September 1999 Gasification Archive

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Wed Sep 1 03:38:17 1999
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: grates
Message-ID: <000901bef44b$bd068c00$64e637d2@graeme>

Dear Vern and Colleagues

No Grates

Sorry but you misread my last posting, I haven't sniffed CO since
Sweetwaters back in March. I was actually inferring that I missed its
stink!

To answer your questions in detail will only add to the confusion regarding
how your process will work, so will stick to "your" facts.

1: Grates, plates or ash domes are only where the descending fuel ends up
either as char or ash. The key is whether the ash or char is permeable and
the gas can permeate through without channelling.

2: In an earlier post you identified your proposed system with staved air
pyrolysis. The gases from pyrolysis are distillation gases which are very
unstable, and apart from combustible gas, produce copious amounts of black
liquor. Because of the tar content, it certainly runs an engine but you may
find the valves seize.

3: I burnt our household paper this morning, so took the opportunity to
study how each type reacted to oxidation. You should do the same, for it
appears no two cartons or packets char the same way. The bottom line is
that you cannot make gas of any sort without a reasonable quantity of close
contact carbon. This doesn't include the problems caused by wet peelings,
egg shells, and disposable diapers or plastics.

4: I have applied every test of my knowledge to your quest and really
cannot offer you more, but maybe you can trick the molecules to behave and
you won't know that until you try. There is no magic process only trial and
error.

Regards
Doug Williams.

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

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Wed Sep 1 14:50:45 1999
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (William B. Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pneumatic Stokers
Message-ID: <001b01bef4ab$a87cf8e0$e6f346cf@newmicronpc>

Hi!

Who out there has a current/live contact w/ any
US company that makes pneumatic feeders/stokers for biomass-burning
furnaces/boilers. I'm looking for such units that can be retro-fitted to some
rather primitive boilers that are currently burning logs, in the range of about
1.0 to 10 MW(thermal). Some first rate wood chip boilers made in Malaysia,
for example, buy their stokers from somewhere in the US.
<FONT color=#000000
size=2>
Many Thanks -- W.B.Hauserman

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Sep 1 15:40:12 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bagasse and biomass drying
Message-ID: <321d37af.24fe85ae@cs.com>

Dear Ali Kaupp, Jean Seguro and all biomass energy folks interested in Drying
(or wetting)...:

1) Greetings from downtown Oakland, CA and the 4th BIomass of the Americas
conference. I had my doubts that this conference would come up to the level
of previous ones, but it promises to surpass all the others, at least for my
needs. All answers to all biomass questions are to be found here - if you
could only tunnel into the minds of all the 540 attendees. I'm tunneling as
much as I can.

2) Seguro brings up and answers questions on sugar cane drying and I will
expand them to drying in general. Biomass drying is an important facet of
biomass energy. Whataever one needs to do, combustion, digestion,
fermentation, gasification,, ..., one needs to know and possibly adjust the
moisture levels, maybe up and maybe down. (Maceration and wetting are the
negative facets of drying.)

3) Conventional wisdom "thinks" that for thermal processes drier is better.
Often true, sometimes not. In a stove wood that is too dry will pyrolyse
faster than any amount of combustion air can burn. 10-15% moisture is
probably optimal. In gasification very dry wood pyrolyses so easily it can
make more charcoal than the process can handle. 10-20% is recommended, but
our Turbo stove can handle 30%.

4) Conventional wisdom thinks that hot gas is good for drying. If the gas
is too hot, it "sears" the outside of the wood and makes heat transfer to the
center difficult. Saturated steam is an excellent drying agent for wood.
Not obvious.

5) I don't pretend to understand drying biomass, but at least I recognize
that there are many subtle points to be considered and I hope that this will
start an Epolylogue on the subject. I would (selfishly) like to suggest that
we continue this discussion at GASIFICATION to keep it in one place.

6) Maceration and wetting can go in DIGESTION, ETHANOL or wherever they like.

7) I continually rund up against the need for a SMALL simple drier in
gasification. Exhaust gas from engines is an attractive waste heat source.
Can anyone describe an exhaust heat drier that they have tried (not
hypothesized)?

8) The first stage of understanding drying is to be able to measure degree
of dryness. I find that our electric oven at 95 C for 2-4 hours produces a
good "bone dry" weight and I have good balances to weigh before and after.
Comments? (There are some volatiles that might be lost at this temperature,
but very few or they would have been lost at room temperature).

I hope that we will get a good discussion of these issues here and it might
even help the bagasse court case which started it all.

Onward, Tom Reed BEF

"...We need about 2430 kJ to evaporate one kg of water and about
additional 200 kJ to bring it up to the stack gas temperature..."

Comment: Evaporation will start before the bagasse reach the gas
temperature, in fact before the water reach 100 C. Since the partial
pressure of the water in the gases is less than one, the evaporation
will start at a temp. lower than 100 C. I have not developed a simple
model for this simulation with bagasse drying, but I think that this
will be something that will favor the results for the bagasse drying
scenario evaluated by Kaupp.

"...In particular if they fire sulfur free biomass and do not have to
battle cold end corrosion meaning the stack gas temperature may be
lowered to 140 C or even lower. We have seen boilers with 125 C, due to
high excess air and not due to efficienct air preheater designs..."

Comment: One could reduce the temperature of the gases even more, as
long as we keep it at a safe "distance" from the saturation temperature
of the gases to avoid condensation. Even though the sulfur level is
very small on bagasse (traces) the condensate of the gases still causes
corrosion on the system and have to be avoided.

"...assume the electrical power needed for bagasse drying is 30
kWh/ton..."

Comment: Another positive consequence of bagasse drying is a
considerable reduction on excess air. Less excess air and less water
vapor in the boiler can reduce substantially the power require to pump
this gases trough the boiler. This is also something very hard to guess
since we will need to know more about the system, but it could be a
30~40% reduction (Depending on the current excess air rates used that
sometimes is over 100% for many systems).

I believe that if we had real performance data for the dryers we could
get an scenario a little bit better that the one pressented by Kaupp,
but that still do not guaraty that bagasse drying is a better option to
improve the efficiency of the cycle. Even when the systems may have
economizers and air pre-heater I think that one have to evaluate thier
performance since it may be room for improvement using newer and more
efficient economizers and air pre-heater.

It will be nice to have a dryer manufacturer presents this case and see
what they can offer in terms of dryer performance and system
improvement.

Cheers,

Jean

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

From Jeff_Bossong at notes.interliant.com Wed Sep 1 17:29:17 1999
From: Jeff_Bossong at notes.interliant.com (Jeff Bossong)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bagasse and biomass drying
Message-ID: <862567DF.00764271.00@Internet-504.interliant.com>

Installing a humidity sensor in the exhaust of the gasifier will indirectly
trend the product moisture in the biomass. You can also control the dryer
based on humidity which will also improve dryer efficiency and give a more
consistent product moisture going to the gasifier.

Humidity control in dryers improves over outlet temperature because it is
more sensitive to feed moisture changes and also accounts for ambient
humidity changes which outlet temperature does not

If anyone is interested in the effects an absolute humidity sensor (water
vapor pressure) has on these processes, please contact me to see if a demo
sensor can be provided. The analyzer will work reliably and accurately in
dirty gas streams (particulates and corrosive components are not a problem)
up to 800F.

Hope we can be of help,

Jeff Bossong
Dewcon
847-991-7488
www.dewcon.com

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Sep 1 18:32:24 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 4th Biomass of the Americas Conference
Message-ID: <254c4c92.24ff0362@cs.com>

Dear Biomasseuses:

I am here in sunny Oakland (temp 70 F) enjoying one of the best conferences
so far. Initially I was afraid that our conferences had peaked and we'd only
be hearing summer reruns of old papers. Not so and this conference has been
worth the $725 registration and $100/ night hotel fee. Obviously I can't
cover 1% of what is exciting, but:

1) There was a demonstration of a 30 kW CAPSTEAD turbine mounted on a 7ft X
10 ft trailer. (Unfortunately running on propane, but next step a gasifier.

2) Opening speaker was Jerry Brown, ex gov, CO and mayor of Oakland. He says
the LUGER (R) bill is a major shot in the arm for biomass, and certainly the
democrats will support it.

3) Considering that inefficient, dirty, wasteful cooking is the #1 problem
for 1/2 the world, there has been precious little work in the biomass
community to solve the problem. We have two posters here, one on our TURBO
(Forced draft) stove and one on the Wendelbro (natural draft) stove. A
picture of our Turbo stove in India won first prize in the photo contest.

4) There is significant progrss being reported in gasification and several
groups (including ours) are working on low tar gasifiers (rather than bigtime
cleanup gasifiers).

5) There is much more emphasis on smaller scale uses of biomass and less
"big is beautiful" high cost research..

I have developed an aphorism:

IF YOU THROW ENOUGH MONEY AT A PROBLEM, IT WILL NEVER BE SOLVED.

(However, if you give it no thought or work it won't be solved either.

Greetings from Oakland,

Your faithful reporter, TOM REED, BEF

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

From vvnk at teri.res.in Thu Sep 2 01:25:46 1999
From: vvnk at teri.res.in (V V N Kishore)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bagasse and biomass drying
Message-ID: <s7ce5713.032@dakghar.teri.res.in>

We are interested to know more about your humidity sensor (specs,cost,maintenance,calibration etc.).Please send me details.
Kishore.

>>> "Jeff Bossong" <Jeff_Bossong@notes.interliant.com> 09/02/99 02:59AM >>>
Installing a humidity sensor in the exhaust of the gasifier will indirectly
trend the product moisture in the biomass. You can also control the dryer
based on humidity which will also improve dryer efficiency and give a more
consistent product moisture going to the gasifier.

Humidity control in dryers improves over outlet temperature because it is
more sensitive to feed moisture changes and also accounts for ambient
humidity changes which outlet temperature does not

Hope we can be of help,

Jeff Bossong
Dewcon
847-991-7488
www.dewcon.com

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

From vvnk at teri.res.in Thu Sep 2 01:46:14 1999
From: vvnk at teri.res.in (V V N Kishore)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bagasse and biomass drying
Message-ID: <s7ce5d0f.051@dakghar.teri.res.in>

We are interested to know more about your humidity sensor (specs,cost,maintenance,calibration etc.).Please send me details.
Kishore.

Humidity control in dryers improves over outlet temperature because it is
more sensitive to feed moisture changes and also accounts for ambient
humidity changes which outlet temperature does not

Hope we can be of help,

Jeff Bossong
Dewcon
847-991-7488
www.dewcon.com

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

From JIRVING104 at aol.com Thu Sep 2 12:26:15 1999
From: JIRVING104 at aol.com (JIRVING104@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 4th Biomass of the Americas Conference
Message-ID: <1a826192.24ffffd3@aol.com>

Tom, hopefully the word is getting out at the conference that the Vermont
Gasifier successfully sustained steam gasification last week at 80 mmbtu/hr
for 20 minutes of 430 btu/cubic foot gas. Enjoy the conference. John Irving
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From snkm at btl.net Thu Sep 2 15:47:08 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 4th Biomass of the Americas Conference
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970506133013.00734a6c@wgs1.btl.net>

430 btu/cubic foot gas!! Can we have more info? What kind of gasification
process?? What biomaterial?

By the way -- is the Vermont project related in anyway to a wood fired
electricity facility that us guys in Quebec were selling wood chips to in
the late 70's??

Peter Singfield
Now in Belize, Central America
- originally from the Eastern Townships Quebec

At 12:29 PM 9/2/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Tom, hopefully the word is getting out at the conference that the Vermont
>Gasifier successfully sustained steam gasification last week at 80 mmbtu/hr
>for 20 minutes of 430 btu/cubic foot gas. Enjoy the conference. John Irving
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu Fri Sep 3 13:47:23 1999
From: dschmidt at eerc.und.nodak.edu (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bagasse and biomass drying
Message-ID: <601A55066596D211A7AD00104BC6FB25073614@catalina.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

Response to the exhaust heat drying question.

We have done this at Camp Lejuene, and have done some research to determine
the necessary residence time of wood in the dryer, prior to building it.
The dryer made use of Engine Exhaust directly. It was capable of reducing
moisture of wood from 45% max down to 15%. Flow rate was approx. 2000
lbs/hr dry. No apprceciable VOC emmissions, and no blue haze.

Anyone that is interested can contact me directly
dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu
Energy & Environmental Research Center
Grand Forks North Dakota
701 777 5120

-----Original Message-----
From: Reedtb2@cs.com [mailto:Reedtb2@cs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 8:36 AM
To: jseguro@yahoo.com; bioenergy@crest.org; gasification@crest.org;
eta-pet@eta-team.com; das@eagle-access.net
Subject: GAS-L: Bagasse and biomass drying

Dear Ali Kaupp, Jean Seguro and all biomass energy folks interested in
Drying
(or wetting)...:

1) Greetings from downtown Oakland, CA and the 4th BIomass of the Americas
conference. I had my doubts that this conference would come up to the level

of previous ones, but it promises to surpass all the others, at least for my

needs. All answers to all biomass questions are to be found here - if you
could only tunnel into the minds of all the 540 attendees. I'm tunneling
as
much as I can.

3) Conventional wisdom "thinks" that for thermal processes drier is
better.
Often true, sometimes not. In a stove wood that is too dry will pyrolyse
faster than any amount of combustion air can burn. 10-15% moisture is
probably optimal. In gasification very dry wood pyrolyses so easily it can

make more charcoal than the process can handle. 10-20% is recommended, but
our Turbo stove can handle 30%.

4) Conventional wisdom thinks that hot gas is good for drying. If the gas
is too hot, it "sears" the outside of the wood and makes heat transfer to
the
center difficult. Saturated steam is an excellent drying agent for wood.
Not obvious.

5) I don't pretend to understand drying biomass, but at least I recognize
that there are many subtle points to be considered and I hope that this will

start an Epolylogue on the subject. I would (selfishly) like to suggest
that
we continue this discussion at GASIFICATION to keep it in one place.

6) Maceration and wetting can go in DIGESTION, ETHANOL or wherever they
like.

7) I continually rund up against the need for a SMALL simple drier in
gasification. Exhaust gas from engines is an attractive waste heat source.

Can anyone describe an exhaust heat drier that they have tried (not
hypothesized)?

but very few or they would have been lost at room temperature).

I hope that we will get a good discussion of these issues here and it might
even help the bagasse court case which started it all.

Onward, Tom Reed BEF

"...We need about 2430 kJ to evaporate one kg of water and about
additional 200 kJ to bring it up to the stack gas temperature..."

"...assume the electrical power needed for bagasse drying is 30
kWh/ton..."

It will be nice to have a dryer manufacturer presents this case and see
what they can offer in terms of dryer performance and system
improvement.

Cheers,

Jean

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 terry at sri.org.au Fri Sep 3 21:11:46 1999
From: terry at sri.org.au (terry@sri.org.au)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BIOMASS and BAGASSE DRYING
Message-ID: <OF144E4881.BF5F15CF-ONCA2567E2.00045B3E@sri.org.au>

Gentlemen,

I have missed some of the recent exchanges to do with drying, but I see the
latest exchange between Jean, Tom and Darren Schmidt.

I have some comments to offer, based on our research and ongoing commercial
development of bagasse drying.

