 19 09:29:30 1999
From: dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO
Message-ID: <601A55066596D211A7AD00104BC6FB254CE55C@catalina.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

I concur. Get a $50 CO detector. Inside the box are instructions and good
information on CO poisoning, and symptoms for various levels. Post the
information, and more importantly post what the different beeps mean from
the CO detector. It is a very cheap means of protection. Make sure the
sensor is mounted at elevations/locations where personnel would be
breathing. CO is only slightly lighter than air. Just trying to be helpful
for those who don't already have safety precautions in place.

Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
Energy & Environmental Research Center
PO Box 9018
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202
dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu
Ph (701) 777-5120
Fax (701) 777-5181

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Oct 19 11:19:20 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO, Gasifiers, and Wood-gas Stoves
Message-ID: <0.5831217c.253de6df@aol.com>

Dear Tom Reed and others,
There are much more insidious toxins from combustion than CO, it is the
fastest and most apparent one from outward in inward symptoms, such as
headaches. The various hydrocarbons produced will have cumulative problems
from long term exposure. I have more concern from those than I do CO as they
will not immediately show up.
In the Himalayas, the natives use open fires in their "homes" and have
very little ventilation due to the cold. At that altitude, there is less
oxygen and any amount of CO will have a much more pronounded effect. Their
lifetimes are probably shortened due to the products of combustion exposure.
Do they have higher lung cancer occurrence? Same with cavemen who had fires
in their caves.
Due to my exposure to CO and being a cigar smoker, I take a special form
of Iron and Manganese to allow my hemoglobin to perform closer to normal.
However, the long term effects of CO include reduced brain function which I
have observed. Emotional changes are also part of the equation.
Anyhow, the risks are certainly easily manageable and the benefits far
outweigh the risks, so onward and upward. Wait until we start running the
medium BTU gasifier and operating a water shifting plant which will have a
primarily H2:CO gas stream. Of course any refinery will have the same risks.

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

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Oct 19 11:23:45 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RESPONSIBLE Harvesting of Biomass
Message-ID: <0.b195107c.253de7de@aol.com>

Dear Tom and others,
The other question is what uses more CO2/unit of production, the tree
forest or the agricultural land or grass. If we cut down the trees and put in
lawns, i.e., houses with lawns, which uses more CO2? That is the real
question. Are there any studies which get into this? I have a feeling that a
soybean or corn crop will use more CO2 than trees or native grasses in the
same area.

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

 

From jim.birse at dial.pipex.com Tue Oct 19 13:39:41 1999
From: jim.birse at dial.pipex.com (Jim Birse)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RESPONSIBLE Harvesting of Biomass
In-Reply-To: <0.b195107c.253de7de@aol.com>
Message-ID: <008f01bf1a59$a98d8960$a36945c2@jims>

Dear Tom,

Is this relevant? Surely, what goes in must come out, sometime.

I think the issue of land use re;ates to biomass crops in terms
productivity, and which tyes of crop give the best area productivity on a
sustainable basis. I the UK we think (for now anyway) that probably short
rotation willow coppice is our best bet.

Have I missed the point?

Best Regards,

Jim Birse

----- Original Message -----
From: <LINVENT@aol.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: 19 October 1999 16:27
Subject: Re: GAS-L: RESPONSIBLE Harvesting of Biomass

Dear Tom and others,
The other question is what uses more CO2/unit of production, the tree
forest or the agricultural land or grass. If we cut down the trees and put
in
lawns, i.e., houses with lawns, which uses more CO2? That is the real
question. Are there any studies which get into this? I have a feeling that
a
soybean or corn crop will use more CO2 than trees or native grasses in the
same area.

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

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

 

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 19 16:35:32 1999
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO and its dangers
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19991019210702.007b1da0@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear All,

After reading Tom Reed's comments on CO, I reached for my toxicology guides
and of course pulled out the details on CO. Here is a reference and a
suitable sumamry.

''Encyclopaedia of Toxicology'', P. Wexler, (ed.), Academic Press, 1998,
Vol. 1, p 224-226.

''CO is particularly hazardous, as it has no taste, smell and is
colourless. It is poisonous in concentrations as low as 50 ppm. The gas
bonds to the blood's haemoglobin (Hb), forming carboxyhaemoglobin, which
is a reversible reaction, but it depletes the blood oxygen level as it is
adsorbed 250 times more readily than oxygen, hence the body's capacity to
carry oxygen is gradually depleted until death occurs.

After binding to Hb to displace oxygen and form carboxyhaemoglobin, CO is
reapidly transferred through the body, where it produces asphyxia.

At blood COHb level approaching 30-40%, dizziness, inco-ordination,
nausea, vomiting and collapse occurs. At concentrations greater than 40%
blood saturation, syncope, convulsions, coma and death may occur ''

Another note for those exposed to low concentrations...such as from
stoves.......

''Some studies have indicated that relatively small increments in
carboxyhaemoglobin levels may produce adverse cardiovascualr effects. In
addiotn, reproductive effects following exposures to CO during pregnancy
have been reported''

You have been warned.

Most personal alarms that I have used are set for activation at 50 ppm and
start screaming at 200ppm. At 50 ppm, you have a maximum of 10 minutes to
clear the area. I use a Crowcon personal alarm available here in the UK
which comes as a kit with a test gas bottle. I don't know the cost offhand
but what cost is one's life?

I hope that this helps.

Cordner Peacoke

 

Cordner Peacocke [Dr.]
Director
Conversion And Resource Evaluation Ltd.
9 Myrtle House
5 Cassowary Road
Birmingham
B20 1NE.
Tel: (44) 121 551 0344 or (44) 1232 687774
Fax: (44) 870 0542981 or (44) 121 359 6814
Internet: http://www.care.demon.co.uk/
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 19 16:35:34 1999
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RESPONSIBLE Harvesting of Biomass
In-Reply-To: <0.b195107c.253de7de@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19991019212806.007aa880@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear All,

With regards to short rotation coppice, try and find a source of willow in
the UK where you can buy it delivered to you door in the form you want for
less than £100/t [US$ 165/t]. With prices like these, we might as well
roll up £10 notes and gasify/pyrolyse/combust them instead. Yes, willow
grows quickly, but is it necessarily the best feedstock for gasiification?
In certain very specific instances it is suitable, but look at the problems
the ARBRE project has has in trying to get farmers to plant the stuff.

I have been searching for a source of willow coppice in the UK for a fair
price and it is next to nigh impossible. With high feedstock costs, we
will never get any technology, no matter what scale off the group. Waste
[or low cost feedstock] has a habit of suddenly becoming an expensive
commodity.

Cordner

At 05:09 PM 19/10/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Tom,
>
>Is this relevant? Surely, what goes in must come out, sometime.
>
>I think the issue of land use re;ates to biomass crops in terms
>productivity, and which tyes of crop give the best area productivity on a
>sustainable basis. I the UK we think (for now anyway) that probably short
>rotation willow coppice is our best bet.
>
>Have I missed the point?
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Jim Birse
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <LINVENT@aol.com>
>To: <gasification@crest.org>
>Sent: 19 October 1999 16:27
>Subject: Re: GAS-L: RESPONSIBLE Harvesting of Biomass
>
>
>Dear Tom and others,
> The other question is what uses more CO2/unit of production, the tree
>forest or the agricultural land or grass. If we cut down the trees and put
>in
>lawns, i.e., houses with lawns, which uses more CO2? That is the real
>question. Are there any studies which get into this? I have a feeling that
>a
>soybean or corn crop will use more CO2 than trees or native grasses in the
>same area.
>
>Tom Taylor
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Wed Oct 20 04:27:23 1999
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Rec'd Paper - 10/13/99
In-Reply-To: <0.d8d6e667.253dc37a@cs.com>
Message-ID: <03543077406751@domain0.bigpond.com>

Dear Tom Reed,

I do not know who started the convention but always assumed it
stood for "Gasification List".

I find it very useful to differentiate incoming mail since I can see at
a glance which are general messages and which is direct
correspondence. I would prefer to see it stay.

Regards,
Peter

> Dear Tom Miles et al:
>
> I continually get messages that start with "Gas-L", as in << Re: GAS-L:
> Rec'd Paper - 10/13/99 >>
>
> What does it mean and can we get rid of it????
>
> TOM REED List moderator
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

Peter M Davies
"Neikah"
Colinton NSW Australia 2626
Ph: 02 64 544 009
mobile:0142 833 466
Email: p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From campa at hrl.com.au Wed Oct 20 04:59:49 1999
From: campa at hrl.com.au (Campisi, Tony)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Rec'd Paper - 10/13/99
Message-ID: <B2C7BE7F1AC2D211A84500A0C955FAD439BC20@MAIL_MULGRAVE>

I use Microsoft Outlook as my mail system. I have the "Inbox Assistant"
redirect all mail with "Gas-L" in the message header into its own separate
archive so that it doesn't clutter my Inbox. I would also prefer to see it
stay.

Tony

--------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Campisi PhD
Senior Research Scientist
Combustion, Gasification, Ash Fouling, Process Chemistry
HRL Technology Pty Ltd
677 Springvale Road, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia 3170
Telephone: +61 3 9565 9760
Facsimile: +61 3 9565 9777
e-mail: campa@hrl.com.au
WWW: http://www.hrl.com.au
--------------------------------------------------------

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter M Davies [SMTP:p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 2:00 PM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Rec'd Paper - 10/13/99
>
> Dear Tom Reed,
>
> I do not know who started the convention but always assumed it
> stood for "Gasification List".
>
> I find it very useful to differentiate incoming mail since I can see at
> a glance which are general messages and which is direct
> correspondence. I would prefer to see it stay.
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
> > Dear Tom Miles et al:
> >
> > I continually get messages that start with "Gas-L", as in << Re: GAS-L:
> > Rec'd Paper - 10/13/99 >>
> >
> > What does it mean and can we get rid of it????
> >
> > TOM REED List moderator
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Oct 21 08:43:47 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO, Gasifiers, and Wood-gas Stoves
Message-ID: <0.d5ab7004.2540656e@cs.com>

Dear Tom Taylor et al:

Point well taken.

When burning wood, the dangers from lung damage from unburned wood-volatiles
outweigh the danger from CO. They make a "natural" odourant to warn us.

Several times I have inhaled enough smoke (not from my stoves) to have a
hacking cough for a whole winter.

When burning charcoal (low volatiles) the CO is the only danger and there is
no odourant, so WATCH OUT. I have not had any headaches from CO, but I am
very wary.

Yours truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 10/19/99 9:27:15 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
LINVENT@aol.com writes:

<<
Dear Tom Reed and others,
There are much more insidious toxins from combustion than CO, it is the
fastest and most apparent one from outward in inward symptoms, such as
headaches. The various hydrocarbons produced will have cumulative problems
from long term exposure. I have more concern from those than I do CO as
they
will not immediately show up.
In the Himalayas, the natives use open fires in their "homes" and have
very little ventilation due to the cold. At that altitude, there is less
oxygen and any amount of CO will have a much more pronounded effect. Their
lifetimes are probably shortened due to the products of combustion exposure.

Do they have higher lung cancer occurrence? Same with cavemen who had fires
in their caves.
Due to my exposure to CO and being a cigar smoker, I take a special form
of Iron and Manganese to allow my hemoglobin to perform closer to normal.
However, the long term effects of CO include reduced brain function which I
have observed. Emotional changes are also part of the equation.
Anyhow, the risks are certainly easily manageable and the benefits far
outweigh the risks, so onward and upward. Wait until we start running the
medium BTU gasifier and operating a water shifting plant which will have a
primarily H2:CO gas stream. Of course any refinery will have the same risks.


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

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

 

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Thu Oct 21 15:55:14 1999
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Efficiencies of Conversion Systems
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19991021205857.007a5db0@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear Group and those interested in efficiencies,

I promised to post the sumamry of the paper by Toft and Bridgwater to the
Group on 19th September, ''in a day or two''. I'm sorry for the delay, but
here are the overall findings. If anyone has any questions, I will try and
answer them. The overall evaluation can be found in the previous reference
given:

AJ Toft and AV Bridgwater, ''How fast pyrolysis competes in the electricity
generation market'', in Biomass Gasification and Pyrolysis - State of the
Art and Future Prospects, Kaltschmitt, M. and Bridgwater, A.V., (eds.),
ISBN 1872691 71 4, CPL Press, 1997, p 504-515.

The additional letters refer to the notes at the bottom.

System PyrEng GasEng IGCC Comb
Net elect. output, MWe 1 1 1 1
MWh/y 7017 7017 7016 7022
Feed delivered t/y 6438 5974 5746 11870
Energy flows
Feed delivered GJ/y 110243 102300 98398 203271
Intermediate energy GJ/y 68017 72513 83850 170076
Auxiliary fuel a GJ/y 5515 3816 0 0
Total generator input GJ/y 73532 76330 83850 170076
Gross electricity out GJ/y 28207 27096 27439 30251
Net electricity out b GJ/y 25261 25261 25258 25277
Efficiencies
Conversion efficiency c %LHV 62.0% 71.2% 85.6% 84.1%
Generation efficiency d %LHV 38.4% 35.5% 32.7% 17.8%
System efficiency e %LHV 21.8% 23.8% 25.7% 12.4%


Net elect. output MWe 20 20 20 20
MWh/y 140577 140573 140205 140579
Feed delivered t/y 111643 101180 75321 127587
Energy flows
Feed delivered GJ/y 1911839 1732667 1289835 2184883
Intermediate energy GJ/y 1179544 1261816 1118085 1883079
Auxiliary fuel a GJ/y 95639 66411 0 0
Total generator input GJ/y 1275183 1328228 1118085 1883079
Gross electricity out GJ/y 557062 537134 536471 568566
Net electricity out b GJ/y 506076 506061 504738 506085
Efficiencies
Conversion efficiency c %LHV 62.0% 73.2% 87.1% 86.6%
Generation efficiency d %LHV 43.7% 40.4% 48.0% 30.2%
System efficiency e %LHV 25.2% 28.1% 39.1% 23.2%

a The diesel energy input represents 7.5% of the total energy input to the
engine.
b Gross electricity - internal power consumption
c (Energy in wet liquid product, LHV)/(Energy in wood after storage losses
and drying, LHV)
d (Energy in gross electricity output)/(Energy in wet liquid product +
auxiliary diesel, LHV)
e (Energy in net electricity output)/(Energy in wood as delivered +
auxiliary diesel, LHV)

As Dr. McIlveen-Wright noted, these are all computer based costs, however,
a lot of the data used for the basis of the costs are commercial and based
on actual systems either at pilot or commercial scale.

Cordner Peacocke
Cordner Peacocke [Dr.]
Director
Conversion And Resource Evaluation Ltd.
9 Myrtle House
5 Cassowary Road
Birmingham
B20 1NE.
Tel: (44) 121 551 0344 or (44) 1232 687774
Fax: (44) 870 0542981 or (44) 121 359 6814
Internet: http://www.care.demon.co.uk/
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From sylva at iname.com Thu Oct 21 17:50:16 1999
From: sylva at iname.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19991021224150.006db7dc@mail.cableol.co.uk>

On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:28:06 +0100, you wrote:

>Dear All,
>
>With regards to short rotation coppice, try and find a source of willow in
>the UK where you can buy it delivered to you door in the form you want for
>less than £100/t [US$ 165/t]. With prices like these, we might as well

Please define the form in which you want it, also suggest why it has to be
willow?

>will never get any technology, no matter what scale off the group. Waste
>[or low cost feedstock] has a habit of suddenly becoming an expensive
>commodity.

That is what I want to see, a return to the situation where biomass is
valued rather than a disposal cost, however in the interim I am happy to
use the waste *disposal* subsidy help compete with the artificially (i.e.
not bearing its full environmental cost) low price of fossil derived fuels.
AJH

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

 

From sylva at iname.com Thu Oct 21 18:20:46 1999
From: sylva at iname.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RESPONSIBLE Harvesting of Biomass
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19991021232711.006965f0@mail.cableol.co.uk>

Repost, apologies for leaving out the subject line and attribution in my
previous effort:
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:28:06 +0100, Cordner wrote:

>Dear All,
>
>With regards to short rotation coppice, try and find a source of willow in
>the UK where you can buy it delivered to you door in the form you want for
>less than £100/t [US$ 165/t]. With prices like these, we might as well

Please define the form in which you want it, also suggest why it has to be
willow?

>will never get any technology, no matter what scale off the group. Waste
>[or low cost feedstock] has a habit of suddenly becoming an expensive
>commodity.