The blue haze generation is very dependent on the inlet temperature of a
dryer in particular, but the haze generally is a result of fine particle
pyrolysis.

The measurement of bagasse moisture content is executed by drying for
however long you need at 105 deg.C and very tightly controlled.

Moisture will start to be removed from any biomass long before the wet bulb
temperature of the drying gas is reached, but the quantity is small. For
bagasse dryers fed from bagasse fired boilers, the wet bulb temperature of
the flue gas is typically 75 to 80 deg.C, and in fact the dried bagasse
leaving the dryer has this temperature when measured. Our dryers are all
pneumatic flash dryers.

I think there is some confusion about bagasse boiler performance.
Certainly in the Australian sugar industry, with modern suspension firing,
excess air levels can be maintained routinely at 20-25%, with CO levels
less than 300 ppm. We do run at much higher O2 levels simply to waste
bagasse. I know that many boilers overseas operate at higher excess air
levels, but there the combustion technology is not as advanced.

There is a misconception among many that bagasse drying using boiler exit
flue gas (200-350 deg.C) is economical. I doubt that in most instances,
the cost of a bagasse dryer is less than that of an airheater/economiser
combination. We have found that the primary initiator of backend corrosion
(the base cause is moisture condensation from the flue gas) is gross
maldistribution of both the air and gas side flow patterns. Even reputable
boiler manufacturers do not recognise this. But if you do serious CFD
modelling it is very clear. And when you fix up the air and gas patterns,
you can bring the mean final flue gas temperature down to 110 deg.C without
experiencing tube corrosion. Of course any sulphur in the fuel will cause
this level to be increased.

I'd appreciate some feedback on these comments.

Cheers,

Dr Terry Dixon
Group Leader Engineering
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay, Australlia
Ph: +61 7 49527600
Fx: +61 7 49521734

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

From parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in Sat Sep 4 01:48:36 1999
From: parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bagasse and biomass drying
In-Reply-To: <601A55066596D211A7AD00104BC6FB25073614@catalina.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.990904112714.21931E-100000@agni.me.iitb.ernet.in>

The important parameters in the process of drying wood using engine
exhaust are: the temperature of the eaxhaust gases at the point of first
contact with wood and the size of wood particles and the velocity of
exahust gases past the wood particles. Generally the engine eaxhaust
temperature for diesel engines is close to 500-550C at the engine
outlet at full load. WHat ever may be the moisture content of the wood it
is rather difficult to accept that no other VOC are evolved unless the
exhaust temperature is brought down or come down due to design/layout
factors. It might be a good idea to carry out TGA of the original undries
wood and exahust-dried wood.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prof. (Mrs.) P.P.Parikh Phone Office : 5783496, 5767548
Dept. of Mechanical Engg. 5782545 Ext. 7548 / 8385
I.I.T. Bombay Home : 5704646
Mumbai 400 076 INDIA Fax Office : 5783496, 5783480

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

On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Schmidt, Darren wrote:

> Response to the exhaust heat drying question.
>
> We have done this at Camp Lejuene, and have done some research to determine
> the necessary residence time of wood in the dryer, prior to building it.
> The dryer made use of Engine Exhaust directly. It was capable of reducing
> moisture of wood from 45% max down to 15%. Flow rate was approx. 2000
> lbs/hr dry. No apprceciable VOC emmissions, and no blue haze.
>
> Anyone that is interested can contact me directly
> dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu
> Energy & Environmental Research Center
> Grand Forks North Dakota
> 701 777 5120
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reedtb2@cs.com [mailto:Reedtb2@cs.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 8:36 AM
> To: jseguro@yahoo.com; bioenergy@crest.org; gasification@crest.org;
> eta-pet@eta-team.com; das@eagle-access.net
> Subject: GAS-L: Bagasse and biomass drying
>
>
> Dear Ali Kaupp, Jean Seguro and all biomass energy folks interested in
> Drying
> (or wetting)...:
>
> 1) Greetings from downtown Oakland, CA and the 4th BIomass of the Americas
> conference. I had my doubts that this conference would come up to the level
>
> of previous ones, but it promises to surpass all the others, at least for my
>
> needs. All answers to all biomass questions are to be found here - if you
> could only tunnel into the minds of all the 540 attendees. I'm tunneling
> as
> much as I can.
>
> 2) Seguro brings up and answers questions on sugar cane drying and I will
> expand them to drying in general. Biomass drying is an important facet of
> biomass energy. Whataever one needs to do, combustion, digestion,
> fermentation, gasification,, ..., one needs to know and possibly adjust the
> moisture levels, maybe up and maybe down. (Maceration and wetting are the
> negative facets of drying.)
>
> 3) Conventional wisdom "thinks" that for thermal processes drier is
> better.
> Often true, sometimes not. In a stove wood that is too dry will pyrolyse
> faster than any amount of combustion air can burn. 10-15% moisture is
> probably optimal. In gasification very dry wood pyrolyses so easily it can
>
> make more charcoal than the process can handle. 10-20% is recommended, but
> our Turbo stove can handle 30%.
>
> 4) Conventional wisdom thinks that hot gas is good for drying. If the gas
> is too hot, it "sears" the outside of the wood and makes heat transfer to
> the
> center difficult. Saturated steam is an excellent drying agent for wood.
> Not obvious.
>
> 5) I don't pretend to understand drying biomass, but at least I recognize
> that there are many subtle points to be considered and I hope that this will
>
> start an Epolylogue on the subject. I would (selfishly) like to suggest
> that
> we continue this discussion at GASIFICATION to keep it in one place.
>
> 6) Maceration and wetting can go in DIGESTION, ETHANOL or wherever they
> like.
>
> 7) I continually rund up against the need for a SMALL simple drier in
> gasification. Exhaust gas from engines is an attractive waste heat source.
>
> Can anyone describe an exhaust heat drier that they have tried (not
> hypothesized)?
>
> 8) The first stage of understanding drying is to be able to measure degree
> of dryness. I find that our electric oven at 95 C for 2-4 hours produces a
> good "bone dry" weight and I have good balances to weigh before and after.
> Comments? (There are some volatiles that might be lost at this temperature,
>
> but very few or they would have been lost at room temperature).
>
> I hope that we will get a good discussion of these issues here and it might
> even help the bagasse court case which started it all.
>
> Onward, Tom Reed BEF
>
>
> "...We need about 2430 kJ to evaporate one kg of water and about
> additional 200 kJ to bring it up to the stack gas temperature..."
>
> Comment: Evaporation will start before the bagasse reach the gas
> temperature, in fact before the water reach 100 C. Since the partial
> pressure of the water in the gases is less than one, the evaporation
> will start at a temp. lower than 100 C. I have not developed a simple
> model for this simulation with bagasse drying, but I think that this
> will be something that will favor the results for the bagasse drying
> scenario evaluated by Kaupp.
>
> "...In particular if they fire sulfur free biomass and do not have to
> battle cold end corrosion meaning the stack gas temperature may be
> lowered to 140 C or even lower. We have seen boilers with 125 C, due to
> high excess air and not due to efficienct air preheater designs..."
>
> Comment: One could reduce the temperature of the gases even more, as
> long as we keep it at a safe "distance" from the saturation temperature
> of the gases to avoid condensation. Even though the sulfur level is
> very small on bagasse (traces) the condensate of the gases still causes
> corrosion on the system and have to be avoided.
>
> "...assume the electrical power needed for bagasse drying is 30
> kWh/ton..."
>
> Comment: Another positive consequence of bagasse drying is a
> considerable reduction on excess air. Less excess air and less water
> vapor in the boiler can reduce substantially the power require to pump
> this gases trough the boiler. This is also something very hard to guess
> since we will need to know more about the system, but it could be a
> 30~40% reduction (Depending on the current excess air rates used that
> sometimes is over 100% for many systems).
>
>
> I believe that if we had real performance data for the dryers we could
> get an scenario a little bit better that the one pressented by Kaupp,
> but that still do not guaraty that bagasse drying is a better option to
> improve the efficiency of the cycle. Even when the systems may have
> economizers and air pre-heater I think that one have to evaluate thier
> performance since it may be room for improvement using newer and more
> efficient economizers and air pre-heater.
>
> It will be nice to have a dryer manufacturer presents this case and see
> what they can offer in terms of dryer performance and system
> improvement.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jean
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 LINVENT at aol.com Sat Sep 4 09:45:34 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bagasse and biomass drying
Message-ID: <f4fe49d0.25027d2b@aol.com>

Dear wet biomassers,
Rather than worry about drying biomass before gasifying, how about
operating the gasifier in a mode where the gasifier will operate with wet
biomass? It would seem a lot less expensive, fewer operating systems to
worry about and other factors. The biggest concern which I have is not only
the blue gas evolved from the dryer, but in cases where the biomass has been
around for a while, the odors evolved. The blue gas can be removed easily.

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

From iedl at bol.net.in Sat Sep 4 13:50:52 1999
From: iedl at bol.net.in (iedl)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 15 MW Power Plant through Biomass Gasification.
Message-ID: <199909041750.NAA24574@solstice.crest.org>

Tel : +91-022-763 5199 (D)
Fax : +91-022-763 5296 / 1122

Add. E-Mail: iedl@bol.net.in

E/BIO/802/1 3rd September, 1999

Fax No : 00 44 71 831 7223

British Biogen

7th floor, 63-66 Hatton Garden

London EC1N 8LE

U.K.

Sub : 15 MW Power Plant through Biomass Gasification.

Dear Sirs,

We are negotiating with a customer who intends to = develop a biomass
based energy project through gasification route. Their preferred configuration is gasifier-gas turbine with a bottoming steam cycle. But
combustion engine is also acceptable if support fuel is not necessary = and
in that case steam cycle will be deleted. Six (6) nos. of such units
each = of 15 MW capacity will be installed in three locations. The
success of the first = project of 15 MW through gasification route will
lead to the order for the other = five units. The first unit is
scheduled to be on stream by mid 2001.

We understand that you are in the field of = gasification of biomass for
energy generation. Enquiries for biomass based power = generating plants
in smaller capacity range between 5 to 15 MW are being sent to us = by
our customers. In the present project also, the customer is known to us.
= Financing of the project has already been ensured by the customer.

I am enclosing the biomass fuel analysis and a short = outline of the
specification.

It is possible that you may work as an EPC contractor = also for the
project where Ion Exchange India, a renowned water and waste water
management group in India for the last 35 years may work as a project
facilitator/supplier of BOP etc. on mutually suitable terms. Since the customer would insist for direct involvement of the technology supplier,
the = above arrangement is preferable to begin with. The customer
intends to decide = the first unit shortly.

Should be interested in such a project, we would = request you for your
advice to proceed further.

Regards,

D.K. Mukherjee

Senior Vice President

Encl : As above.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: doc00019.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 53248 bytes
Desc: "waterworld1.doc"
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19990904/f29c70d7/doc00019.obj
From tmiles at teleport.com Sat Sep 4 14:34:41 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 4th Biomass of the Americas Conference
In-Reply-To: <1a826192.24ffffd3@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19990904113720.01c508a0@mail.teleport.com>

John,

Congratulations. Mark Paisley (Battelle Columbus), John Black, and Ralph
Overend (NREL) all cheerfully announced your success in launching at full
capacity. You have many sympathizers at the conference and around the world.

We heard reports from other gasification projects that are in planning or
progress and hope to hear about continuing progress. We will establish a
gasification page at CREST that will feature and link to these projects.

Regards,

Tom Miles

At 12:29 PM 9/2/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Tom, hopefully the word is getting out at the conference that the Vermont
>Gasifier successfully sustained steam gasification last week at 80 mmbtu/hr
>for 20 minutes of 430 btu/cubic foot gas. Enjoy the conference. John Irving
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

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

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Sep 5 11:26:55 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pressurised downdraft gasification
Message-ID: <51210f96.2503e663@cs.com>

Dear Ralph:

We operated a 1 ron/day pressurized oxygen gasifier at the Solar Energy
Research Institute from 1980-1983. It is all described in our book,
Fundamentals...

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 6/28/99 2:49:39 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
R.E.Sims@massey.ac.nz writes:

<<

Hi,

I would be grateful to hear from anyone with any information on pressurised
downdraft gasifiers? I am aware of the modern pressurised fluidised bed
gasifier designs but, at a much smaller scale, has anyone any information
on pressurised downdraft designs, air blown, and even pressurised up to 5
or 10 atmospheres.

I believe there were such systems developed years ago but they had
explosion problems. However I have been unable to find any definitive
references either to their existence or to the design problems.

It is such a relatively simple concept that I cannot believe it hasn't been
thoroughly tested many times before.

With thanks

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

From snkm at btl.net Sun Sep 5 21:09:52 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pressurized downdraft gasification
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990905191647.006a401c@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Tom;

Are you referring to the "Lurgi" process?

The chemistry of gasification appears to point to a higher production of
methane as greater pressure is used. But this can be done in a steam
atmosphere only.

I wonder if you can "point" me to any place that can give some hard data
regarding these pressurized chemical reactions?

For instance -- would it not be possible to produce "richer" methane
gasification of biomass at lower temperatures (1200 F instead of 1800 F)
under a high, steam only, pressurized system?

Synthesis gas production at atmospheric or low pressures requires a high
temp for the C+H20>CO+H2 reaction. As this temp decreases one gets the
C+H2O>CO2+H reaction.

But pressurizing yields 2C+2H2O>CH4+CO2 ???

Is that correct?? What pressures and what temperatures?

In the Lurgi process -- the pure oxygen reaction is at up to 40 or 50
atmospheres.

The reason I am always looking at just "C" is because under a pressure
reaction chamber model -- the first part of the process is pyrolization --
leaving a relatively large amount of just Carbon for the second
transformation.

Making up a quick "model" of such a reaction chamber --

2 ft diameter -- 30 ft long. Plus a sixty foot long compression of biomass
device (cylinder and compacting chamber -- say a total length of 100 ft.
Laying horizontal -- just like Bull's super gun -- would be able to process
10 tons of biomass per hour in "batch" mode -- would not be that hard or
expensive to build.

But I wish I could make up a small bench prototype to check out the
chemistry first.

I would operate with liquid aluminum in the liquid metal jacket --to feed
the highly endothermic reaction -- allowing enough weight of Aluminum -- at
its 170 BTU per pound at 1270 Deg F -- latent heat of fusion factor -- to
fuel the entire thermodynamic reaction without having to tolerate a
temperature drop! The aluminum being heated during this reaction with
enough BTU's to be fully charged again by the time the next batch cycle
begins.

But it is more info on the chemistry of this reaction I need!

Normally -- the first thing I would have done is built a small prototype.
But difficult to do in Belize with my limited resources. 20 years ago -- I
would have built a prototype in my spare time -- in my excellent shop -- in
a months time or less -- for almost now costs!

Folks -- I still believe this is a direction highly worth further
investigation -- and rue that none of the big players can either see or
understand this!

As usual, I do suppose they will be only to quick to "grab" it once it has
been built and proven. Seems advances in technology is no longer the agenda
-- rather the fine tuning of existent technology. The new models of
industry do not invest in research! Just profit for share-holders in quick
time.

Reminds me of the old motorcycle racing -- where they kept the H.D. 750 CC
flathead engine competitive with fine tuning well beyond the point it
should have been retired -- as the basic design concept was very flawed for
high performance. This is what I am seeing here with present state of the
art in gasification!

Really folks -- time to move on -- or has that now been made against
"politically correct thinking" -- "dirty" words such as "innovation";
research and development -- words that founded the great twentieth century?

That is the question!

For less than $20,000 US I could build a fine prototype using an excellent
machine shop existing in one of the Mennonite communities here. Is that
simply to much for any modern company to afford?

To me -- a fluid bed gasifier appears to be a terribly complicated method
to accomplish biomass conversion to gas. And producer gas units not so
efficient -- though when combined with waste heat boilers -- but then, may
as well simply burn the product in a boiler to begin with and tighten up
its waste heat thermodynamics -- theoretically getting the same over all
efficiency.

All these processes require a relatively cleaned and dried fuel. The one I
am looking at runs on anything! The "barrel" is simply steam blasted clean
at the end of the cycle! Just before the new "round" is charged. It would
work just as well on garbage with old cooking oils, plastics, car tires, as
well as wood chips -- not to mention crude oil or dirty coal or old car oil.

But to pressurize a down draft gasifier to 40 to 50 Atmospheres and run it
on pure oxygen -- seems awfully complicated to me!

Rambling again --

Peter Singfield, Belize

At 11:29 AM 9/5/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Ralph:
>
>We operated a 1 ron/day pressurized oxygen gasifier at the Solar Energy
>Research Institute from 1980-1983. It is all described in our book,
>Fundamentals...
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED BEF
>

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Sep 6 02:19:02 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pressurized downdraft gasification
Message-ID: <fe00cab4.2504b788@aol.com>

Peter,
Pressurization does shift towards CH4 who wants it, you merely have to
reshift it back to CO and H2 to get the best economic return?
Tom Taylor
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From snkm at btl.net Mon Sep 6 09:11:09 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pressurized downdraft gasification
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990906070316.006b6e50@wgs1.btl.net>

Thanks for the input tom.

I was under the impression that one wanted the CH4? In fact, that appears
to be the entire purpose of the Lurgi Process -- more CH4 so that a gas
more closely approximating natural gas is produced.

Are we not measuring economic return in BTU value recovered from
hydrocarbon fuels?

I would think that methane does this the same as CO and H2 -- but would be
so interested in knowing more -- why is it more advantageous to have CO and
H2?

Peter

At 02:22 AM 9/6/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Peter,
> Pressurization does shift towards CH4 who wants it, you merely have to
>reshift it back to CO and H2 to get the best economic return?
>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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Sep 7 09:03:25 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Methane, Pressurization and Oxygen Gasification
Message-ID: <d284bfce.250667cf@cs.com>

Dear Peter, Tom et al:

A METHANE CONTENT
1) If one wants a substitute natural gas methane content of gas is an
advantage.

2) If one wants a gas for heating, methane content is nice, but not necessary

3) If one wants to make methanol, ammonia, or hydrocarbon liquids, methane
is a nuisance and must be reformed to CO and H2

B: PRESSURIZATION

Gasifiers run nicely close to atmospheric pressure and also at higher
pressure. They are simple and cheap at atmospheric pressure for heat
(stoves, bricks, glass...), IC engines, Stirling engines etc. They are easy
to feed with open tops (suction gasifiers) or star valves (< 2 psi gage).

Gasifiers run nicely at higher pressure too when you require a high pressure
gas downstream for turbines, pipelines or chemical synthesis. However, they
will cost you 2 to 10 times as much, so better have a good reason.

AIR vs OXYGEN

Downdraft gasifiers run nicely on air or oxygen. If all you require is heat
or an engine fuel, air is fine. If you intend chemical synthesis, use
oxygen. It's much easier to separate the nitrogen from the clean air than
from the hot dirty gas.

Most fuel chemists know this, most others don't.

Please use last names in the gasification network, particularly with TOM.
There are too many Toms here: Reed (me), Taylor, Miles, Milne, .... It's
nice to know who is talking.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 9/6/99 7:17:00 AM Mountain Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

<< Thanks for the input tom.

I was under the impression that one wanted the CH4? In fact, that appears
to be the entire purpose of the Lurgi Process -- more CH4 so that a gas
more closely approximating natural gas is produced.

Are we not measuring economic return in BTU value recovered from
hydrocarbon fuels?

I would think that methane does this the same as CO and H2 -- but would be
so interested in knowing more -- why is it more advantageous to have CO and
H2?

Peter

At 02:22 AM 9/6/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Peter,
> Pressurization does shift towards CH4 who wants it, you merely have to
>reshift it back to CO and H2 to get the best economic return?
>Tom Taylor >>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From tmiles at teleport.com Tue Sep 7 11:07:13 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Domain Name: BiomassPower.com
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990906161606.00c41390@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19990907080434.03cf4d60@mail.teleport.com>

Address Correction: Please reply to stevemac2@aol.com

Note: a portion of the proceeds of a sale would be contributed to the
maintenance of the bioenergy lists.

At 04:17 PM 9/6/99 -0700, Tom Miles wrote:

>This may be of interest to someone on the list. Please reply to Steve McNulty
>email: stevemac2@aol.com
>
>Tom Miles
>========================================
>
>9/5/99
>
>Hello -
>
>
>I'm writing to see if your company would be interested in purchasing my
>domain name which is BiomassPower.com.
>
>
>Easy to remember website, good for telling clients/customers. Plus it has the
>"dotcom" extension which is hard to come by.
>
>
>Please let me know,
>
>
>Steve McNulty
Email: stevemac2@aol.com
T.R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
1470 SW Woodward Way http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles
Portland, OR 97225
Tel 503-292-0107 Fax 503-605-0208
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From snkm at btl.net Tue Sep 7 11:30:31 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Methane, Pressurization and "STEAM" Gasification
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990907093653.0073069c@wgs1.btl.net>

Dear Tom Reed;

>3) If one wants to make methanol, ammonia, or hydrocarbon liquids, methane
>is a nuisance and must be reformed to CO and H2

Yes -- for starting material in synthesis, as for ammonia, methanol, and in
the OXO and Fisher-Tropsch precesses for hydrocarbons, oxygenated organic
compounds, and synthetic fuels -- to name just a few -- you are right!

Normal "stock" for this is water gas -- or synthesis gas (we now see how
that name tag was derived).

Typical -- As produced from coal:

Illuminants 0.0%
Carbon Monoxide 40.9%
Hydrogen 50.8%
"Methane" 0.2%
Carbon dioxide 3.4%
Oxygen 0.9%
Nitrogen 3.5%
B.T.U per ft cubed 299.0

This is produced by putting coal in a steam atmosphere at around 1800 Deg. F.

It is highly endothermic! Meaning it requires a lot of heat input as the
reaction absorbs heat. Once going -- it proceeds rather rapidly --
"quenching" the reaction in no time!

They used a retort full of coal. Started a hot burn -- turned off the air
-- injected steam -- producing "water-gas" until the reaction quenched
temperatures to low -- so that CO2 instead of CO was being produced. At
this point steam was shut off -- air again introduced, and the temperature
brought back up for another cycle. Producer gas could be produced during
the air injection cycles.

You need a concentrated carbon fuel (Coke). This was achieved by passing
the hot exhausting steam and water gas through a batch of coal --
carbonizing it. The destructive distillation products (gaseous products of
decomposition) increased BTU value of the gas to 345.

Well -- I could go on and on --

But the simple fact is that this same process should work with any bio-mass.

My proposition is quite simple. I will design a liquid metal boiler with
sufficient thermal energy in the liquid metal "bath" to furnish the entire
amount of BTU's required to fuel the endothermic water gas production
reaction.

For simple gas fuel requirements -- the products of decomposition would be
mixed with the water gas. Increasing the BTU value of the output. Or, I
could go pressurized and produce a methane rich product.

However -- it would be a simple matter to "switch-over" at the appropriate
time to get just the synthesis gas, running at low pressure but high
temperature.

The beginning of this thread started regarding the Vermont, fluid bed
gasifier. When I was surprised regarding their high BTU value product. I
immediately suspected the above process as being the reason.

I believe it was John Irving that made this announcement -- and replied to
my question by stating that the fluid bed design meant that most of the
heat transfer was being done through the silica -- erg -- no large amounts
of nitrogen to mess up the output.

Now -- in the Vermont project -- it has been my opinion that they are
looking for a high BTU value gas for firing gas turbines!

And it would appear they are succeeding -- in some manner I do not yet
clearly understand -- unless it being the steam produced from the charge of
fuel -- following the above reactions I just described.

It was in this "spirit" of discussion that I suggested, according to my
studies to date, that better could be accomplished in a pressurized steam
reaction running at lower temperatures -- and questioned the list accordingly!

But the Vermont fluid bed gasifier does seem to prove that gasification of
biomass closely approximates gasification of coals -- under the right
conditions.

This -- in my view -- opens a door to a very large area regarding further
research -- in steam "reforming" of biomass.

By the way -- over all efficiencies for this process -- as described for
coal -- was 71 to 74 percent. The loss being in waste heat.

In my ever developing engineering model -- I would use this waste heat to
run a small steam turbine to produce enough electricity to use electric
resistance heating to operate the liquid metal bath (99% heat efficiency)
and solving a lot of design problems (heat exchangers etc) at the same time.

I am sorry folks -- though I like to hear that old Harley go round the race
track -- I am very much into double over head camshafts and motors spinning
at 24,000 RPM! Especially if they can be made more economically, run
longer, and produce a cleaner output -- on any fuel at all of carbon base.

But I believe the synthesis gas from coal process, as practiced for so many
years, can be applied to biomass. And I further believe the Vermont
gasifier proves this!

You stick with the side valve design -- I am moving on to over head valves
and over head cams.

You simply do not realize how very economically such a unit can be made!
That by a simple adjustment on my control terminal -- I can have clean
synthesis gas or high BTU methane gas. All from the same device -- and not
having to leave my chair. Just by changing the "trip" points for
temperature and pressure.

It is so smooth! At high temperatures it is difficult to hold high
pressures. At lower temperatures, it is easy to run high pressures.

If I use aluminum as my liquid metal bath -- I store 170 BTU per pound at
its latent heat of fusion point (1270 F.). The pressurized, lower
temperature, reaction proceeds extremely rapidly -- and would quench most
modern reactions far to rapidly!

I simply calculate how many pounds of aluminum I need in my "jacket" to
power the entire thermodynamic reaction.

Higher temperatures -- and no pressure -- proceeds much more slowly. Now I
raise the Temperature of my liquid metal jacket to 1800 or more (F) and use
the specific heat value of the aluminum as a heat capacitor but still feed
the electrical resistant heater to supply a steady BTU input.

Under a pressurized system -- say at 3000 PSI -- this reaction should
proceed almost like igniting a charge of black gun powder. Producing a rich
gas for "burning" made up of destructive distillation compounds and lots of
methane. Batch processing would be very rapid -- filtering would be easy
with that kind of "back" pressure -- and storage would no longer be an issue.

On the other end -- one would have a simple and hardy producer of "coal
gas" followed by synthesis gas. The coal gas (products of destructive
distillation of biomasses) could run a fueled electric utility to power the
entire process and more -- along with the waste heat. My, what a dandy
chemical works one could have.

All this from the same set-up!

The best American Automotive Engineers laughed at Honda. No motor could run
at 24,000 RPM. It was impossible! There was not enough time to propagate
the combustion! It would fly apart -- explode!

Honda won all the World Grand Prix races -- year after bloody year!! (He
was not allowed to compete with his infernal machine on American Race Tracks!)

Finally, at the end, he took a sledge hammer, and in front of the world
news agencies cameras, pounded those racing motors to little pieces. No one
to this day knows exactly how he accomplished it! He has my complete
understanding and sympathies.

Just pulling your tails folks. I do have a record of building the
impossible -- many times over. As one member lurking on this list can
attest to. (And there is that patent of mine describing these thermodynamic
properties) Granted, new ideas are always a hard pill to swallow. And so
many times it is just an exercise in "hot-air". But then you can't go
swimming without getting your feet wet! It is unfortunate -- this modern
trend in industry -- to try to develop yet ignore experimentation and
resulting innovations.

It was the rich private investor -- investing in crack-pot ideas -- that
fueled the Great American industrial revolution. Today these same people
play the stock market.

But be warned. In the right circumstances, I would have this device
developing in very short order. I know exactly how to proceed. It is a very
simple construct folks -- especially using electric heating elements. Think
of a pipe with band heaters strapped to it -- and you have your first
prototype!

As for the chemistry -- Vermont goes a long way to proving that! A simple
"bench" prototype would prove it. And from that point on the entire process
of gasification would be changed!

Now watch out that someone does not do this -- and make everything that has
been developed to date obsolete -- causing that rich man to lose his shirt
on his stock market investments that backed the "wrong" technology. I do
believe that is where it is all at today. It certainly is the reason I am
in Belize!

They keep going round that same track with their same ancient Harley Flat
Head racers -- banning all competition -- wearing T-shirts that say "Flat
Heads for Ever!". Oops -- then came Japan!

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

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Sep 7 13:14:21 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Methane, Pressurization and "STEAM" Gasification
Message-ID: <226b73b9.2506a28f@aol.com>

Peter and the rest on the carbon gasification:
Peter, I appreciate the breath of knowledge which you have, but do not
have the time to read all of your writing.
The high points, once the volatiles are released from biomass or any
other gasifier feed are released, the char remains and you might as well be
gasifying coal. There are catalysts which accelerate the process. I have
not investigated them extensively, but the SERI publication on downdraft
gasification mentions some response from using them.
Most molten metal processes are more trouble than they are worth.
Hamilton Standard had a lead design for powering their fuel cells. Ask
Molten Metals Technologies Inc.. Keeping the process simple keeps the
economics better and more attractive from an operating, maintenance and other
process standpoint.
The Vermont gasifier was based either directly or indirectly upon
University of Georgia and ASU dual fluid bed reactors. It is not
particularly revolutionary, only scale up and lots of $$$. What happened
after 20 minutes?
Lincoln Automobiles built a 24,000 rpm engine with microinch tolerances,
it went up and did not come down. There are tuned exhaust designs which
allow for turbocharging simulating effects and affect combustion residence
times.
Hydrogen is much more valuable than CH4. Most hydrogen is made from
either methane or naptha in a cracker and so it is fairly expensive.
Off to turn on my gasifier.

Tom Taylor

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

From snkm at btl.net Tue Sep 7 13:55:05 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Endothermic Costs
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990907114823.00f5d300@wgs1.btl.net>

*********************************************************************
What is the BTU cost to steam reform 1 pound of coke to synthesis gas?
*********************************************************************

Does anyone one out there know what the themal "cost" -- in btu's -- is to
"reform" one pound of coked coal to synthesis gas?

The only data I can dig up is this:

"At high temperatures, carbon decomposes steam into hydrogen and carbon
monoxide, but with an absorption of heat according to the equation:

C+H2O > CO+H2 - 56,145 B.T.U.

*******end*******

If this means one pound --

Would the result be one pound of synthesis gas? How many ft Cubed at 300
BTU per ft?

Around 25? So total BTU out is 7500??

one pound of Coke = 14550 BTU

Can it really take 56,145 BTU to convert one pound of coke?