That is what I want to see, a return to the situation where biomass is
valued rather than a disposal cost, however in the interim I am happy to
use the waste *disposal* subsidy help compete with the artificially (i.e.
not bearing its full environmental cost) low price of fossil derived fuels.
AJH

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

 

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Thu Oct 21 18:52:14 1999
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RESPONSIBLE Harvesting of Biomass
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19991021232711.006965f0@mail.cableol.co.uk>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19991021235611.007c7ac0@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear All,

In my previous message with regards to biomass supply, I was not suggesting
that biomass should be viewed as waste per se, rather that it is not a low
cost feedstock and in some cases, a very expensive feedstock.

If the biomass industry in the UK, and probably the rest of Europe has to
pay up to £100/t for prepared material for a downdraft gasifier [in this
case I was referring to short billtets of willow, no leaves, not debarked],
then there is no chance that the technology is viable, unless you are up at
20 MWe, and that works only for £50/t of prepared material. For
gasification and pyrolysis, wea re in trouble.

>From my own experience, competing with fuels is always hard, as often it is
the lowest costs ''commodity'' that you are trying to sell. It is better
if there is something ''value added'' associated with the technology, e.g
in the case of fast pyrolysis, there are other viable products from the
liquids. Anyway, that is another debate.

Cordner

At 11:27 PM 21/10/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Repost, apologies for leaving out the subject line and attribution in my
>previous effort:
>On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:28:06 +0100, Cordner wrote:
>
>>Dear All,
>>
>>With regards to short rotation coppice, try and find a source of willow in
>>the UK where you can buy it delivered to you door in the form you want for
>>less than £100/t [US$ 165/t]. With prices like these, we might as well
>
>Please define the form in which you want it, also suggest why it has to be
>willow?
>
>>will never get any technology, no matter what scale off the group. Waste
>>[or low cost feedstock] has a habit of suddenly becoming an expensive
>>commodity.
>
>That is what I want to see, a return to the situation where biomass is
>valued rather than a disposal cost, however in the interim I am happy to
>use the waste *disposal* subsidy help compete with the artificially (i.e.
>not bearing its full environmental cost) low price of fossil derived fuels.
>AJH
>
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
Cordner Peacocke [Dr.]
Director
Conversion And Resource Evaluation Ltd.
9 Myrtle House
5 Cassowary Road
Birmingham
B20 1NE.
Tel: (44) 121 551 0344 or (44) 1232 687774
Fax: (44) 870 0542981 or (44) 121 359 6814
Internet: http://www.care.demon.co.uk/
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From jim.birse at dial.pipex.com Fri Oct 22 05:44:31 1999
From: jim.birse at dial.pipex.com (Jim Birse)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RESPONSIBLE Harvesting of Biomass
In-Reply-To: <0.b195107c.253de7de@aol.com>
Message-ID: <043901bf1c72$c599be60$a36945c2@jims>

Dear Cordner,

I'm not sure where your figure of £100/t has arisen from. Our experience
with growers and developers of biomass alike would suggest that a figure of
closer to £40 / odt (delivered 30 to 45% mc, including chipping, storage and
delivery) might be more realistic. Of course we still have plenty of work
to do on improving our establishment techniques, crop management and fuel
supply chain to optimise the entire process, improve yields and reduce
costs, but we are well on the way.

Wood fuel from Willow SRC is not yet a commercial agricultural commodity in
the UK; I am not surprised you could not find a competitive supplier.
One-off growers with small areas of the crop are not likely to be
competitive. Groups of Growers (as the industry is now working to develop
around several developing power stations, including ARBRE) sharing resources
and expertise are now developing and are likely to be substantially more
competitive.

The problems ARBRE have had are far more to do with the EU Common
Agricultural Policy than any problem with SRC as a crop. If you consider the
state of the UK Sheep and Beef industries our farmers are crying out for
diversification opportunities; ones that carry 15 year indexed linked
contracts for produce are particularly welcome. The problem we have is that
Sheep and Beef (lowland) are subsidised to the tune of perhaps £200 / ha /
yr whereas energy crops grown on grassland are not eligible for any annual
support. In addition SRC is a new crop trying to compete with arable crops
with hundreds of years of development behind them, farmers do not know the
crop and establishment costs present a big initial financial hurdle. Around
ARBRE the industry have persuaded the UK's Ministry of Agriculture to put in
place a locational supplement for SRC to help it to break into the
agricultural sector and to counteract the unlevelled playing field of the
existing subsidy system. here are now substantial areas of SRC being
planted for ARBRE; 600 Ha is already signed up for planting next spring. We
shortly expect MAFF to unveil a national scheme to enable the establishment
of further regional SRC plantations.

We fully accept that, for now, willow SRC is not the cheapest source of wood
fuel in the UK; we have large quantities of forestry residues and small
roundwood available at lower prices. However, we are very confident that
new management techniques, technology and improved crop varieties are
already brining costs down. as we begin to establish commercial scale
plantations this process is accelerating.

Finally, you might note that the UK forestry industry is entering a major
harvesting phase (harvested volumes will double between now and 2010 and
stay at that level until around 2025), providing a very useful 'strategic
resource that will help to keep wood fuel prices under control as we rapidly
develop capacity over the coming decade or three. When you also consider
the implications of the Landfill Directive and the Producer Responsibility
(packaging recycling) regulations on the availability of recovered wood
fuel, along with a national drive to bring small woodland back into
management and to plant new woodland I believe we have plenty of woodfuel to
be going on with, which will be supplemented by fuel from dedicated energy
crop resources as market demand develops.

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: Cordner Peacocke <cpeacocke@care.demon.co.uk>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: 19 October 1999 21:28
Subject: Re: GAS-L: RESPONSIBLE Harvesting of Biomass

Dear All,

With regards to short rotation coppice, try and find a source of willow in
the UK where you can buy it delivered to you door in the form you want for
less than £100/t [US$ 165/t]. With prices like these, we might as well
roll up £10 notes and gasify/pyrolyse/combust them instead. Yes, willow
grows quickly, but is it necessarily the best feedstock for gasiification?
In certain very specific instances it is suitable, but look at the problems
the ARBRE project has has in trying to get farmers to plant the stuff.

I have been searching for a source of willow coppice in the UK for a fair
price and it is next to nigh impossible. With high feedstock costs, we
will never get any technology, no matter what scale off the group. Waste
[or low cost feedstock] has a habit of suddenly becoming an expensive
commodity.

Cordner

At 05:09 PM 19/10/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Tom,
>
>Is this relevant? Surely, what goes in must come out, sometime.
>
>I think the issue of land use re;ates to biomass crops in terms
>productivity, and which tyes of crop give the best area productivity on a
>sustainable basis. I the UK we think (for now anyway) that probably short
>rotation willow coppice is our best bet.
>
>Have I missed the point?
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Jim Birse
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <LINVENT@aol.com>
>To: <gasification@crest.org>
>Sent: 19 October 1999 16:27
>Subject: Re: GAS-L: RESPONSIBLE Harvesting of Biomass
>
>
>Dear Tom and others,
> The other question is what uses more CO2/unit of production, the tree
>forest or the agricultural land or grass. If we cut down the trees and put
>in
>lawns, i.e., houses with lawns, which uses more CO2? That is the real
>question. Are there any studies which get into this? I have a feeling that
>a
>soybean or corn crop will use more CO2 than trees or native grasses in the
>same area.
>
>Tom Taylor
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

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

 

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Sun Oct 24 07:24:28 1999
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RESPONSIBLE Harvesting of Biomass
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19991021232711.006965f0@mail.cableol.co.uk>
Message-ID: <11253894648970@domain6.bigpond.com>

Hello all,

Just a brief summary of some of my thoughts and experiences
since starting a serious look at biomass energy.

1. Waste or negative value feedstocks are by definition under
threat as reliable fuel sources since they cost somebody
something which they would rather not pay. Alternate waste
strategies are continually under development, try planning a 25
year (or even 10 yr) project with certainty using "negative" value
feedstocks.

2. As a potential biomass producer the product must be
competitive with alternate land use returns (if stand alone) or meet
the cost of collection if a residue from another enterprise. In other
words its least value must be equal to its harvesting and transport
costs.

A common mistake is to assume all residues are "waste" and
therefore some kind of burden, in many cases they are not.
Removal may in fact have negative impacts on things like soil and
water quality. 70% of forest nutrients are contained in the leaves,
bark and small limbs, something that many whole tree harvesting
systems don't take into account. If you take it out you have to
replace it somehow, quite apart from groundcover and erosion
issues.

3. Level playing fields are like "Ball Bearing Birds", everyone
knows their habits but no one has ever seen one.

4. If biomass energy is to be adopted on a large scale in
developed nations then it must have its own "market" not
competing with fossil fuels (see 3. above). In other words it has to
have either some form of direct subsidy or a legislated minimum
electrical capacity (with resulting higher average price for power
consumers).