Or is that a "misprint" and should read 56.145 BTU (56)??

Here are some actual production figures

50,000 cu. ft. of 300 btu water gas per ton of coke.

Total BTU in gas ----- 15 million BTU

Total BTU in Coke ---- 29 million BTU

Mind you -- they had a lot of waste heat when burning up the coke to get
back to operating temperature. So that is not a true indicator of the real
cost of the endothermic reaction.

Still -- 56.145 is way to low!

And 56,145 is way to high!

Taking the worse case example -- two pound of coke to produce the
equivalent BTU value in synthesis gas.

2 pounds coke (29100 BTU) gives 14550 BTU of Synthesis gas. (48.5 cu. ft.)

Would give a value of endothermic cost of 7275 BTU per pound of coke.

But this is gross conversion -- including the great losses in the
"recharging cycle" -- which do not occur in my design!

By the way -- they vented as waste the producer gas produced during the
"charging" cycle!!! (In this example)

So -- could the true figure be 5614.5 BTU per pound?

And please remember -- using the coal to coke example --

The coal gas process -- under "steam" (that is destructive distillation
under steam atmosphere) -- yielded 8.45 cu. ft. of 447 BTU "coal gas"
(right in there with Vermont) at over all efficiency of 75% -- the 25% loss
being in waste heat.

In a batch cycle mode steam reaction "reformation" of biomass to gas --
these figures will apply how closely?

That reaction starts as a pyrolization and finishes as a water gas
producer. The first stage at low or no pressure and lower temperature (1270
F.) -- the second stage at high temp low pressure (for synthesis gas for
further chemical products) or lower temperature higher pressure production
of methane (for pure combustion processes).

Anyone out there know how very wrong I am here??

This so I can figure what amount of liquid aluminum I need to "charge" to
furnish the heat required for the endothermic steam reforming reaction. In
the very fast -- lower temperature -- highly pressurized -- carbon to
methane conversion.

A ton of aluminum giving me a 340,000 BTU thermal battery locked in at 1270
deg. F.

Which -- at the guestimate of 5600 BTU per pound -- would alow me to
convert to methane 60 pounds of carbon in a matter of seconds to 1680 cu.
ft. of methane rich synthesis gas.

But still -- that 5600 BTU per pound is so high. If it only takes 170 BTU
to melt one pound of aluminum.

Really guestimating -- I would "gut-feeling-say" pound for pound. So 2000
pounds of aluminum could furnish a stable temperature for steam reforming
2000 pound of carbon -- in a matter of seconds.

Maybe it is really 56.145???

I am sorry to be bothering you all regarding these matters -- it may even
appear as if you have a loose cannon on your list. Believe me -- you do!

But for true science -- this is the only way to go.

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

From snkm at btl.net Tue Sep 7 16:55:46 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Endothermic "INVESTMENTS"
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990907145951.00f7695c@wgs1.btl.net>

Thank you so much Jerry!

"4674 BTU is required in this carbon to gas reformation"

One more part of the puzzle in place.

Another question:

********************************************************
What is the total cu. ft. of synthesis gas produced from
the steam reformation of one pound of carbon (which costs
us 4674 BTU to do) ?
********************************************************

"Energy" can't simply "disappear". I mean -- using water as an example --

If I have to invest 79 cal per gram to freeze it (endothermic) it has to
release 79 cal per gram to "melt" (exothermic).

I may spend a lot of money driving the car to the bank, stopping for a beer
on the way, to invest my deposit -- but it does not go away! In the above
example running that compressor to freeze the water cost a price -- but
once the deposited is made -- it does not disappear!

Just where is the 4674 BTU required in this carbon to gas reformation being
"invested"?

We pay a cost to convert energy forms -- but we can never lose the
"investment".

So the BTU's resulting from combustion of the gas produced, and in which we
have invested 4674 BTU, should be greater than the combustion of just the
carbon --but as we see -- it is not.

The lb of gas equals 25 cu. ft. of 300 BTU gas -- total - 7500
The lb of carbon 14500 BTU

And still we had to "invest" a further 4674 BTU to do this!

We have a total over 12,000 BTU of energy that has simply disappeared!

Ergo -- we are getting much more than 25 cu. ft.

Let's see if we can find it?

In fact -- we are getting the "steam" -- the hydrogen and the oxygen added
as well!

So my question

OK -- reaching way back into the old brain cells here -- and not going and
digging out the info from a book -- pure guesstimation --

Mol W. of Carbon = 14
Mol W of water = 16

So 16/14 = 1.14 times 25 = 28.5 extra cu. ft of gas produced. From that
extra 1.14 pounds of water that went into this reaction. (Which also cost
1140 BTU to evaporate -- but a good part of that we get back as waste heat
recovery -- ???)

So now -- total 25 plus 28.5 = 53.5 times 300 BTU = 16050 BTU

16050 BTU's of synthesis gas produced for every pound of carbon, steam
transformed.

Well -- this makes better sense -- but am still missing a couple of
thousand BTU here.

Where have I gone wrong? Hopefully -- someone out there has the correct
answer and will save me the effort of going over my sloppy math.

And for the rest of the list -- you can never lose energy -- only invest
it. The steam reformation of carbon does not cost "extra"!!

Further, always remember -- the same equations are at work when you get C0
and H2 from a producer gas cycle! So no more "you can't do steam
reformation because it is to inefficient" -- look at all the heat you have
to put in that is LOST!! -- or I'll have the ghost of Honda come over and
hit you with his sledge hammer!

We invest energy for the "transformation" -- but get it out at the other
end. The overall efficiency losses of the process is a different matter.

What I am suggesting is using the "Coal-Gas" produced in the first part of
a steam reaction vessel conversion (destructive distillation) to invest
into the energy conversion process. So my result will be entirely clean
synthesis gas -- or mixed with richer methanes -- any way I choose to go --
at the turn of a dial or a flick of a switch.

Now try to do that with your old flat heat gasifier!

I know -- learning is a painful experience.

As Skip put it once -- all this high faluting stuff is nothing but a load
of hot air -- good -- it'll increase the efficiency a little more!

Now -- I hope that some glimmer of understanding of what I propose is
seeping into your minds.

And all this -- quite literally -- from the jungles of Belize! Wish I had
my old tech library at hand. Then I'd really show you how to fly -- and
would not be bothering you asking all the stupid questions -- that anyone
(near a library) can just look up.

So here is that question -

Better than 53.4 cu. ft -- I would think?

And I hope I have explained in satisfactory manner to some on this list
that we do not lose this energy -- simply invest it. And what better place
to get that energy from than that dirty gas produced by the earlier stage
of destructive distillation? (and still having lots left over -- I think --
but really I should just ask in the next stupid question.)

Always remember -- that Honda smashed his engines because Yamaha two
strokes (Ring-a-dings) wopped his ass -- and they used a technology as old
as those Flat Heads. But how much simpler, cheaper, and reliable. What
Yamaya did was perfect the tuned exhaust concept -- wham bam -- thank you
man! And Honda's wonderful gizmo of mechanical delights became redundant in
winning motorcycle races over night! I can't even imagine the ratio of very
high tolerance parts in those Honda four (or was it 8??) cylinder racers --
with four (or was it six) valves per cylinder -- and that humongous gear
train just to actuate those valves -- and everything at 24,000 RPM.

What does this all mean -- you can never really figure something out until
you try it and prove it! And that there is a never ending string of
"surprises"! But winning a race is winning a race!

Our race is to win in biomass reformation to gas.

I will be using the destructive distillation of coal -- producing coal gas
-- in a biomass pyrolysis model -- in my next stupid question example.

Steam reaction chamber reformation of biomass is a real ring-a-ding-ding-ding.

> In perspective, steam reforming of methane on which most ammonia and
>methanol production is based is about twice as endothermic as the carbon
>gasification reaction on a molar basis.

Yes -- but is it lost? We'll just convert more "Coal-Gas" to energy to that
bank account as well. But I had better see how much I have at hand before I
spend more than what I got.

Peter (Belize)

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

At 01:59 PM 9/7/99 -0500, you wrote:
>What you have written is the gasification reaction for carbon (coke),
>which is indeed highly endothermic. The heat of reaction you state is
>approximately correct at standard conditions, but the units are ca.
>56,145 Btu/lbmole or about 4674 Btu/lb-C. At the elevated temperatures
>at which the gasifiation would actually proceed, the endothermic heat of
>reaction would also be 4-5% higher.
>
> In perspective, steam reforming of methane on which most ammonia and
>methanol production is based is about twice as endothermic as the carbon
>gasification reaction on a molar basis.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>J.M. Rovner
>Kvaerner Process - Houston
>

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

From bwatkins at bioenergyupdate.com Tue Sep 7 18:17:55 1999
From: bwatkins at bioenergyupdate.com (Bonnie Watkins)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Handbook of Biogas Utilization
Message-ID: <000201bef972$d9633ca0$0701a8c0@cdi.floweb.com>

The U.S. Department of Energy's Southeastern Regional Biomass Energy Program
(SERBEP), has a publication available entitled "The Handbook of Biogas
Utilization." Published in July 1996, the book is in its second edition (the
first edition was printed in 1988) and covers biogas sources and
characteristics, biogas properties, conversion technologies, handling and
storage, instrumentation and controls; health, safety, and environmental
considerations; and system economics. Appendices include vendor listings, a
glossary of terms, and a listing of relevant organizations. The text without
appendices is about 180 pages in length.

The "Handbook of Biogas Utilization" is available from General Bioenergy
(the support services contractor for Southeastern Regional Biomass Energy
Program) for US$25, or US$30 outside the US, postage paid (surface
mail-inquire about airmail). Orders may be placed by phone at +1 256
740-5634, fax +1 256 740-5530, or email <pbadger@bioenergyupdate.com>. If
ordering by snail mail, send
request to General Bioenergy, PO Box 26, Florence, AL 35631-0026, USA. Only
VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted. Credit card orders must
include card type (VISA or MasterCard), number, expiration date, and name of
card holder. If paying by check, make payable to General Bioenergy in US
dollars. Checks drawn on a US bank will greatly speed up the processing of
your order.

Phillip C. Badger, President
General Bioenergy
DOE Southeastern Regional Biomass Energy Program

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

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Sep 8 01:53:40 1999
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Endothermic "INVESTMENTS"
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990907145951.00f7695c@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <37D5F9F5.6CB49A62@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Thank you so much Jerry!
>
> "4674 BTU is required in this carbon to gas reformation"
>
> One more part of the puzzle in place.
>
> Another question:
>
> ********************************************************
> What is the total cu. ft. of synthesis gas produced from
> the steam reformation of one pound of carbon (which costs
> us 4674 BTU to do) ?
> ********************************************************
>
> "Energy" can't simply "disappear". I mean -- using water as an example --
>
> If I have to invest 79 cal per gram to freeze it (endothermic) it has to
> release 79 cal per gram to "melt" (exothermic).
>
> I may spend a lot of money driving the car to the bank, stopping for a beer
> on the way, to invest my deposit -- but it does not go away! In the above
> example running that compressor to freeze the water cost a price -- but
> once the deposited is made -- it does not disappear!
>
> Just where is the 4674 BTU required in this carbon to gas reformation being
> "invested"?
>
> We pay a cost to convert energy forms -- but we can never lose the
> "investment".
>
> So the BTU's resulting from combustion of the gas produced, and in which we
> have invested 4674 BTU, should be greater than the combustion of just the
> carbon --but as we see -- it is not.
>
> The lb of gas equals 25 cu. ft. of 300 BTU gas -- total - 7500
> The lb of carbon 14500 BTU
>
> And still we had to "invest" a further 4674 BTU to do this!
>
> We have a total over 12,000 BTU of energy that has simply disappeared!
>
> Ergo -- we are getting much more than 25 cu. ft.
>
> Let's see if we can find it?
>
> In fact -- we are getting the "steam" -- the hydrogen and the oxygen added
> as well!
>
> So my question
>
> ********************************************************
> What is the total cu. ft. of synthesis gas produced from
> the steam reformation of one pound of carbon (which costs
> us 4674 BTU to do) ?
> ********************************************************
>
> OK -- reaching way back into the old brain cells here -- and not going and
> digging out the info from a book -- pure guesstimation --
>
> Mol W. of Carbon = 14

..here I'd use 12...

> Mol W of water = 16

...and here, 18...;-)
>
> So 16/14 = 1.14 times 25 = 28.5 extra cu. ft of gas produced. From that
> extra 1.14 pounds of water that went into this reaction. (Which also cost
> 1140 BTU to evaporate -- but a good part of that we get back as waste heat
> recovery -- ???)
>
> So now -- total 25 plus 28.5 = 53.5 times 300 BTU = 16050 BTU
>
> 16050 BTU's of synthesis gas produced for every pound of carbon, steam
> transformed.
>
> Well -- this makes better sense -- but am still missing a couple of
> thousand BTU here.
>
> Where have I gone wrong? Hopefully -- someone out there has the correct
> answer and will save me the effort of going over my sloppy math.
>
> And for the rest of the list -- you can never lose energy -- only invest
> it. The steam reformation of carbon does not cost "extra"!!
>
> Further, always remember -- the same equations are at work when you get C0
> and H2 from a producer gas cycle! So no more "you can't do steam
> reformation because it is to inefficient" -- look at all the heat you have
> to put in that is LOST!! -- or I'll have the ghost of Honda come over and
> hit you with his sledge hammer!
>
> We invest energy for the "transformation" -- but get it out at the other
> end. The overall efficiency losses of the process is a different matter.
>
> What I am suggesting is using the "Coal-Gas" produced in the first part of
> a steam reaction vessel conversion (destructive distillation) to invest
> into the energy conversion process. So my result will be entirely clean
> synthesis gas -- or mixed with richer methanes -- any way I choose to go --
> at the turn of a dial or a flick of a switch.
>
> Now try to do that with your old flat heat gasifier!
>
> I know -- learning is a painful experience.
>
> As Skip put it once -- all this high faluting stuff is nothing but a load
> of hot air -- good -- it'll increase the efficiency a little more!
>
> Now -- I hope that some glimmer of understanding of what I propose is
> seeping into your minds.
>
> And all this -- quite literally -- from the jungles of Belize! Wish I had
> my old tech library at hand. Then I'd really show you how to fly -- and
> would not be bothering you asking all the stupid questions -- that anyone
> (near a library) can just look up.
>
> So here is that question -
>
> ********************************************************
> What is the total cu. ft. of synthesis gas produced from
> the steam reformation of one pound of carbon (which costs
> us 4674 BTU to do) ?
> ********************************************************
>
> Better than 53.4 cu. ft -- I would think?
>
> And I hope I have explained in satisfactory manner to some on this list
> that we do not lose this energy -- simply invest it. And what better place
> to get that energy from than that dirty gas produced by the earlier stage
> of destructive distillation? (and still having lots left over -- I think --
> but really I should just ask in the next stupid question.)
>
> Always remember -- that Honda smashed his engines because Yamaha two
> strokes (Ring-a-dings) wopped his ass -- and they used a technology as old
> as those Flat Heads. But how much simpler, cheaper, and reliable. What
> Yamaya did was perfect the tuned exhaust concept -- wham bam -- thank you
> man! And Honda's wonderful gizmo of mechanical delights became redundant in
> winning motorcycle races over night! I can't even imagine the ratio of very
> high tolerance parts in those Honda four (or was it 8??) cylinder racers --
> with four (or was it six) valves per cylinder -- and that humongous gear
> train just to actuate those valves -- and everything at 24,000 RPM.
>
> What does this all mean -- you can never really figure something out until
> you try it and prove it! And that there is a never ending string of
> "surprises"! But winning a race is winning a race!
>
> Our race is to win in biomass reformation to gas.
>
> ********************************************************
> What is the total cu. ft. of synthesis gas produced from
> the steam reformation of one pound of carbon (which costs
> us 4674 BTU to do) ?
> ********************************************************
>
> I will be using the destructive distillation of coal -- producing coal gas
> -- in a biomass pyrolysis model -- in my next stupid question example.
>
> Steam reaction chamber reformation of biomass is a real ring-a-ding-ding-ding.
>
> > In perspective, steam reforming of methane on which most ammonia and
> >methanol production is based is about twice as endothermic as the carbon
> >gasification reaction on a molar basis.
>
> Yes -- but is it lost? We'll just convert more "Coal-Gas" to energy to that
> bank account as well. But I had better see how much I have at hand before I
> spend more than what I got.
>
> Peter (Belize)
>
> ****************************************************
>
> At 01:59 PM 9/7/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >What you have written is the gasification reaction for carbon (coke),
> >which is indeed highly endothermic. The heat of reaction you state is
> >approximately correct at standard conditions, but the units are ca.
> >56,145 Btu/lbmole or about 4674 Btu/lb-C. At the elevated temperatures
> >at which the gasifiation would actually proceed, the endothermic heat of
> >reaction would also be 4-5% higher.
> >
> > In perspective, steam reforming of methane on which most ammonia and
> >methanol production is based is about twice as endothermic as the carbon
> >gasification reaction on a molar basis.
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >J.M. Rovner
> >Kvaerner Process - Houston
> >
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