5. Not with standing the above points niche opportunities do exist.
Particularly where onsite power or heat generation from locally
available biomass allows value adding for other enterprises at a
price advantage (the sugar industry is the big example). Individual
circumstances vary and so does the application of technologies
such as gasification.

Never give up.

Cheers,
Peter M Davies
"Neikah"
Colinton NSW Australia 2626
Ph: 02 64 544 009
mobile:0142 833 466
Email: p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Sun Oct 24 14:10:30 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Rec'd Paper - 10/13/99
In-Reply-To: <B2C7BE7F1AC2D211A84500A0C955FAD439BC20@MAIL_MULGRAVE>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19991024111501.01d08600@mail.teleport.com>

Tom et al.,

The Gas-L tag is supplied by the server (the computers and program that
manage the list messages) to identify the message as one from the
Gasification list and distinguish it from messages from the digestion list
Dig-L, etc. It is useful for indexing as Tony suggests. Since it is being
used for that purpose we'll keep it.

Regards,

Tom Miles
Bioenergy List Administrator

At 06:37 PM 10/20/99 +1000, Campisi, Tony wrote:
>I use Microsoft Outlook as my mail system. I have the "Inbox Assistant"
>redirect all mail with "Gas-L" in the message header into its own separate
>archive so that it doesn't clutter my Inbox. I would also prefer to see it
>stay.
>
>Tony
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>Anthony Campisi PhD
>Senior Research Scientist
>Combustion, Gasification, Ash Fouling, Process Chemistry
>HRL Technology Pty Ltd
>677 Springvale Road, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia 3170
>Telephone: +61 3 9565 9760
>Facsimile: +61 3 9565 9777
>e-mail: campa@hrl.com.au
>WWW: http://www.hrl.com.au
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter M Davies [SMTP:p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 2:00 PM
> > To: gasification@crest.org
> > Subject: Re: GAS-L: Rec'd Paper - 10/13/99
> >
> > Dear Tom Reed,
> >
> > I do not know who started the convention but always assumed it
> > stood for "Gasification List".
> >
> > I find it very useful to differentiate incoming mail since I can see at
> > a glance which are general messages and which is direct
> > correspondence. I would prefer to see it stay.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Peter
> >
> > > Dear Tom Miles et al:
> > >
> > > I continually get messages that start with "Gas-L", as in << Re: GAS-L:
> > > Rec'd Paper - 10/13/99 >>
> > >
> > > What does it mean and can we get rid of it????
> > >
> > > TOM REED List moderator
>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 ticu at rdsor.ro Sun Oct 24 15:51:27 1999
From: ticu at rdsor.ro (Cornel Ticarat)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "Sonocarb" retort or another type resembling it.
Message-ID: <199910241951.PAA17386@solstice.crest.org>

id PAA15608
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification

Dear Sirs,

I have heard there is some "Sonocarb" type retort which can process FRESH
CUTTED WOOD (moisture: 50-60 %) into charcoal. Is that true? If so, please
let me know the address of the company producing it. If not, please let me
know another type of retort which can process fresh cutted wood into
charcoal and the company producing it.

My address:

Cornel Ticarat
Bd. Decebal, no. 5
Bl. P 18, ap. 13
Oradea, 3700
Romania
Tel: +40.59.160.372
Fax: +40.59.479.002
E-mail: ticu@rdsor.ro

My best thanks in advance.

Sincerely yours,

Cornel Ticarat

 

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

 

From arcate at email.msn.com Mon Oct 25 18:30:46 1999
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bagasse and biomass drying
Message-ID: <002901bf1f39$d38a0ce0$0100007f@localhost>

 

Hello Gasification:

This is a continuation of September 1999 discussions on biomass drying
influe gases, etc.
HRL and others ? have proposed Integrated Drying Gasification Combined
Cycle Technology http://www.hrl.com.au/
where biomass is dried in the hot gas stream out of the
gasifier.Questions:How much energy is recovered in the
combustion turbine via the "mass flow"of steam ?

What is the net energy used for integrated drying ? in kJ per lb of water
infuel feed ?Tom Reed said in an earlier message "Saturated steam is
an excellent drying agent for wood."
Tom Stubbing's Airless Dryer concept uses an indirect heater to produce
superheated steam for drying.  How would Airless Drying compare to
Integrated Drying Gasification Combined Cycle Technology ?


best regards to everyone,Jim Arcate<A
href="http://www.techtp.com">www.techtp.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Oct 26 09:57:29 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO meters, smoke meters et al
Message-ID: <0.ae345225.25470e1b@cs.com>

Dear Albert Donnay, Stovers and Gasifiers...:

My thanks to Ron and Albert for opening this important issue, and here are a
few more thoughts and rebuttals.

1) The Nighthawk digital meter seems to come in a variety of models. Is the
criticism for slow response applicable to all models? I have been using it
with mixed feeling for three years. Yes, it is slow, but WOW it has a great
alarm. Woke me up at midnight a year ago.

2) Is there a webpage for the AIM meter? Can anyone post a brochure.

~~~~~~~~~~~
I would like to defend and inform myself on what Albert calls my "potentially
lethal misinformation". I am not setting myself up to be an expert, so I
throw the following out to the experts in hopes of learning from the
discussion.

I was taken to task for saying that I burned the Turbo stove indoors without
a vent. Robb Walt and I have demonstrated it on the desks of many
bureaucrats and NGO's around the world to show that there are NO emissions
when wood is properly burned. (Typically the stove does not register ANY CO
on the Nighthawk suspended 3 feet above the fire.)

My point was NOT, that we should ignore CO in biomass combustion. It was
that when burning wood, the smoke acts as a natural "odorant" much more
powerful than the mercaptans added to natural gas. I have suffered from
smoke inhalation several times, but did not show CO symptoms. Kirk Smith
regularly warns us of the health effects of biomass cooking - smoke, not CO.
So it is my current belief that when cooking with wood, the smoke is more
toxic than the CO. I hope I can get a debate going between Andrew and Kirk.

The real killer is CHARCOAL. No odorant left in the fuel. So, the wood
burning country folk die of smoke related diseases while the city folk (who
burn charcoal) die of CO poisoning.

Last Saturday I illustrated this to my student in the Turbo stove. In the
initial stage, the volatiles burn and leave charcoal. (NO CO registered
during volatile combustion). After the volatiles have all burned, the stove
becomes a CO generator. OK if you burn it in situ; lethal if not. We blew
out the CO flame and quickly saw 350 ppm on our Nighthawk directly over the
stove and turned off the stove. Khris was impressed!

SO in summary, .... we believe that all biomass stove installations should
have a "cooking vent". Who wants the grease and garlic condensing on the
walls (and lungs)? And, this will also take out any combustion emissions,
smoke or CO that occur. If the STOVES list is trying to improve the cooking
lot of 3 billion people, they should make this a policy cornerstone.

~~~~~~~
If humans were less tolerant to CO and smoke, civilization would probably
never have developed. SO, living with smoke and CO is the penalty we pay for
burning fossil and renewable fuels.

In the last decades smoke alarms have become ubiquitous in the developed
world, while CO alarms are relatively rare. Is it too much to hope that AIM
or NIGHTHAWK will make a combination SMOKE/CO alarm?
~~~~~

There are no ultra clean cars except electric ones. Any gasoline combustion
engine run in a closed garage will kill you from CO buildup long before any
CO2
buildup. Your death will come fastest on a cold day with a cold engine,
but even a warm engine on a warm day will do the deed.

Maybe Andrew has a pre-1985 car with no oxygen sensor. When I have my car
tested (at idle) it puts out less than 5 ppm CO, and probably 13% CO2. 5 ppm
CO is less than you find on a busy street corner in Tokyo. Why does Andrew
claim that you will still die of CO poisoning rather than CO2 suffocation?
Humans can tolerate up to 5% CO2 in their air (for instance on submarines),
but 13% is lethal (Lake Nios in Africa killed 1900 citizens and 10,000 cows
by belching a CO2 cloud).
~~~~~
I was glad to hear that smokers "adapt" to CO poisoning (and high altituge).
No doubt they produce more hemoglobin - is this confirmed. I have long
suspected that when interviewing people to work on gasification one should
choose smokers over non-smokers. Could it be that by giving up smoking, we
weaken our capacity to deal with CO and smoke from other sources? Maybe
second hand smoke is a good thing.