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

From snkm at btl.net Wed Sep 8 10:09:12 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Endothermic "INVESTMENTS"
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990908081224.00f980f0@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Arnt;

>>Mol W. of Carbon = 14
>
>..here I'd use 12...
>
>> Mol W of water = 16
>
>...and here, 18...;-)
>>

Thanks -- now we have:

18/12= 1.5 * 25 = 37.5 (cu. ft. from the water) + 25 (Cu. ft. from the
coal) = 62.5 Cu. Ft. by 300 BTU per = 18750 BTU out

18750 BTU out - 14500 BTU in (coke) = 4250 invested to steam reform.

Well, close enough!

Peter (Belize)

>> So 16/14 = 1.14 times 25 = 28.5 extra cu. ft of gas produced. From that
>> extra 1.14 pounds of water that went into this reaction. (Which also cost
>> 1140 BTU to evaporate -- but a good part of that we get back as waste heat
>> recovery -- ???)
>>
>> So now -- total 25 plus 28.5 = 53.5 times 300 BTU = 16050 BTU
>> 16050 BTU's of synthesis gas produced for every pound of carbon, steam
>> transformed.
>>
>> Well -- this makes better sense -- but am still missing a couple of
>> thousand BTU here.
>>
>--
>..Arnt ;-)
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From cc.solagro at wanadoo.fr Wed Sep 8 14:21:00 1999
From: cc.solagro at wanadoo.fr (COUTURIER Christian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <199909081821.OAA24073@solstice.crest.org>

id MAA13886
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification

FOR GASIFICATION PLANT SUPPLIERS

We are leading a project for the realization of a gasification "demo" plant
in SW of France. Feedstock : waste wood - as chuck-wood, sawdust, chips,
demolition woodŠ Range ~10.000 t/year. Power production ~1 MWe. The first
phase is the outlooking of industrial & commercial offer - which is quickly
evoluting.

If you are a gasification plant supplier :
- having at least a demo or commercial plant > 200 kWe & < 5.000 kWe and
runtime > 1.000 h
- able and interested to propose a turn-key operation in France ,

please give evidence of your interest by sending your adress, reference
list, process description and main operational data. Then we will contact
you for a pre-consultation.

Sincerely,

Christian Couturier
cc.solagro@wanadoo.fr

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

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Mon Sep 13 03:47:50 1999
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Dr. C. Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSDS for Gasification Tars
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19990913071108.00956120@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear Group,

I am currently involved with some work on a small-scale downdraft gasifier
in the UK and I was wondering if anyone was aware of MSDS for gasifier
tars. I haven't come across anything in the literature and I would
appreciate it if someone could either supply me with a copy or point me in
the right direction.

Any other related health and safety aspects of gasifiers would also be
appreciated.

Thanks,

Cordner Peacocke

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

From costich at pacifier.com Mon Sep 13 09:53:41 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSDS for Gasification Tars
Message-ID: <000e01befdf0$9e598d80$858941d8@compaq>

Cordner Peacocke: I know only practical applications of small downdraft
gasifiers and invite your interest in my site:
http://members.tripod.com/costich
I am a home power oriented wood gas user.
Dale Costich
-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. C. Peacocke <cpeacocke@care.demon.co.uk>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Monday, September 13, 1999 12:54 AM
Subject: GAS-L: MSDS for Gasification Tars

>Dear Group,
>
>I am currently involved with some work on a small-scale downdraft gasifier
>in the UK and I was wondering if anyone was aware of MSDS for gasifier
>tars. I haven't come across anything in the literature and I would
>appreciate it if someone could either supply me with a copy or point me in
>the right direction.
>
>Any other related health and safety aspects of gasifiers would also be
>appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>
>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 prwoodward at hotmail.com Mon Sep 13 10:30:52 1999
From: prwoodward at hotmail.com (Paul Woodward)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification system
Message-ID: <19990913143336.82120.qmail@hotmail.com>

Hello Mr. Costich:
I noticed your post to the Gasification list.
Could you please forward additional details regarding your gasifier,
particularly regarding storage of the output gas.

Thank you,
Paul Woodward

prwoodward@hotmail.com

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From james at sri.org.au Mon Sep 13 18:15:22 1999
From: james at sri.org.au (james@sri.org.au)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSDS for Gasification Tars
Message-ID: <OFB4EC0B8C.CBC29C00-ONCA2567EB.0078620A@sri.org.au>

For those who might be wondering MSDS = Material Safety Data Sheet Most
workplace health and safety legislation requires that personnel working
with any chemical have read and understood the hazards and risks associated
with whatever they are handling. I presume it is common knowledge that tars
are a chemical cocktail which includes both potential and known carcinogens
(similar to those often found in wood smoke).

Good question Dr. Peacocke, I would be surprised if there was an MSDS for
tar. Perhaps those who produced the tar sampling protocol have something ,
see http://btg.ct.utwente.nl/Projects/558/ .

Regards

James Joyce
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay Qld. Australia

"Dr. C. Peacocke" <cpeacocke@care.demon.co.uk>@crest.org on 13/09/99
17:11:08

Please respond to gasification@crest.org

Sent by: owner-gasification@crest.org

To: gasification@crest.org
cc:
Subject: GAS-L: MSDS for Gasification Tars

Dear Group,

Any other related health and safety aspects of gasifiers would also be
appreciated.

Thanks,

Cordner Peacocke

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

From msreddy at cc.iitb.ernet.in Tue Sep 14 11:28:43 1999
From: msreddy at cc.iitb.ernet.in (M.S.Reddy)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: request!!
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990914200739.25443A-100000@indra.cc.iitb.ernet.in>

Dear Sir(s)

I am interested in names of the organisations/companies offering biomass
(bagasse) based gasification technolgy at commercial level. The purpose is
to find out the scope of this particular technology for decentralised
power plants for sugar mills in India. There is large number of queries
from sugar mills and the contact number of these can be provided to the
relevent parties intersted in business in India.

Thanking you
Rajan

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Sep 15 07:54:08 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSDS for Gasification Tars
Message-ID: <6e92d41b.2510e39c@cs.com>

Dear James, Cordoner et al:

Tars aren't great either in gasifiers or cigarettes, but don't panic. My
mother smoked from age 20 to 85 and died of other causes at 90. Surely we
non-smokers will live an extra 15 years?

Two kinds of "tar" exist.

A. Those formed at temperatures below about 600C are relatively benign and
are the monomers, oligomers and fragments of cellulose, hemicellulose and
lignin.

I prefer to call these compounds "wood oil" rather than tar (by analogy to
coal oil) = kerosene). They are typically lower in viscosity than "tar".
They are typically not strong caracinogens, but I'm sure if you painted
enough mouse ears with enough of any compound the mouse would develop lumps.
(These are the components being researched as pyrolysis oil fuels.)

B. Those vapors that have seen temperatures above 700 C reform into what
were called "coal tars" and are now called PAHs or PNAs. They include such
dueseys as benz-a-pyrene, as well as many other known carcinogens. Chimney
sweeps developed cancer of the scrotum early on to alert the rest of us.
Avoid them like the plague. They are very similar in composition whether
they come from coal, biomass or petroleum. (Some kind of pseudo equilibrium
on the way to soot, I believe.)

On the other hand, I know people who willingly drop cooking fat onto live
coals (T > 700C) and survive for quite long periods.

If you don't want to die, don't get born.

Cheers, TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 9/13/99 4:25:34 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
james@sri.org.au writes:

<<

For those who might be wondering MSDS = Material Safety Data Sheet Most
workplace health and safety legislation requires that personnel working
with any chemical have read and understood the hazards and risks associated
with whatever they are handling. I presume it is common knowledge that tars
are a chemical cocktail which includes both potential and known carcinogens
(similar to those often found in wood smoke).

Good question Dr. Peacocke, I would be surprised if there was an MSDS for
tar. Perhaps those who produced the tar sampling protocol have something ,
see http://btg.ct.utwente.nl/Projects/558/ .

Regards

James Joyce
Sugar Research Institute
Mackay Qld. Australia

"Dr. C. Peacocke" <cpeacocke@care.demon.co.uk>@crest.org on 13/09/99
17:11:08

Please respond to gasification@crest.org

Sent by: owner-gasification@crest.org

To: gasification@crest.org
cc:
Subject: GAS-L: MSDS for Gasification Tars

Dear Group,

I am currently involved with some work on a small-scale downdraft gasifier
in the UK and I was wondering if anyone was aware of MSDS for gasifier
tars. I haven't come across anything in the literature and I would
appreciate it if someone could either supply me with a copy or point me in
the right direction.

Any other related health and safety aspects of gasifiers would also be
appreciated.

Thanks,

Cordner Peacocke

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Sep 15 07:54:12 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: request!!
Message-ID: <d125f628.2510e39a@cs.com>

Dear Rajan:

See Survey of Biomass Gasification 2000 on the attached book list.

YVT TOM REED

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 9/14/99 9:35:14 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
msreddy@cc.iitb.ernet.in writes:

<< Dear Sir(s)

I am interested in names of the organisations/companies offering biomass
(bagasse) based gasification technolgy at commercial level. The purpose is
to find out the scope of this particular technology for decentralised
power plants for sugar mills in India. There is large number of queries
from sugar mills and the contact number of these can be provided to the
relevent parties intersted in business in India.

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Sep 15 07:54:33 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Respiration samples
Message-ID: <465258a5.2510e391@cs.com>

Dear Dave, Ron et al:

I believe it is obvious to all humans that it is not good to breathe smoke.
Those who have no alternatives do and die and those who have alternatives
don't ... they will probably die from other causes eventually.

I have long known of Kirk Smith's excellent measurements on respiration
problems from stoves and they have been a driving force in my work on
gasifier stoves. Wood stoves smoke!