It is Autumn here in Colorado - very colorful - and I miss the smell of
burning leaves, associated with my youth. The leaf smell is quite different
from the wood smoke smell. I attribute it to the nitrogen left in the
leaves. The smell of a good cigar is quite different from that of a
cigarette too, but that's a different subject.

So, for the foreseeable future we had better educate ourselves, our clients
and our children on the dangers of smoke and CO, but not make them so afraid
that they die of worry.

Yours for a better, safer, renewable future, TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 10/21/99 10:00:34 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
larcon@sni.net writes:

<<

This was forwarded to me from the Stoves list, because of my interest in CO.
Please see that my comments make it back to the list. Thanks -- Albert
Donnay.

I want to correct some of the potentially lethal misinformation that Tom
posted
about CO:

First, accidental CO poisoning still kills more people--about 1500 per year
in
USA-- than all other toxins combined. Another 2000 kill themselves
intentionally
with CO. Many deaths are caused by people using a gas oven as a heat
source (Tom
is right that if you just run the gas without lighting it, you get an
explosion
hazard, but many people also are made sick by the natural gas itself
--methane--and/or the "odorant" --ethyl mercaptan-- that is added to it.

But he is not correct in saying that:

>If you try to use your ultra clean
>car in a sealed garage for suicide, you die of CO2 suffication which
requires
> 5% CO2. So make sure you start with a full tank.

There are no ultra clean cars except electric ones. Any gasoline combustion
engine run in a closed garage will kill you from CO buildup long before any
CO2
buildup. Your death will come fastest on a cold day with a cold engine,
but even
a warm engine on a warm day will do the deed.

With respect to gas light, most cities had it by 1875, and by 1900 many were
already in the midst of switching over to electric light. Unfortunately,
the same
manufactured gas (from coal) was then used for another 50years as utility
gas for
heating, cooking, refrig. and other appliances until the widespread intro of
natural gas in the 1950s. We did NOT live safely with gas in the last
century--it was a leading cause of death and illness then too--and we are not
living safely with it today either, mostly because we still allow the use of
unvented gas appliances indoors (ovens, ranges, space heaters, etc) and, even
worse, because we allow tightly sealed homes to be built with attached and
tuck-under garages.

Smokers and others routinely exposed to high levels of CO actually adapt to
this
relative oxygen debt quite well (just like people who live at altitude). It
is
non-smokers who are at greatest risk from CO because they are much more
sensitive
to low levels. (Notice how when smokers and non-smokers go skiing at high
altitude, say for a week in Colorado, the non-smokers are gasping for air
while
the smokers do just fine). The COHb level in non-smokers (from the body's own
production of CO) is normally less than 2%. But in smokers this may be 5% to
15%. CO may also be measured in exhaled breath. Here non-smokers are about
6ppm, smokers are 10 to 70 ppm.

Of greatest concern is Tom's comment that:
> I regularly burn my woodgas stove indoors without a vent, now that I know
what
I am
> doing. No odor.

If he does this, and if thinks that because he can't smell any volatiles
there
also is no CO, then he most certainly does not know what he is doing. Any
combustion produces CO to some degree, and there may be an odor that he
simply
can't detect or can no longer detect (the phenomenon of sensory habituation
allows us to tune out sensory input after they are recognized: the best
example
is H2S or hydrogen sulfide, the gas that smells like rotting eggs when you
first
smell it but within minutes most people can't smell it at all). Please
folks,
don't take any stupid chances -- if you burn any fuel indoors, use a vent!

And get a good CO Alarm. The Nighthawk brand he mentions was recalled
earlier
this year for problems with it failing to go off fast enough or at all.
Since I
also am the medical director of AIM Safe Air Products, I of course want to
recommend ours-- it's portable and comes with batteries that last 3 years,
don't
need replacing and can't be removed. It also has a memory function that
stores
the peak CO level for up to 8 days and shows how many hours have elapsed
since,
which is very useful when investigating CO leaks.

You can order directly from AIM (I won't be profiting personally) by calling
1-800-220-0121.

--Albert Donnay, MHS
adonnay@mcsrr.org


Tom Reed, Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
>>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Tue Oct 26 19:15:38 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification Reference Pages
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19991026162056.00c33e30@mail.teleport.com>

I've started a list of reference links to industrial and IGCC biomass
gasification projects. So far there are some links supplied by John Irving
(Burlington Electric Department), Henk De Lange (Bioelettrica) and others.

Please post links for projects that you think should be included (in any
language). The intent is provide descriptions of the projects (past and
present).

http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

Once we get a good picture of the larger projects we'll work down to the
smaller systems.

Thanks

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

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

 

From tomb at snowcrest.net Tue Oct 26 22:26:04 1999
From: tomb at snowcrest.net (Tom Blackburn)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO meters, smoke meters et al
In-Reply-To: <0.ae345225.25470e1b@cs.com>
Message-ID: <000d01bf2023$49628200$1aac4ed1@tomblack>

Dear Tom, and others;

The new Aim digital CO detector can be found at
http://www.donsservice.com/image11.gif. It sells for $89.00.
I am purchasing one of these for myself, and will let you know how I
like it.

Regards,
Tom Blackburn

----- Original Message -----
From: <Reedtb2@cs.com>
To: <larcon@sni.net>; <stoves@crest.org>; <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 7:00 AM
Subject: GAS-L: CO meters, smoke meters et al