However, I hope we won't have to measure smoke inhalation in country A, B, C,
... ad infinitum to refine the problem more and more. Much better to spend
that time on FIXING the problem, once you are convinced that you shouldn't
breathe smoke (and CO and other components).

~~~~~

I remember when I first went to SERI/NREL in 1978 being shocked to find that
there were millions of dollars available for satellite surveys of the amount
of biomass available - but very little money available for improved methods
of converting waste biomass into fuels and energy. That situation still
prevails. Fun to measure the problem again; no money to fix it.

Sorry for my tirade, but I really would like to get on with fixing the stove
problem rather than redefining it again.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 9/14/99 4:21:03 PM Mountain Daylight Time, larcon@sni.net
writes:

<<
> Greetings:
>
>I've just completed a four week field survey in Western Ethiopia where we
>collected short term and long term time weighted average respirable mass
>fraction particulate exposure samples (using NIOSH method 0600) on women who
>use traditional 3-stone cookstoves. We obtained both personal breathing zone
>samples and area samples inside peoples homes, including overnight exposure
>data. The goal of the research is to develop a 24 hour time weighted average
>exposure profile for this population. Do listserve members have any
>recommendations for peer-refereed journal(s) that might be most appropriate
>for publication of this type of research? Thanks in advance.
>
>Dave Dyjack
>>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From ashoktoshniwal at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 09:20:20 1999
From: ashoktoshniwal at yahoo.com (ASHOK TOSHNIWAL)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSDS for Gasification Tars
Message-ID: <19990915132644.16218.rocketmail@web120.yahoomail.com>

--- Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
> Dear James, Cordoner et al:
>
> Tars aren't great either in gasifiers or cigarettes,
> but don't panic. My
> mother smoked from age 20 to 85 and died of other
> causes at 90. Surely we
> non-smokers will live an extra 15 years?
>
> Two kinds of "tar" exist.
>
> A. Those formed at temperatures below about 600C are
> relatively benign and
> are the monomers, oligomers and fragments of
> cellulose, hemicellulose and
> lignin.
>
> I prefer to call these compounds "wood oil" rather
> than tar (by analogy to
> coal oil) = kerosene). They are typically lower in
> viscosity than "tar".
> They are typically not strong caracinogens, but I'm
> sure if you painted
> enough mouse ears with enough of any compound the
> mouse would develop lumps.
> (These are the components being researched as
> pyrolysis oil fuels.)
>
> B. Those vapors that have seen temperatures above
> 700 C reform into what
> were called "coal tars" and are now called PAHs or
> PNAs. They include such
> dueseys as benz-a-pyrene, as well as many other
> known carcinogens. Chimney
> sweeps developed cancer of the scrotum early on to
> alert the rest of us.
> Avoid them like the plague. They are very similar
> in composition whether
> they come from coal, biomass or petroleum. (Some
> kind of pseudo equilibrium
> on the way to soot, I believe.)
>
> On the other hand, I know people who willingly drop
> cooking fat onto live
> coals (T > 700C) and survive for quite long periods.
>
>
> If you don't want to die, don't get born.

>Dear Tom,
Is it in your control? The latter one!

Ashok Toshniwal

> Cheers, TOM REED
> BEF
>
> In a message dated 9/13/99 4:25:34 PM Mountain
> Daylight Time,
> james@sri.org.au writes:
>
> <<
>
> For those who might be wondering MSDS = Material
> Safety Data Sheet Most
> workplace health and safety legislation requires
> that personnel working
> with any chemical have read and understood the
> hazards and risks associated
> with whatever they are handling. I presume it is
> common knowledge that tars
> are a chemical cocktail which includes both
> potential and known carcinogens
> (similar to those often found in wood smoke).
>
> Good question Dr. Peacocke, I would be surprised if
> there was an MSDS for
> tar. Perhaps those who produced the tar sampling
> protocol have something ,
> see http://btg.ct.utwente.nl/Projects/558/ .
>
> Regards
>
> James Joyce
> Sugar Research Institute
> Mackay Qld. Australia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Dr. C. Peacocke"
> <cpeacocke@care.demon.co.uk>@crest.org on 13/09/99
> 17:11:08
>
> Please respond to gasification@crest.org
>
> Sent by: owner-gasification@crest.org
>
>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> cc:
> Subject: GAS-L: MSDS for Gasification Tars
>
>
> Dear Group,
>
> I am currently involved with some work on a
> small-scale downdraft gasifier
> in the UK and I was wondering if anyone was aware
> of MSDS for gasifier
> tars. I haven't come across anything in the
> literature and I would
> appreciate it if someone could either supply me
> with a copy or point me in
> the right direction.
>
> Any other related health and safety aspects of
> gasifiers would also be
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cordner Peacocke
>
> >>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

__________________________________________________
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 LINVENT at aol.com Wed Sep 15 10:36:01 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Respiration samples
Message-ID: <840e88b1.2511098e@aol.com>

About the wood smoke problem,
Either use a highly efficient smoke consuming stove to eliminating the
smoke or a method of removing the smoke particles from the air surrounding
the "stove" and the kitchen environment. This is feasible, however,
questions about electric power to operate it are the basis of implementing
it. There is a no moving part design which will strip all particulates from
the air and will circulate the air at the same time.

As to MSDS on wood smoke and tar condensates,
This is a can of worms. It needs to be treated the same as roofers who
use tars for roofing. If you know anything about how they work around tars
on roofing, you will get my rather cynical comment.

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Sep 15 10:48:17 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSDS for Gasification Tars
Message-ID: <cedaeba.25110c68@aol.com>

Coal tars,
I recently was provided a shampoo called Gel-T, which was a black gooey,
creosote looking gel which smelled like creosote. I think I picked it up in a
hotel room somewhere. I was wondering what in the world anyone was using it
as a shampoo for, until I used it and it was incredible surfactant producing
some of the most vigorous lather I have ever seen, even in the rock hard
water we have here. It appeared to be an extract of coal tar and the label
said so, plus there was another bottle of similar labeled material which was
a different brand but had the same extractive source.
So, if carcinogens are usable for shampoo, what is next? Perhaps some of
the old superfund coal tar sites could be made into shampoo?

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

From rick at terrafuels.com Wed Sep 15 11:23:53 1999
From: rick at terrafuels.com (Rick vonHuben)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSDS for Gasification Tars
In-Reply-To: <cedaeba.25110c68@aol.com>
Message-ID: <l03130300b4056c640ebf@[199.179.172.216]>

>Coal tars,
> I recently was provided a shampoo called Gel-T, which was a black gooey,
>creosote looking gel which smelled like creosote. I think I picked it up in a
>hotel room somewhere. I was wondering what in the world anyone was using it
>as a shampoo for, until I used it and it was incredible surfactant producing
>some of the most vigorous lather I have ever seen, even in the rock hard
>water we have here. It appeared to be an extract of coal tar and the label
>said so, plus there was another bottle of similar labeled material which was
>a different brand but had the same extractive source.
> So, if carcinogens are usable for shampoo, what is next? Perhaps some of
>the old superfund coal tar sites could be made into shampoo?
>
>Tom Taylor

Tom:
As I recall, coal-tar allways has been the standard active ingredient in
most anti-dandruff shampoos.

Rick vonHuben

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

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

From snkm at btl.net Wed Sep 15 15:14:24 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Less We Forget!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990915131850.00748508@wgs1.btl.net>

Why biomass energy? Why is gasification the road to our energy future?

Less we forget!

http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/99/08/30/timopnope01004.html?19
96766

Check out that article!

But they are still scrapping the Libertad sugar factory and its million
tons of green cane production per year.

The blind leads the blind. There is no longer the right amount of "fire" in
the belly's of these modern peoples.

Well, in the end -- one always should expect to get no more than they
deserve --

Would that re just a little bit smarter -- and less unfettered capitalism
controlling our destinies. Gets so discouraging!

Peter Singfield --- Belize

*******example*******

Black gold has made the modern age possible. The end of the Earth's
supplies has often been predicted. Soon those predictions will come
true

Troubled waters for oil

Great issues have long histories. Last Friday was the 140th
anniversary of the drilling of the first oilwell at Titusville,
Pennsylvania, an event that made the 20th century possible. The use
of petroleum products as the main source of energy has given the
modern world its character, but the oil business developed quite
slowly.

In 1898, nearly 40 years after Titusville, Britain imported only L-3.7
million of petroleum products, a little more than the value of
imports of coffee, and a fifth of the L-18.1 million of coal exports.
In terms of energy supply, coal was still king. The motor car and the
aeroplane changed all that; they also changed the world, in peace and
war.

The drawback to the petroleum economy of our now departing century is
that it is based on a finite resource. No one can be sure when the
oil will run out - there have been too many pessimistic forecasts
that have already been proved mistaken - but run out it will. The
best estimate is that oil will be about a 200-year phenomenon, and
that there will be a rapid decline in supplies by the second half of
the next century.

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Sep 15 17:44:13 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSDS for Gasification Tars
Message-ID: <9904d819.25116deb@aol.com>

Rick,
Thank you for the enlightenment on use of coal tars for shampoos. It is
an interesting smell to come out of the shower with.

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

From j-stahl at onu.edu Thu Sep 16 03:00:03 1999
From: j-stahl at onu.edu (John Stahl)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification Interest
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19990916070439.013806b8@postoffice.onu.edu>

At 07:01 AM 9/13/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Cordner Peacocke: I know only practical applications of small downdraft
>gasifiers and invite your interest in my site:
>http://members.tripod.com/costich
>I am a home power oriented wood gas user.
>Dale Costich
>

Dear Dale

Please send me more information about your gasifier.....operation, plans, cost?
Those of us who are just starting need much practical, fundamental,
information.

Thank you

Dr. John P. Stahl
Electrical Engineering Dept.
Ohio Northern U.
Ada, Ohio, 45810

email address j-stahl@onu.edu

-Dr.John P. Stahl, Engineering College, Ohio Northern U.

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

From gurgel at enm.unb.br Fri Sep 17 15:36:57 1999
From: gurgel at enm.unb.br (Carlos Gurgel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSDS for Gasification Tars
In-Reply-To: <9904d819.25116deb@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19990917074836.007b7860@orion.enm.unb.br>

At 05:47 PM 9/15/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Rick,
> Thank you for the enlightenment on use of coal tars for shampoos. It is
>an interesting smell to come out of the shower with.
>
>Tom Taylor

I was wondering whether tars from biomass also play a role in "smoked
food". Human being has, for long time, used to preserve food. That means,
besides inhaling tars compounds from different sources "we" are also
"eating" them.

Any comments?

Carlos Gurgel, Prof.
FT - Faculty of Teechnology
Mechanical Engineering Department
University of Brasilia
Asa Norte - 70910-900
Brasilia - DF
Brazil

e-mail: gurgel@enm.unb.br
Pho: +55 61 3071776 + 55 61 923-3281 (mobile)
fax: +55 61 273-4539
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From vvnk at teri.res.in Fri Sep 17 15:37:22 1999
From: vvnk at teri.res.in (V V N Kishore)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Respiration samples
Message-ID: <s7e24f36.039@dakghar.teri.res.in>

Tom Reed,
One of your famous altruisms again! Only I would like to suggest you replace "cook-stove" with solar cooker,solar water heater,gasifier,briquetting machine,biogas plants.......ad infinitum.Our policy makers,bureaucrats (not to mention the deadly bureaucrat-friendly-scientists) and science administrators are so busy having meetings,conferences,and tons of reports talking about the problems,but very little (if any) money is available for fixing the problem.This is because "fixing" involves a basic level of competence,good understanding of the problem and a certain "empathy" for the end-users,which is a highly improbable combination.
Happy firing!

>>> <Reedtb2@cs.com> 09/15/99 05:27PM >>>
Dear Dave, Ron et al:

I have long known of Kirk Smith's excellent measurements on respiration
problems from stoves and they have been a driving force in my work on
gasifier stoves. Wood stoves smoke!

~~~~~

Sorry for my tirade, but I really would like to get on with fixing the stove
problem rather than redefining it again.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 9/14/99 4:21:03 PM Mountain Daylight Time, larcon@sni.net
writes:

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

From tmiles at teleport.com Fri Sep 17 18:56:01 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Gasification in South Africa
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19990917160252.01bca610@mail.teleport.com>

Can anyone report on the current state of small scale gasification and
charcoal production in South or Southern Africa?

Small scale gasification development was quite active in South Africa 10-15
years ago.

Regards,

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

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Sep 17 19:16:50 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSDS for Gasification Tars
Message-ID: <585c78f9.2514269f@aol.com>

In a message dated 9/17/99 7:44:33 PM, gurgel@enm.unb.br writes:

<<Carlos Gurgel, Prof.
FT - Faculty of Teechnology
Mechanical Engineering Department
University of Brasilia
Asa Norte - 70910-900
Brasilia - DF
Brazil>>

Dear Dr. Gurgel,
Yes, the consumption of "casual carcinogens" such as barbeque, smoked
bacon and other products has been part of humanity since we discovered fire.
Basically, all products of combustion are toxic to aerobic life, the
differences have to do with the various chemistries involved.
Iam of the opinion that some carcinogens are not harmful and probably
keep the immune system function elevated. There used to be a group who
believed that increasing immune activity such as injecting a weak tuburcular
strain would help overcome cancer. It is not unusual for the human species
to generate the cancer cells, but they are rid though normal immune
processes. It is probably some defect in the immune process which allows
cancer cells to propagate.
Should your barbeque sauce have an MSDS and be labeled for cancer
causing? As much so as second hand smoke and cigarettes. Would it be wise to
do so?, No, life without risks increases suicide, and other irrational
behavior. There is a limit to how far we can go with regulations and control
of life. Of course, the radicals need something to feed upon and this would
be another point for them to pursue.
Of course, much of the smoke flavoring these days is synthesized and it
would be interesting to know if the synthesis included known carcinogens.
My opinion is that high atmospheric nitrogen levels such as NOx has more
of a role in the process of carcinogenic formation and this brings us back to
gasification if you can believe the path, producer gas has about 1/2 the NOx
formation as does natural gas from an internal combustion engine as the
hydrogen and CO prevent the formation of NOx compounds. This is a more
important factor than lessened greenhouse gases such as CO2 as it has much
more impact upon the thought and functional processes of humans. NOx
compounds include nitric oxide which has been shown to be an anesthetic, so
if someone is acting less than fully alert, it may be because they have been
inhaling nitric oxide. Everyone knows the anesthetic properties of nitrous
oxide, but apparently nitric oxide does the same at a much lower
concentration. It is given off when nitric acid is broken down, so it is
extremely corrosive and toxic.
Nitrogen compounds make cells grow faster and as such, if they grow too
fast, they may reproduce before they are mature and lose their timing
mechanisms. The body has no way to know the difference and may not be able to
eliminate them. I have seen this in crops. Most animals which we eat are
fed very high protein diets and suffer an incidence of cancers which are
removed in the slaughterhouse.
Hope everyone has a good weekend.

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

From snkm at btl.net Fri Sep 17 20:48:46 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
Message-ID: <199909180048.UAA26017@solstice.crest.org>

Peter -- from Belize here;

I need to know what the over all efficiency is for generating electricity
from Biomass. OK -- to make it easier -- say wood chips!

That is from X amount of fuel to Y amount of electrical power -- the ratio.

For conventional boilers and steam turbine plants. (15%??)

For Gasification and gas turbines

For Gasification and supplementing diesel gen set.

Peter

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

From snkm at btl.net Fri Sep 17 22:24:14 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
Message-ID: <199909180224.WAA29833@solstice.crest.org>

Peter -- from Belize here;

I need to know what the over all efficiency is for generating electricity
from Biomass. OK -- to make it easier -- say wood chips!

That is from X amount of fuel to Y amount of electrical power -- the ratio.

For conventional boilers and steam turbine plants. (15%??)

For Gasification and gas turbines

For Gasification and supplementing diesel gen set.

Peter

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Sep 17 23:36:53 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
Message-ID: <83b2d3fa.25146399@aol.com>

Dear Gas ification group members,
How about putting up a reference section with all kinds of conversions,
standards, definitions and the like? That would answer many of the questions
and if someone forgot, they could look at easily?

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

From snkm at btl.net Sat Sep 18 01:00:24 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: For the Record
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990917230727.0077ac30@wgs1.btl.net>

Leaving the sugar in the cane -- simply hogging and drying it --

1 pound of green cane "represents" 3500 BTU at best!

To make Libertad work -- just barely -- at 10 cents per KWH and paying
$22.50 per ton to the farmers -- I would need an over all efficiency of at
least 25%.

These are "optimistic" figures at best.

Calculating 15% sugar content and 50% water in one pound of green cane
leaving 35% balance as cellulose material. (Can't find the right figures on
water content -- just guessing here!)

Sugar at 7200 BTU per pound.

Cellulose at 7500 BTU per pound.

Problem -- I need a 25% overall efficiency!

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

From costich at pacifier.com Sat Sep 18 10:34:42 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
Message-ID: <001601bf01e4$38718c00$aa8941d8@compaq>

Hello Peter: Regarding your ? as to actual solid mass to electrons
conversion, I can tell you my practical ongoing experience. My gasifier has
a 6" throat being a downdraft Imbert with 6 tuyres (air inlets) 60 degrees
equispaced that inject atmospheric air 12 " above the charcoal
shaker/grate. I typically pyrolize mill ends...2X4 and 2X6s' by 4 to 10
inches long at a 50 # per hour rate. These are 15% moisture air/shed dried.
I use a "ring compressor" or multivane turbine at slow speed (permanent
magnet 3/4hp) ~ 800 rpm to suck the fire that inflates a 1000 cu.ft bag in
30 minutes +/-. The suction allows refilling during run time with no smoke
escape, but necessitates cleaning this air pump. bummer.
...finally...since the bag is now full I electrically start a 8hp horizontal
engine rated 2.5 Kw and by blending approx. 1 to 1 woodgas to air can "draw"
700 watts for about 20 minutes...therefore
25# of dry wood generates 1/3 KWH (minus the suction pump which is ,10 KWH )
= 25# wood =200 watt hours of electricity.
And I love every minute of it!
Dale

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
To: undisclosed-recipients:; <undisclosed-recipients:;>
Date: Friday, September 17, 1999 7:29 PM
Subject: GAS-L: Help!

>Peter -- from Belize here;
>
>I need to know what the over all efficiency is for generating electricity
>from Biomass. OK -- to make it easier -- say wood chips!
>
>That is from X amount of fuel to Y amount of electrical power -- the ratio.
>
>For conventional boilers and steam turbine plants. (15%??)
>
>For Gasification and gas turbines
>
>For Gasification and supplementing diesel gen set.
>
>
>Peter
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

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

From tmiles at teleport.com Sat Sep 18 12:29:50 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gasification Help! FILES
In-Reply-To: <83b2d3fa.25146399@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19990918092333.013e17b0@mail.teleport.com>

Tom,

Good suggestion. Anyone who has reference information of that kind that
they are willing to put in a text or HTML file, or links to useful existing
sites, please send it to me (tmiles@teleport.com) and we can put it up on
the CREST site with the Gasification archives.