> Dear Albert Donnay, Stovers and Gasifiers...:
>
> My thanks to Ron and Albert for opening this important issue, and here
are a
> few more thoughts and rebuttals.
>
> 1) The Nighthawk digital meter seems to come in a variety of models.
Is the
> criticism for slow response applicable to all models? I have been
using it
> with mixed feeling for three years. Yes, it is slow, but WOW it has a
great
> alarm. Woke me up at midnight a year ago.
>
> 2) Is there a webpage for the AIM meter? Can anyone post a brochure.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> I would like to defend and inform myself on what Albert calls my
"potentially
> lethal misinformation". I am not setting myself up to be an expert,
so I
> throw the following out to the experts in hopes of learning from the
> discussion.
>
> I was taken to task for saying that I burned the Turbo stove indoors
without
> a vent. Robb Walt and I have demonstrated it on the desks of many
> bureaucrats and NGO's around the world to show that there are NO
emissions
> when wood is properly burned. (Typically the stove does not register
ANY CO
> on the Nighthawk suspended 3 feet above the fire.)
>
> My point was NOT, that we should ignore CO in biomass combustion. It
was
> that when burning wood, the smoke acts as a natural "odorant" much
more
> powerful than the mercaptans added to natural gas. I have suffered
from
> smoke inhalation several times, but did not show CO symptoms. Kirk
Smith
> regularly warns us of the health effects of biomass cooking - smoke,
not CO.
> So it is my current belief that when cooking with wood, the smoke is
more
> toxic than the CO. I hope I can get a debate going between Andrew and
Kirk.
>
> The real killer is CHARCOAL. No odorant left in the fuel. So, the
wood
> burning country folk die of smoke related diseases while the city folk
(who
> burn charcoal) die of CO poisoning.
>
> Last Saturday I illustrated this to my student in the Turbo stove. In
the
> initial stage, the volatiles burn and leave charcoal. (NO CO
registered
> during volatile combustion). After the volatiles have all burned, the
stove
> becomes a CO generator. OK if you burn it in situ; lethal if not.
We blew
> out the CO flame and quickly saw 350 ppm on our Nighthawk directly
over the
> stove and turned off the stove. Khris was impressed!
>
> SO in summary, .... we believe that all biomass stove installations
should
> have a "cooking vent". Who wants the grease and garlic condensing on
the
> walls (and lungs)? And, this will also take out any combustion
emissions,
> smoke or CO that occur. If the STOVES list is trying to improve the
cooking
> lot of 3 billion people, they should make this a policy cornerstone.
>
> ~~~~~~~
> If humans were less tolerant to CO and smoke, civilization would
probably
> never have developed. SO, living with smoke and CO is the penalty we
pay for
> burning fossil and renewable fuels.
>
> In the last decades smoke alarms have become ubiquitous in the
developed
> world, while CO alarms are relatively rare. Is it too much to hope
that AIM
> or NIGHTHAWK will make a combination SMOKE/CO alarm?
> ~~~~~
>
> There are no ultra clean cars except electric ones. Any gasoline
combustion
> engine run in a closed garage will kill you from CO buildup long
before any
> CO2
> buildup. Your death will come fastest on a cold day with a cold
engine,
> but even a warm engine on a warm day will do the deed.
>
> Maybe Andrew has a pre-1985 car with no oxygen sensor. When I have my
car
> tested (at idle) it puts out less than 5 ppm CO, and probably 13% CO2.
5 ppm
> CO is less than you find on a busy street corner in Tokyo. Why does
Andrew
> claim that you will still die of CO poisoning rather than CO2
suffocation?
> Humans can tolerate up to 5% CO2 in their air (for instance on
submarines),
> but 13% is lethal (Lake Nios in Africa killed 1900 citizens and 10,000
cows
> by belching a CO2 cloud).
> ~~~~~
> I was glad to hear that smokers "adapt" to CO poisoning (and high
altituge).
> No doubt they produce more hemoglobin - is this confirmed. I have
long
> suspected that when interviewing people to work on gasification one
should
> choose smokers over non-smokers. Could it be that by giving up
smoking, we
> weaken our capacity to deal with CO and smoke from other sources?
Maybe
> second hand smoke is a good thing.
>
> It is Autumn here in Colorado - very colorful - and I miss the smell
of
> burning leaves, associated with my youth. The leaf smell is quite
different
> from the wood smoke smell. I attribute it to the nitrogen left in the
> leaves. The smell of a good cigar is quite different from that of a
> cigarette too, but that's a different subject.
>
> So, for the foreseeable future we had better educate ourselves, our
clients
> and our children on the dangers of smoke and CO, but not make them so
afraid
> that they die of worry.
>
> Yours for a better, safer, renewable future, TOM REED BEF
>
> In a message dated 10/21/99 10:00:34 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
> larcon@sni.net writes:
>
> <<
>
> This was forwarded to me from the Stoves list, because of my interest
in CO.
> Please see that my comments make it back to the list. Thanks --
Albert
> Donnay.
>
> I want to correct some of the potentially lethal misinformation that
Tom
> posted
> about CO:
>
> First, accidental CO poisoning still kills more people--about 1500
per year
> in
> USA-- than all other toxins combined. Another 2000 kill themselves
> intentionally
> with CO. Many deaths are caused by people using a gas oven as a heat
> source (Tom
> is right that if you just run the gas without lighting it, you get an
> explosion
> hazard, but many people also are made sick by the natural gas itself
> --methane--and/or the "odorant" --ethyl mercaptan-- that is added to
it.
>
> But he is not correct in saying that:
>
> >If you try to use your ultra clean
> >car in a sealed garage for suicide, you die of CO2 suffication which
> requires
> > 5% CO2. So make sure you start with a full tank.
>
> There are no ultra clean cars except electric ones. Any gasoline
combustion
> engine run in a closed garage will kill you from CO buildup long
before any
> CO2
> buildup. Your death will come fastest on a cold day with a cold
engine,
> but even
> a warm engine on a warm day will do the deed.
>
> With respect to gas light, most cities had it by 1875, and by 1900
many were
> already in the midst of switching over to electric light.
Unfortunately,
> the same
> manufactured gas (from coal) was then used for another 50years as
utility
> gas for
> heating, cooking, refrig. and other appliances until the widespread
intro of
> natural gas in the 1950s. We did NOT live safely with gas in the
last
> century--it was a leading cause of death and illness then too--and we
are not
> living safely with it today either, mostly because we still allow the
use of
> unvented gas appliances indoors (ovens, ranges, space heaters, etc)
and, even
> worse, because we allow tightly sealed homes to be built with
attached and
> tuck-under garages.
>
> Smokers and others routinely exposed to high levels of CO actually
adapt to
> this
> relative oxygen debt quite well (just like people who live at
altitude). It
> is
> non-smokers who are at greatest risk from CO because they are much
more
> sensitive
> to low levels. (Notice how when smokers and non-smokers go skiing at
high
> altitude, say for a week in Colorado, the non-smokers are gasping for
air
> while
> the smokers do just fine). The COHb level in non-smokers (from the
body's own
> production of CO) is normally less than 2%. But in smokers this may
be 5% to
> 15%. CO may also be measured in exhaled breath. Here non-smokers
are about
> 6ppm, smokers are 10 to 70 ppm.
>
> Of greatest concern is Tom's comment that:
> > I regularly burn my woodgas stove indoors without a vent, now that
I know
> what
> I am
> > doing. No odor.
>
> If he does this, and if thinks that because he can't smell any
volatiles
> there
> also is no CO, then he most certainly does not know what he is doing.
Any
> combustion produces CO to some degree, and there may be an odor that
he
> simply
> can't detect or can no longer detect (the phenomenon of sensory
habituation
> allows us to tune out sensory input after they are recognized: the
best
> example
> is H2S or hydrogen sulfide, the gas that smells like rotting eggs
when you
> first
> smell it but within minutes most people can't smell it at all).
Please
> folks,
> don't take any stupid chances -- if you burn any fuel indoors, use a
vent!
>
> And get a good CO Alarm. The Nighthawk brand he mentions was
recalled
> earlier
> this year for problems with it failing to go off fast enough or at
all.
> Since I
> also am the medical director of AIM Safe Air Products, I of course
want to
> recommend ours-- it's portable and comes with batteries that last 3
years,
> don't
> need replacing and can't be removed. It also has a memory function
that
> stores
> the peak CO level for up to 8 days and shows how many hours have
elapsed
> since,
> which is very useful when investigating CO leaks.
>
> You can order directly from AIM (I won't be profiting personally) by
calling
> 1-800-220-0121.
>
> --Albert Donnay, MHS
> adonnay@mcsrr.org
>
>
> Tom Reed, Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
> >>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Oct 28 10:01:40 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Publication of "Survey of Biomass Gasification - 2000"
Message-ID: <0.1d52dd7a.2549b237@cs.com>

Dear Gasification list (only):

In 1995, Prof. Sid Gaur and I were comissioned by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) to write "A Survey of Biomass Gasification - 1996".
Unfortunately, Sid Gaur left the Colorado School of Mines in 1996 and I have
had to finish up the work myself, so the title has changed to "A Survey of
Biomass Gasification 2000" (with a nice millenial ring to it).

The book is sponsored by both NREL and the Biomass Energy Foundation, BEF
(me). NREL is publishing copies for the U.S. Government; the BEF Press is
publishing for the rest of the gasification world. We need to sell a
zillion copies for me to justify the time I have spent on this book. There
certainly is renewed interest in gasification as we approach the end of the
petroleum age.

"Survey 2000" is available (see list below) for $25 plus shipping and
handling from the BEF Press. It is just over 200 pages.
~~~~~~~~
It would be difficult for me as the principle author to write a review of the
book but here are some comments.

Chapter 1 is an introduction to gasifiers, how they work and comments based
on my recent world trip and 25 years experience in the field. A second
volume on the science and engineering of gasification is in the workds, but
don't hold your breath.

Chapter 2 is a Gasifier Database summary of about 160 Large gasifier systems,
small gasifiers, gasifier research organizations and gasifier equipment
suppliers. My apologies to those who may have been left out, but I intend to
keep the database updated on my webpage (see below), so fill in the form
below for changes or new entries.

Chapter 3 describes in much more detail some large gasifier systems, both
alive and dead, that I have visited or investigated.

Chapter 4 describes small gasifiers that I have visited.

Chapter 5 Describes gasifier research organizations.

Chapters 6, 7 and 8 are conversion factors, a glossary and general
references.

Imperfect as it is bound to be in a field changing so fast, I hope that the
book will be useful to the gasification community.

I am announcing the book only to the gasification LIST at this point to avoid
being swamped by orders faster than I can fill them.
~~~~~~~~
The data base from Survey-2000 has been on my web page at www.webpan.com/BEF
for two years now and is somewhat out of date. I expect to update it before
2000. If you find any errors or have new information that should be
included, please Email me on the form (way below) and I will make
corrections.

Yours truly for a better world through gasification....