Funding (spnosors) for the Gasification List is always welcome since
additional services from CREST incur additional fees.

Regards,

Tom Miles

At 11:40 PM 9/17/99 -0400, LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
>Dear Gas ification group members,
> How about putting up a reference section with all kinds of conversions,
>standards, definitions and the like? That would answer many of the questions
>and if someone forgot, they could look at easily?
>
>Tom Taylor
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From snkm at btl.net Sat Sep 18 14:44:35 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990918124832.00773428@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Dale;

Ok -- conservatively estimating BTU value of the wood at 8000 BTU per pound.

25 pound (total 200000 BTU's) gives you 200 WH.

200000 BTU is equal to 58.6 KWH -- you are producing .2KWH

Your over all efficiency is: .0034 percent! -- or 1/3 of one percent of the
heat energy you are putting in is actually turning up as generated
electrical power.

Now knowing this figure we can say --

One ton of wood waste is 16 million BTU -- times .0034 = 54,400 BTU net.

Thus -- in your system -- burning one tons of waste would give:

15 KWH

The point here is quite simple. At present -- everyone is not putting any
value on the "waste" -- so nobody cares what efficiencies are. In fact, it
would appear most operators of gasifiers or waste burning boilers -- are
only concerned with the "tipping" fees!

Before we can seriously consider using biomass as a prime energy source --
we need to think of biomass as a resource -- not a waste.

This means that all systems presently operating as waste utilizers are of
no value in bioenergy production.

Basically -- we are talking incineration with a little bit of energy
production.

But granted -- it may well be "fun".

Many point out that it is very hard to achieve high efficiencies at small
scales of operation. However, if one goes the pyrolysis/water gas route
using a small device as I have previously described -- separating the CO
from H2 using a palladium filter, hydrogen flows right through it, and
other gases won't, feeding a fuel cell with the H2, mixing the CO with the
gases of pyrolization -- and using that for powering an IC gen set --
efficiencies shoot up to equal to the huge power plants.

Normal progression is,if you can get it working small -- you can make it
work better if building bigger. Eventually we would get efficiencies into
line to make biomass energy workable.

Many ways to skin that cat -- but where to start?

What we really need is a simple listing of over all efficiencies of all
processes presently in use regarding biomass conversion to energy.

The best way to do this is exactly what you have just shown us. Take it
from actual measurements. BTU's of energy in over KWH's out!

Thanks Dale!

Peter

At 07:43 AM 9/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello Peter: Regarding your ? as to actual solid mass to electrons
>conversion, I can tell you my practical ongoing experience. My gasifier has
>a 6" throat being a downdraft Imbert with 6 tuyres (air inlets) 60 degrees
>equispaced that inject atmospheric air 12 " above the charcoal
>shaker/grate. I typically pyrolize mill ends...2X4 and 2X6s' by 4 to 10
>inches long at a 50 # per hour rate. These are 15% moisture air/shed dried.
>I use a "ring compressor" or multivane turbine at slow speed (permanent
>magnet 3/4hp) ~ 800 rpm to suck the fire that inflates a 1000 cu.ft bag in
>30 minutes +/-. The suction allows refilling during run time with no smoke
>escape, but necessitates cleaning this air pump. bummer.
>...finally...since the bag is now full I electrically start a 8hp horizontal
>engine rated 2.5 Kw and by blending approx. 1 to 1 woodgas to air can "draw"
>700 watts for about 20 minutes...therefore
>25# of dry wood generates 1/3 KWH (minus the suction pump which is ,10 KWH )
>= 25# wood =200 watt hours of electricity.
>And I love every minute of it!
>Dale
>

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

From doncox at fox.nstn.ca Sat Sep 18 14:50:04 1999
From: doncox at fox.nstn.ca (Don Cox)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
Message-ID: <001001bf0206$f82fba40$d2ddfea9@p2-350mhz>

>Hi Dale;
>
>Ok -- conservatively estimating BTU value of the wood at 8000 BTU per
pound.
>
>25 pound (total 200000 BTU's) gives you 200 WH.

Peter, are you sure here??? I haven't looked it up myself yet, but my
memory tells me that about 25 pounds of wood, soft or hard, is equivalent in
energy to one gallon of fuel oil, or about 8 pounds of oil.

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

From snkm at btl.net Sat Sep 18 16:41:33 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990918144824.0076a328@wgs1.btl.net>

At 02:52 PM 9/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Dale;
>>
>>Ok -- conservatively estimating BTU value of the wood at 8000 BTU per
>pound.
>>
>>25 pound (total 200000 BTU's) gives you 200 WH.
>
>
>Peter, are you sure here??? I haven't looked it up myself yet, but my
>memory tells me that about 25 pounds of wood, soft or hard, is equivalent in
>energy to one gallon of fuel oil, or about 8 pounds of oil.

Hi don;

Imagine meeting you here!

>From my Kent's hand book -- "dry" BTU content -- Dale has 15% moisture

Wood Sawdust (Oak) 8,493 BTU/LB
" " (pine) 9,347 " "
" " (Fir) 8,249 " "

Dale does not mention which species. But as example -- take the pine.

9,347 minus 15% humidity gives 7945 BTU per pound "Net"

Fir would be 7012 Net

So we could say a fairer value would be 7500 BTU per pound.

(By the way -- pure "dry" cellulose is 7500 BTU/LB -- Sugar is 7200 BTU/LB)

25 pound would then equal -- 187500 -- or 55 KWH

.2KWH/55KWH gives us an over all efficiency of -- .36%

I stand corrected!

As for the oil -- your looking at around 18,000 BTU per pound -- so 8
pounds would give 144000 BTU.

(Folks -- Don is in Canada so that is 8 pounds of fuel oil per Canadian
Gallon)

In a diesel gen set -- one can say 14400 BTU will result in one KWH. So
that Canadian Gallon of diesel would produce 10 KWH.

Over all: 144000 BTU = 42 KWH

10/42 = 23% over all efficiency.

But a large diesel power plant will do it on 12,000 BTU or less for 1 KWH --

12,000 BTU = 3.5 kwh

1/3.5 = 28%

Major coal fired power steam utilities broke the 10,000 BTU per KWH barrier
in 1945.

That is an efficiency of: 34%

Mercury boiler Gen Sets built in the 1930's reached 9175 BTU per KWH (Kerny)

Efficiency -- 37%

Please -- anyone -- if I am wrong in these thoughts -- tell me!! It has
been years and my math may well be "rusty".

Over all plant efficiency it of prime importance in making an engineering
model regarding feasibility.

Though we have such clear records of this in all prior state of the art
facilities -- in these modern times we no longer supply this very important
figure!

Rather we get -- don't worry -- this system is the best!

Well -- I "worry" -- and want to know ---

Surely -- there must be over all efficiency figures for these big new
gasification processes??

They must do better than the 1932 Kerny, mercury boiler, power plant in new
Jersey!

Or are we all just sucking in breeze here?? That is a good question as well.

In the meantime -- I stick to the "modern" figure of 15%!! Seems that is
the best we can do now.

When you think about it -- 37% is really something! If we could achieve
this in biomass energy -- there would be a future for our children.

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

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Sat Sep 18 19:49:17 1999
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
In-Reply-To: <199909180048.UAA26017@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19990919005244.007a7630@pop3.demon.co.uk>

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

At 08:48 PM 9/17/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Peter -- from Belize here;
>
>I need to know what the over all efficiency is for generating electricity
>from Biomass. OK -- to make it easier -- say wood chips!
>
>That is from X amount of fuel to Y amount of electrical power -- the ratio.
>
>For conventional boilers and steam turbine plants. (15%??)
>
>For Gasification and gas turbines
>
>For Gasification and supplementing diesel gen set.
>
>
>Peter
>
>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 Sat Sep 18 21:07:54 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990918181945.0068569c@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Cordner;

Yes -- that would be highly appreciated! My Postal Address is:

Peter Singfield
Corozal Town
Belize; Central America

If it is public domain -- it should be an item for that "data" page Tom
suggested.

Thanks -

Peter

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
>
>
>At 08:48 PM 9/17/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>Peter -- from Belize here;
>>
>>I need to know what the over all efficiency is for generating electricity
>>from Biomass. OK -- to make it easier -- say wood chips!
>>
>>That is from X amount of fuel to Y amount of electrical power -- the ratio.
>>
>>For conventional boilers and steam turbine plants. (15%??)
>>
>>For Gasification and gas turbines
>>
>>For Gasification and supplementing diesel gen set.
>>
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>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 cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Sun Sep 19 03:50:37 1999
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990918181945.0068569c@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19990919085322.007aa330@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Hello Peter,

Yes, I agree. I will try and summarise the findings and send them to the
Group in a day ot two.

Cordner

At 07:15 PM 9/18/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Hi Cordner;
>
>Yes -- that would be highly appreciated! My Postal Address is:
>
>Peter Singfield
>Corozal Town
>Belize; Central America
>
>If it is public domain -- it should be an item for that "data" page Tom
>suggested.
>
>Thanks -
>
>Peter
>
>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
>>
>>
>>At 08:48 PM 9/17/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>>Peter -- from Belize here;
>>>
>>>I need to know what the over all efficiency is for generating electricity
>>>from Biomass. OK -- to make it easier -- say wood chips!
>>>
>>>That is from X amount of fuel to Y amount of electrical power -- the ratio.
>>>
>>>For conventional boilers and steam turbine plants. (15%??)
>>>
>>>For Gasification and gas turbines
>>>
>>>For Gasification and supplementing diesel gen set.
>>>
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>
>>>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 cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Sun Sep 19 04:17:37 1999
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990918181945.0068569c@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19990919091952.007aca70@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Hello Peter,

The exact reference, in case you have the proceedings, or can get access to
them in the meantime is:

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.

Cordner

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Sep 19 07:01:10 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Capstone and Reflective Technology turbines
Message-ID: <af130dec.25161d3a@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 Sun Sep 19 10:20:15 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
Message-ID: <b67daf76.25164be3@cs.com>

Dear Cordner, Peter et al:

o I recommend that for PRIVATE messages you send directly to one person
rather than dragging in the whole gasification network. To do this you need
to look at the addresses and pick out who you want and erase GASIFICATION

o Please also send me a copy of the efficiency paper if it is convenient.

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Sep 19 10:20:23 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: METRIC SYSTEM and GAS-L: Help!
Message-ID: <fb3c7e26.25164be9@cs.com>

Dear All:

We had some questions here about wood energy content and power generation.
In a posting sometime ago I listed as a rule of thumb that dry (10% MC)
biomass was typically 18 MJ/kg (8000 Btu/lb); that 1 kWh of power from
biomass consumed about 1 kg. (This takes into account the efficiency of
gasifiers.)

We are setting up a new laboratory for gasifiers here in Golden and we have
resolved NOT to let English Units in the door. The U.S. is very parochial in
this and it is time we changed our habits, particularly since most of the
world uses metric units and could be our principal clients.

So, I would like to suggest that you all make the effort to become fluent in
metric and post questions and answers in metric. If you like, you can also
ADD the English equivalents in parentheses.

Attached is a conversion table from our forthcoming book. Why not Post it on
your wall.

Yours truly,

TOM REED.

~~~~~~
CHAPTER 6 - Conversion Factors

The U. S. has been dragging its feet on conversion to metric and continues
to use the ENGLISH system even after the English have given it up (at least
officially). The metric system makes many calculations trivial - after you
learn it. Personally, I have used metric as a scientist and English for
engineering, but on my world trip I had to "speak metric" so much that I am
now 90% converted to SI.

WEIGHT: 1 kg = 2.204 lb = 0.984 X 10-3 ton (long) - 1.1023 X 10-3 ton
(short)

PRESSURE: 1 atm = 1.0133 bar = 101.33 kPa = 14.7 psia = 29.921 in. Hg =
1419 in. H2O =
760 mm Hg

VELOCITY: 1 m/s = 3.281 ft/s = 3.6 km/h = 2.237 mph

ENERGY: 1 Btu = 1.055 kJ = 252 Cal = 778.2 foot-pound-force
1 kWh = 3.600 MJ = 3413 Btu
1 Cal = 4.187 J

DENSITY: 1 g/cm3 = 1000 kg/m3 = 62.43 lb/ft3
1 lb/ft3 = 0.01602 g/cm3 = 16.02 kg/m3

POWER: 1 watt = 1 J/s = 3.43 Btu/h = 0.2389 Cal/s = 3.6 kJ/h = 1.341 X 10-3
hp

TEMPERATURE: °F = 1.8°C + 32 °C = (°F-32)/1.8 °K = °C + 273.15

°R= °F + 450.67 = 1.80 °K

LENGTH: 1 in = 2.54 cm 1 micron (micrometer) = 1mm = 10-6m

VOLUME COMPRESSIBLE GAS:
1 Nm3 (0°C) = 38.55 scf (77df) = 37.32 scf (60°F) = 37.90 scf (58°F)

VOLUME NONCOMPRESSIBLE:
1 m3 = 35.315 ft3 = 1000 liters
1 ft3 = 0.02831 m3 = 7.48 gal
1 gal (US) = 3.785 liters = 0.1336 ft3 = 231 in3

GAS FLOW: 1 Nm3/h = 0.632 scfm (68°F)

AREA: 1 m2 = 10.76 ft2 = 1550 in2 = 1.30 yd2

HEARTH LOAD (for 130 Btu/scf Gas):
0.9 Nm3/h-cm2 = 5.37 scfm/ft2 = 3.73 scfm/in2 = 4.2 Mbtu/h-ft3

GAS ENERGY CONTENT:
1 Btu/scf (68°F) = 9.549 kCal/Nm3 (0°C) = 39.98 kJ/Nm3 (0°C)

FUEL ENERGY: 1 Btu/lb = 0.5555 Cal/g = 2.326J/g 1 Cal/g = 1.8 Btu/lb
= 4.187 J/g
~~~~~~
GASIFICATION RULES OF THUMB - APPROXIMATELY TRUE - & EASY TO REMEMBER

1 m3 of producer gas weighs 1 kg so 1 ppm tar in 1 m3 gas weighs 1 mg
1 kg biomass (10%M) » 18MJ ;1 kWh when converted with 20% efficiency

1 kg biomass yields 2.5 kg producer gas = 2.5 m3 (if gasification air/fuel
ratio = 1.5)

In a message dated 9/18/99 2:48:40 PM Mountain Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

<< >Ok -- conservatively estimating BTU value of the wood at 8000 BTU per
>pound.
>>
>>25 pound (total 200000 BTU's) gives you 200 WH.
>
>
>Peter, are you sure here??? I haven't looked it up myself yet, but my
>memory tells me that about 25 pounds of wood, soft or hard, is equivalent in
>energy to one gallon of fuel oil, or about 8 pounds of oil.
>>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Sep 19 10:20:36 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: NOX
Message-ID: <955263e4.25164bf8@cs.com>

Dear Gasification:

It is always good to hear from my old friend Tom Taylor. He is eclectic and
gathers all kinds of useful info, mostly correct. Concerning his comments on
NOXes:

I don't know about NO2 (and N2O4) being anesthetic, but NO2 is the anhydride
of nitrous acid and as such makes acid rain and does interesting chemistry in
the air.

A few decades ago I was operating an electric arc device at the Linde company
with a friend, Phil Cuddihy. After a few minutes, we stepped out in the
hall, and noticed that the room had a brown color. I said "oh oh, NO2!" We
called the safety officer and he warned us that we should be under
examination for the next 24 hours. NO2 irritates the lungs and one can drown
in ones own lung juices.

So Phil and I warned our wives. We did not feel any ill effects. However,
the next winter I had a persistant cough that I decided was the result of
NOX.

So, beware smoke, NOX and other lung irritants. (Damage may not have been
permanent. I still play racketball and tennis and the flute 50 years later.)

Beware, TOM REED BEF/CPC

In a message dated 9/17/99 5:29:07 PM Mountain Daylight Time, LINVENT@aol.com
writes:

<<
Dear Dr. Gurgel,
Yes, the consumption of "casual carcinogens" such as barbeque, smoked
bacon and other products has been part of humanity since we discovered fire.
Basically, all products of combustion are toxic to aerobic life, the
differences have to do with the various chemistries involved.
Iam of the opinion that some carcinogens are not harmful and probably
keep the immune system function elevated. There used to be a group who
believed that increasing immune activity such as injecting a weak tuburcular
strain would help overcome cancer. It is not unusual for the human species
to generate the cancer cells, but they are rid though normal immune
processes. It is probably some defect in the immune process which allows
cancer cells to propagate.
Should your barbeque sauce have an MSDS and be labeled for cancer
causing? As much so as second hand smoke and cigarettes. Would it be wise
to
do so?, No, life without risks increases suicide, and other irrational
behavior. There is a limit to how far we can go with regulations and
control
of life. Of course, the radicals need something to feed upon and this would
be another point for them to pursue.
Of course, much of the smoke flavoring these days is synthesized and it
would be interesting to know if the synthesis included known carcinogens.
My opinion is that high atmospheric nitrogen levels such as NOx has more
of a role in the process of carcinogenic formation and this brings us back
to
gasification if you can believe the path, producer gas has about 1/2 the NOx
formation as does natural gas from an internal combustion engine as the
hydrogen and CO prevent the formation of NOx compounds. This is a more
important factor than lessened greenhouse gases such as CO2 as it has much
more impact upon the thought and functional processes of humans. NOx
compounds include nitric oxide which has been shown to be an anesthetic, so
if someone is acting less than fully alert, it may be because they have been
inhaling nitric oxide. Everyone knows the anesthetic properties of nitrous
oxide, but apparently nitric oxide does the same at a much lower
concentration. It is given off when nitric acid is broken down, so it is
extremely corrosive and toxic.
Nitrogen compounds make cells grow faster and as such, if they grow too
fast, they may reproduce before they are mature and lose their timing
mechanisms. The body has no way to know the difference and may not be able
to
eliminate them. I have seen this in crops. Most animals which we eat are
fed very high protein diets and suffer an incidence of cancers which are
removed in the slaughterhouse.
Hope everyone has a good weekend.

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

From mpeek4884 at home.com Sun Sep 19 10:42:20 1999
From: mpeek4884 at home.com (Mike Peek)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Efficiencies list
Message-ID: <002b01bf0283$cf5097c0$8fed0418@nash1.tn.home.com>

Cordner Peacocke:
I would love to have a copy of the efficiency report...
mpeek4884@home.com

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

From costich at pacifier.com Sun Sep 19 11:23:08 1999
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
Message-ID: <002a01bf02b4$263f1360$f18941d8@compaq>

Peter: This addendum to my previous efficiency report that you
charachterized @ .0034 percent.
There is a joy you get when you vacuum the rug with "wood gas" that is
unique! But I mean to add that I also withdraw about 3 gallons of long
sharp charcoal (1" X 2" cubes) between each firing. And this must be added
to the plus side of the equation as this becomes excellent auxillary
fuel/filtration medium. And Iff (if and only if) the weather is cold the
process warms the room it sets in. Do you net it out at .005 percent? Hell
lets just call it 1 (one percent) ! (I also suspect some mathmatical
notation errors in this text but in keeping with the spirit of things, my
math is not only rusty but moreover it is froze up!)
Dale
Brush Prairie
Original Message-----
From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Saturday, September 18, 1999 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Help!

>Hi Dale;
>
>Ok -- conservatively estimating BTU value of the wood at 8000 BTU per
pound.
>
>25 pound (total 200000 BTU's) gives you 200 WH.
>
>200000 BTU is equal to 58.6 KWH -- you are producing .2KWH
>
>Your over all efficiency is: .0034 percent! -- or 1/3 of one percent of the
>heat energy you are putting in is actually turning up as generated
>electrical power.
>
>Now knowing this figure we can say --
>
>One ton of wood waste is 16 million BTU -- times .0034 = 54,400 BTU net.
>
>Thus -- in your system -- burning one tons of waste would give:
>
>15 KWH
>
>The point here is quite simple. At present -- everyone is not putting any
>value on the "waste" -- so nobody cares what efficiencies are. In fact, it
>would appear most operators of gasifiers or waste burning boilers -- are
>only concerned with the "tipping" fees!
>
>Before we can seriously consider using biomass as a prime energy source --
>we need to think of biomass as a resource -- not a waste.
>
>This means that all systems presently operating as waste utilizers are of
>no value in bioenergy production.
>
>Basically -- we are talking incineration with a little bit of energy
>production.
>
>But granted -- it may well be "fun".
>
>Many point out that it is very hard to achieve high efficiencies at small
>scales of operation. However, if one goes the pyrolysis/water gas route
>using a small device as I have previously described -- separating the CO
>from H2 using a palladium filter, hydrogen flows right through it, and
>other gases won't, feeding a fuel cell with the H2, mixing the CO with the
>gases of pyrolization -- and using that for powering an IC gen set --
>efficiencies shoot up to equal to the huge power plants.
>
>Normal progression is,if you can get it working small -- you can make it
>work better if building bigger. Eventually we would get efficiencies into
>line to make biomass energy workable.
>
>Many ways to skin that cat -- but where to start?
>
>What we really need is a simple listing of over all efficiencies of all
>processes presently in use regarding biomass conversion to energy.
>
>The best way to do this is exactly what you have just shown us. Take it
>from actual measurements. BTU's of energy in over KWH's out!
>
>Thanks Dale!
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>At 07:43 AM 9/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>Hello Peter: Regarding your ? as to actual solid mass to electrons
>>conversion, I can tell you my practical ongoing experience. My gasifier
has
>>a 6" throat being a downdraft Imbert with 6 tuyres (air inlets) 60 degrees
>>equispaced that inject atmospheric air 12 " above the charcoal
>>shaker/grate. I typically pyrolize mill ends...2X4 and 2X6s' by 4 to 10
>>inches long at a 50 # per hour rate. These are 15% moisture air/shed
dried.
>>I use a "ring compressor" or multivane turbine at slow speed (permanent
>>magnet 3/4hp) ~ 800 rpm to suck the fire that inflates a 1000 cu.ft bag
in
>>30 minutes +/-. The suction allows refilling during run time with no smoke
>>escape, but necessitates cleaning this air pump. bummer.
>>...finally...since the bag is now full I electrically start a 8hp
horizontal
>>engine rated 2.5 Kw and by blending approx. 1 to 1 woodgas to air can
"draw"
>>700 watts for about 20 minutes...therefore
>>25# of dry wood generates 1/3 KWH (minus the suction pump which is ,10
KWH )
>>= 25# wood =200 watt hours of electricity.
>>And I love every minute of it!
>>Dale
>>
>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

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

From DMcilveenw at aol.com Sun Sep 19 11:23:42 1999
From: DMcilveenw at aol.com (DMcilveenw@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
Message-ID: <c004170.25165ac2@aol.com>

In a message dated 19/09/99 07:56:07 GMT, you write:

<< >At 08:48 PM 9/17/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>>Peter -- from Belize here;
>>>
>>>I need to know what the over all efficiency is for generating electricity
>>>from Biomass. OK -- to make it easier -- say wood chips!
>>>
>>>That is from X amount of fuel to Y amount of electrical power -- the
ratio.
>>>
>>>For conventional boilers and steam turbine plants. (15%??)
>>>
>>>For Gasification and gas turbines
>>>
>>>For Gasification and supplementing diesel gen set.
>>>
>>> >>
Hi folks,

I reviewed many of these technologies in a paper for the Banff conference in
1996, which many of you will have attended, and published as:
McIlveen-Wright D.R., Williams B.C. and McMullan J.T., "Electricity
generation from wood-fired power plants; the principal technologies
reviewed", Developments in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, Vol. 2, (eds.,
Bridgwater A.V. and Boocock D.G.B.), Chapman and Hall, (London, 1997), pp.
1525-1538.

I assumed that the wood had a moisture content of 100% on a dry basis i.e 50%
on a wet basis, and was willow chips from a SRC plantation. This is qui8te a
high moisture content, but I was thinking of UK conditions at the time!
Moisture content has a significant effect on conversion efficiency.

Wood Combustion

Input Output LHV Efficiency Steam Conditions
(daf Tonnes/day) (MWe) (%) (bar) (degreeC)
10 0.43 17.5 23 350
100 5.3 23.1 60 480
500 28.1 25.4 80 520
1,000 56.2 25.4 80 520
2,000 112.3 25.5 80 520
5,000 338.6 31.1 160 538
+reheat
10,000 677 31.1 160 538 +
reheat

Efficiency depends on wood moisture content, but even more on the steam cycle
conditions.
Steam Conditions. For example, for the 10 daf tonnes/day system: if the
steam conditions are changed from 23/350 to 60/480, then the efficiency rises
from 17.5 to 23.4%.
Moisture Content. For the 500 daf tonnes/day system: if the wood moisture
content is changed from 100% to 80%, then the efficiency rises from 25.5 to
26.7%. See below for further changes:
Moisture content (%) LHV Efficiency (%)
100 25.5
80 26.7
65 27.6
45 28.8
25 30.1
15 30.7
So, if you can get your wood dry, without energy penalty, you can improve the
efficiency quite a bit.

Gasification Systems
Again, I have assumed the wood has a moisture content of 100% (dry basis), so
the efficiencies may seem low. Wood is dried to 15% on a dry basis (13% wet
basis) for all gasifcation systems considered here, using either heat
recovered from the exhaust gases, or from the steam cycle, as appropriate.

Integrated Gasification-Gas engine systems
Two systems were studied with Naturally Aspirated (NA) engines and 4 with
Turbocharged-aftercooled (TA). Outputs were from 150 kW to 2.7 MW. The NA
system had an electrical LHV efficiency around 23% and the TA systems 25%.

Integrated Gasification with Simple Cycle Gas Turbine (No HRSG)
The system has wood drying, atmospheric pressure gasification, hot (filter)
gas cleaning and a simple cycle gas turbine.
Five currently-used aeroderivative gas turbines were considered.

System with LHV Efficiency (%)
Hurricane 13.9
Typhoon (M) 16.0
LM1600 22.7
LM2500 21.1
LM5000 21.9

The LM5000 was also considered in the Steam Injection Gas turbine (STIG) and
the Intercooled Steam Injection Gas turbine configurations. For the
LM5000-STIG the efficiency was found to be 36.4% and for the LM5000-ISTIG it
was 37.2%

IGCC systems
Three industrial gas turbines and 2 aeroderivatives were considered.
Modifications to the combustor would need to be made for LCV gas. Also,
either some air would have to be bled off from the compressor (of the gas
turbine) to pressurise the gasifier, or the expander stage (of the gas
turbine) would need to be (modified to) be able to handle a greater gas flow.
Each turbine was considered in 3 different configurations: a) PGF,
pressurised gasifier with filter gas cleaning; b) PGS, pressurised gasifier
with scrubber gas cleaning; c) AGS, atmospheric pressure gasifier and
scrubber gas cleaning.

LHV efficiency for IGCC systems in different configurations
Turbine PGF PGS AGS
LM1600 41.1% 39.7% 34.6%
LM5000 40.5 39.1 33.7
MS6001 40.4 36.5 31.3
MS7001 40.8 38.4 32.3
MS9001FA 42.6 39.8 35.1

Caveat: All these systems have been analysed by computer simulation. Yes,
modelled!! I know this is anathema to some of those on the list (even though
they are quite happy to use chemical equations when done with pencil and
paper<grin>). We have to model them, since there are so few systems using
biomass around.

Complete mass and energy balances have been made for all systems (took nearly
3 years for full technical, economic and environmental studies). Any turbines
or engines involved are first modelled using natural gas, so that they can be
checked against "real" data.

All values given here should be considered as approximate, but they can give
an idea of the relative efficiencies of different technologies.

BTW, I have also looked at wood-fired fuel cells and co-combustion and
co-gasification systems....

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

From snkm at btl.net Sun Sep 19 11:40:31 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990919094727.00745f34@wgs1.btl.net>

At 08:53 AM 9/19/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Hello Peter,
>
>Yes, I agree. I will try and summarise the findings and send them to the
>Group in a day ot two.
>
>Cordner
>
>At 07:15 PM 9/18/99 -0600, you wrote:
>>Hi Cordner;
>>
>>Yes -- that would be highly appreciated! My Postal Address is:

******snipped**********

Thanks again Cordner!

Regarding your other comm -- no Libraries here (of that caliber). But have
Emailed to a friend who may well get it. However, you offer to mail me a
copy would still save a lot of time!

-- Peter

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

From snkm at btl.net Sun Sep 19 13:05:18 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990919105231.00773830@wgs1.btl.net>

>Hi folks,
>
>I reviewed many of these technologies in a paper for the Banff conference in
>1996, which many of you will have attended, and published as:
>McIlveen-Wright D.R., Williams B.C. and McMullan J.T., "Electricity
>generation from wood-fired power plants; the principal technologies
>reviewed", Developments in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, Vol. 2, (eds.,
>Bridgwater A.V. and Boocock D.G.B.), Chapman and Hall, (London, 1997), pp.
>1525-1538.

Thank you ever so much for this information David!

I will be communicating with you off-list regarding some questions.

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

From Murat.Dogru at newcastle.ac.uk Sun Sep 19 21:55:06 1999
From: Murat.Dogru at newcastle.ac.uk (M.DOGRU)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tips
In-Reply-To: <25dc7480.248859d5@cs.com>
Message-ID: <199909200158.CAA18765@cheviot.ncl.ac.uk>

Dear all:

Facts about the producer gas from commercially available downdraft
throated WTE gasifier (up to 1 MW skid mounted (portable)):

· Gas from approximately 3.3kg of biomass (18 MJ/kg CV) has the
energy of one litre of diesel.

· Gas from approximately 2.5kg of biomass (18 MJ/kg CV) has the
energy of one litre of petrol.

· 1kg of biomass (at 20% moisture) produces 2.3 cubic metres of gas.

· Gas density is approximately 1.059kg/Nm3.

· The effective heat value of the gas is more than 90% that of
biomass