Thomas B. Reed BEF PRESS

~~~~~~~~~~
BOOKS FROM THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS

NEW: A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: T. Reed and S. Gaur have
surveyed the biomass gasification scene for the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and the Biomass Energy Foundation. 200 pages of large gasifiers
systems, small gasifiers and gasifier research institutions with descriptions
of the major types of gasifiers and a list of most world gasifiers.
200 pp $25 _________

NEW: BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: T.
Milne, N. Abatzoglou, & R. J. Evans. Tars are the Achilles Heel of
gasification. This thorough work explores the chemical nature of tars, their
generation, and methods for testing and destroying them.
ISBN 1-890607-15-6 180 pp $25________

NEW: EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES FOR THE
TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - W. Niessen et al. 1996 NREL report by
Camp Dresser and McKee on MSW conversion processes. ISBN 1-890607-13-6
198 pp $25_______

NEW: FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP, CLEAN FUEL FROM
FREE VEGETABLE OIL: J. & K. Tickell, (1998) Resale from Greenteach
Publishing Co. Tickell has done an excellent job of collecting both theory
and praxis on producing Biodiesel fuel from vegetable oils, particularly used
oil. Nice instructions for kitchen or large scale. ISBN 0-9664616-0-6
90 pp $20 __________

NEW/OLD: DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: Tom Reed and Becky
Bryant, A "State of the Art evaluation of densified biomass fuels" with
documentation of processes, energy balance, economics and applications.
First published in 1978, & still good. ISBN 1-890607-14-6 35 pp
$12 __________

******
BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: T. Reed and A. Das,
(SERI-1988) Over a million wood gasifiers were used to power cars and trucks
during World War II. Yet, after over two decades of interest, there are only
a few companies manufacturing gasifier systems. The authors have spent more
than 20 years working with various gasifier systems, In this book they
discuss ALL the factors that must be correct to have a successful "gasifier
power system." Our most popular book, the "new Testament" of gasification
ISBN 1-890607-00-2 140 pp $25 ________

GENGAS: THE SWEDISH CLASSIC ON WOOD FUELED VEHICLES: English translation,
(SERI-1979) T.Reed, D. Jantzen and A. Das, with index. This is the "Old
Testament" of gasification, written by the people involved in successfully
converting 90% of transportation of WW II Sweden to wood gasifiers.
ISBN 1-890607-01-0 340 pp. $30 ________

SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER-ENGINE SYSTEMS: A. Kaupp and J. Goss. (Veiweg,1984)
Updates GENGAS and contains critical engineering data indispensable for the
serious gasifier projects. Ali Kaupp is thorough and knowledgeable. ISBN
1-890607-06-1 278 pp $30 __________

PRODUCER-GAS: ANOTHER FUEL FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT: Ed. Noel Vietmeyer (The U.S.
National Academy of Sciences-1985) A seeing-is-believing primer with
historical and modern pictures of gasifiers. An outstanding text for any
introductory program. ISBN 1-890607-02-6 80 pp $10 _________

FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED DOWNDRAFT
GASIFIER: T. Reed, M. Graboski and B. Levie (SERI 1988). In 1980 the Solar
Energy Research Institute initiated a program to develop an oxygen gasifier
to make methanol from biomass. A novel air/oxygen low tar gasifier was
designed and studied for five years at SERI at 1 ton/d and for 4 years at
Syn-Gas Inc. in a 25 ton/day gasifier. This book describes the theory and
operation of the two gasifiers in detail and also discusses the principles
and application of gasification as learned over eight years by the
author-gasifier team.
ISBN 1-890607-03-7 290 pp $30 ________

CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: A. Das (TIPI 1989). Test
that gas for tar! Long engine life and reliable operation requires a gas
with less than 30 mg of tar and particulates per cubic meter (30 ppm). The
simplified test methods described here are adapted from standard ASTM and EPA
test procedures for sampling and analyzing char, tar and ash in the gas.
Suitable for raw and cleaned gas. New edition & figures, 1999. ISBN
1-890607-04-5 32 pp $10 _________

TREE CROPS FOR ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION ON FARMS: Tom Milne (SERI 1980)
Evaluation of the energy potential to grow trees for energy. ISBN
1-890607-05-3 260 pp $30 _________

WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: Nils Nygards (1973). Translation of recent
results of Swedish Agricultural Testing Institute. ISBN 1-890607-08-8 50
pp. $4_________

CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLIFIED WOOD GAS GENERATOR: H. LaFontaine (1989) - Over
25 drawings and photographs on building a gasifier for fueling IC engines in
a Petroleum Emergency (FEMA RR28). ISBN 1-890607-11-8 68 pp $15________

BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: Ed. T. Reed and M. Graboski, 1982.
Expert articles on conversion of biomass to methanol. ISBN 1-890607-10-X
331 pp $30_________

THE PEGASUS UNIT: THE LOST ART OF DRIVING WITHOUT GASOLINE: N. Skov and M.
Papworth, (1974). Description and beautiful detailed drawings of various
gasifiers and systems from World War II.
ISBN 1-890607-09-6 80 pp $20________

GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: A. Kaupp. (Veiweg, 1984)
Applies gasification to rice hulls, since rice hulls are potentially a major
energy source - yet have unique problems in gasification. ISBN
1-890607-07-X 303 pp $30_________

TREES: by Jean Giono, 1953. While we strongly support using biomass for
energy, we are also very concerned about forest destruction. This delightful
story says more than any sermon on the benefits and methods of
reforestation. ISBN 1-89060712-6 8 pp $1_________

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
ORDER BLANK
TOTAL FOR BOOKS: ___________
-10% if 3 or more books ordered or to booksellers
___________
+ $3 handling + (US & Canada $1.50/book) or (Other foreign, $8/book air)
___________
TOTAL ORDER ___________

SHIP TO:
Name______________________________________________________________________
Address_______________________________________________________________________
_____
E-mail order to reedtb2@CS.com or Mail orders to The Biomass Energy
Foundation Press (BEFP), or mail to 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401; FAX
303-278 0560; call 303 278 0558. We'll send invoice with books. Pay by
postal order or check on US Banks, or electronic deposit to Bank No. 10 20000
76, Acct. No. 300800 2911. (No foreign checks - can cost $25 to clear!)

~~~~

BIOMASS GASIFICATION INFORMATION FORM

(Please fill out and mail/Fax/E-mail to Prof. Thomas Reed at the Biomass
Energy Foundation, 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401; 303 278 0560FX;
reedtb2@cs.com.)

GASIFIER TYPE: (Large systems = >5MW; Small manufacturer; Research & Support;
and Equipment & Consulting)

ORGANIZATION: (Name of company/organization)

DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES: (Fluidized bed, fixed bed (updraft, downdraft,
...) , heat, power, synthetic fuels, R&D, design, support... )

CONTACT: (Name of person to contact)

COUNTRY:

PHONE/FAX: (including country code)

ADDRESS:

E-MAIL:

WEB PAGE (if any):

FUELS TESTED: (Wood, Ag residues, MSW, ...)

STATUS: (Planning, building, operating, commercial..)

SIZES: (Indicate built or planned)

UNITS BUILT: (or under construction)

YEARS IN OPERATION:

PROBABLE COST: ($/kWh or typical)

COMMENTS: (Brag a little)

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Oct 28 10:02:35 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engines for Producer Gas
Message-ID: <0.6e5a2e6f.2549b247@cs.com>

Dear Gasification:

The optimal marriage of engines to gasifiers is a central issue in
gasification - yet there has been very little research on appropriate engines
and too much application of false information.

My good friends Dr. Shashikantha and Prof. P. P. Parikh at the Indian
Institute of Technology, Bombay, have just (today?) published and presented
the seminal paper on the subject:

SPARK IGNITION PRODUCER GAS ENGINE AND DEDICATED COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS
ENGINE: TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND EXPERMIENTAL PERFORMANCE OPTIMISATION
SAE Paper 99FL-407.

Presented at the 1999 SAE International Fuels and Lubricants Meeting October
25-28, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

~~~~

There has been a tremendous amount of work in optimising diesel,
gasoline-spark and gas-spark engines for producer gas - BUT NO WORK ON WHICH
TO USE!, no quantitative cross comparison.

During WW II over a million existing gasoline engines were converted to
producer gas, but there was a 40% loss of power (- chug chug). Now,
conventional wisdom has favored aspirating producer gas into unmodified
diesel engines with ~ 80% diesel replacement.

In my "Gasification Odyssey" in 1996 I asked myself what the octane number of
producer gas is. Using Tom Reed's rule

OCTANE NO. =10XMaximum practical compression ratio without preignition

I got an answer of over 180 octane! So I wondered why most producer gas
users prefered diesel engines? High Octane is a blessing in spark engines -
permits using high compression for high efficiency. High octane is a curse
in diesel engines. Won't compression ignite! *

As I travelled, I asked the same question and I found three groups that had
recently converted diesel engines to spark ignition. They were all happy.
Ever since I have been an advocate of using producer gas in spark engines
with ~ 12/1 compression ratio. But I had no quantitative data.

At that time Shashikantha at Prof. Parikh's lab was finishing his PhD thesis
(started 1990) on optimal conversion of diesel to spark. The above paper is
the summary of his 9 year thesis on the subject. The advantages are:

Little or no derating derating of the diesel engine
Optimal compression ratio 11.5/1
35 degree BTDC spark advance optimal for producer gas (22 degrees for methane)
NO particulate emissions
Much lower CO, and NOX emissions than pilot diesel

~~~~~~~
Congratulations on a great thesis Dr. Shashikantha.
~~~~
I hope that Prof. Parikh can post a copy of this seminal paper to all members
of our GASIFICATION@CREST.org list. Or possibly post it on a Web page. We
at CPC will be studying the paper intently for our SMB project.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF/CPC

* (The recent U.S. National program of converting city buses to methanol
illustrates that engine people often don't understand the relative role of
octane and cetane. A shameful waste of money. Methanol: 120 octane is a
GREAT fuel for spark engines - terrible for compression ignition.)

 

 

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From T.Jayah at devtech.unimelb.edu.au Thu Oct 28 11:19:34 1999
From: T.Jayah at devtech.unimelb.edu.au (Tuan Haris Jayah)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
Message-ID: <199910281519.LAA16702@solstice.crest.org>

Hi there,

I am inquisitive to know the function of having a throat in down draft
Gasifiers. Could anyone explain it?

Thanks
Tuan
------------------------------------------------------------
IDTC
Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
The University of Melbourne
Parkville Victoria 3052
AUSTRALIA
------------------------------------------------------------

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From costich at pacifier.com Fri Oct 29 09:07:13 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
Message-ID: <00ab01bf2210$18842dc0$4d8941d8@compaq>

Tuan: my experience about the conical restriction immediately above the
grate in a downdraft gasifier is that given the same blower air supply in
cfms, the wind speed thru this "venturi" causes an enhanced pyrolysis.
In my homebuilt system, I recognize that it sharpens the focus of the
fire-- a crude analogy like what happens when you sharpen a pencil.
costich.tripod.com
Dale

-----Original Message-----
From: Tuan Haris Jayah <T.Jayah@devtech.unimelb.edu.au>
To: undisclosed-recipients:; <undisclosed-recipients:;>
Date: Thursday, October 28, 1999 11:59 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasifiers

>Hi there,
>
>I am inquisitive to know the function of having a throat in down draft
>Gasifiers. Could anyone explain it?
>
>Thanks
>Tuan
>------------------------------------------------------------
>IDTC
>Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering
>Faculty of Engineering
>The University of Melbourne
>Parkville Victoria 3052
>AUSTRALIA
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>Gasification Projects
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu Fri Oct 29 10:37:15 1999
From: dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Throat in Imbert Gasifier
Message-ID: <601A55066596D211A7AD00104BC6FB254CE591@BACKOFFICE>

I never really saw a benefit to having a throat in a downdraft gasifier.
However these are my best guesses as to why.

1. A stratified downdraft gasifier in intended to have continuous feed and
char removal. The imbert gasifier was designed to operate as a batch device
in which it must store fuel while in operation, and have the ability to be
recharged without interruption. This is the only reason I could think of
for locating the air input at the location that an Imbert gasifier has. Tom
Reed operates an upsidedowndraft gasifier (same concept as a stratified
downdraft gasifier) in batch mode, but it is my understanding that this
gasifier is a stove and not intended to be continuously recharged without
interruption.
Conclusion: The imbert is serving the purpose of vehicular transportation,
where it would be charged with fuel, run, and then recharged when needed.
This can't be done with a stratified downdraft gasifier unless you designed
a fuel feed system.

2. So in reference to Imbert gasifiers: There must be sufficient volume to
store fuel (larger diameter at the top). At the reaction zone air must
penetrate far enough into the gasifier to react with the fuel, which means
you are limited to a given throat diameter. A larger throat requires a
larger blast velocity (air velocity through the nozzles). Blast velocity is
limited to pressure drop through the nozzles. I think the reason for the
throat is to get good contact of air and fuel, and the area above it is
wider because fuel must be stored in large enough quantify to minimize
refueling occurrences.

Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
Energy & Environmental Research Center
PO Box 9018
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202
dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu
Ph (701) 777-5120
Fax (701) 777-5181

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Oct 29 11:17:28 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
Message-ID: <0.858fa034.254b157c@aol.com>

RE: Throated downdraft gasifier:
Char reduction is a very slow thermodynamic process and as such, the high
velocity and temperature in addition to the water(steam) reaction with char
in the throat area is increased, thereby increasing the reaction and
reduction of char in the process.
One downdraft design did not have the throated configuration and had a high
production of tars which were afterburned to convert to chars or ash. The
gas velocity was too low as was the temperature to convert the tars to ash in
this design.

Many other gasifiers do not see this occurring and as such, the char reaction
is reduced and higher content char is evident. It does not seem to be a
problem feeding a throated downdraft unit continuously. The major problems
have been with feed material size to get full gas flow and preventing
blockage of the throat.
It is a very clever configuration and served many users very well during
WWII.

Tom Taylor
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From pjp at 2.sbbs.se Sun Oct 31 07:14:05 1999
From: pjp at 2.sbbs.se (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Throat in Imbert Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <601A55066596D211A7AD00104BC6FB254CE591@BACKOFFICE>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9910311153390.31247-100000@localhost>

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Schmidt, Darren wrote:

>
> I never really saw a benefit to having a throat in a downdraft gasifier.
> However these are my best guesses as to why.
>
> 1. A stratified downdraft gasifier in intended to have continuous feed and
> char removal. The imbert gasifier was designed to operate as a batch device
> in which it must store fuel while in operation, and have the ability to be
> recharged without interruption. This is the only reason I could think of
> for locating the air input at the location that an Imbert gasifier has.

Maybe moisture in the fuel plays a role in why the twires are placed near
the hearth. The heat from the hearth radiates upwards. Just above the
twires, the fuel is charified; above that, tar is released; and above that,
steam is released. The steam from the fuel can be extracted at the top with
a condensor, but only if the air isn't flowing through the fuel. The steam
pressure from the drying zone is, I suspect, the primary reason for bad
idling capability: watergas reaction is endothermic, and the steam
pressure/flow also prevents air (oxygen) from entering the hearth, thus
reducing the generated heat further. So if the gasifier has been working
on heavy load for a while and the load is lowered to idling, there is still
a lot of steam being generated higher up in the gasifier: lots of steam,
but small amounts of gas sucked from the gasifier --> small amounts of air,
or no air at all is sucked in to the hearth, only steam is passing through
the hearth --> the gasifier turns into a water gas reactor, and cools down
fast. So the twires are placed where they are in the Imbert gasifier to
make the gasifier more tolerant to variations in fuel moisture and have
better dynamics (variation in load). The early wood gasifiers without
a condensor at the fuel tank had lousy idling capabilites.
The part of the gasifier above the nozzles could be viewed as a
distillator. (This doesn't explain what the throat is for though, which
was the original question.)

In the gasifier prototype a friend of mine built this summer (mounted on a
Ford Granada), he used a box-shaped fuel tank, with dubble walls (the inner
walls perforated) for condensing steam on the outer walls (i.e.
"monorator"-type). He once tested it on soaking wet wood and it worked,
allthough not as good as on dry wood, and he had to stop ever so often to
let out water from the condense water tank, which was a bit on the small
side for the tremendous amounts of condense water generated from dripping
wet wood. =)

One reason the designers at Imbert put a throat in the hearth could have
been to prevent the charcoal at the bottom from being crushed by the weight
of the fuel above; suspension for the fuel. The charcoal in the centre just
above the throat could fall down to the reduction zone intact, and the rest
be crushed and consumed in the oxidation zone (more oxygen closer to the
nozzles); thus the ratio between the areas at the nozzles and at the throat
would decide how much of the charcoal should go into the reduction
zone. ...? Perhaps one could let a gasifier cool off (fairly fast,
somehow, to "freeze" its state -- by feeding pure CO2 to it, instead of air
maybe), and take out the fuel layer by layer and see if there are charcoals
of smaller size around the perimeter above the throat than in the centre
and in the throat itself; dig it out like an archeological excavation.

Maybe the Imbert designers didn't know themselves why there should
be a throat there -- like we don't (ok, *I* don't ;).

It would be interesting to be able to vary the throat diameter under way,
to see what happens to the char production and the dynamics of the
gasifier (and tar). ...how on Earth a thing like that could be built;
something like the diaphragm in a camera perhaps. Is it necessary that the
hearth be round? Could it be square or rectangular instead? That would make
things easier.

Joacim
-
main(){printf(&unix["\021%six\012\0"],(unix)["have"]+"fun"-0x60);}
-- David Korn

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml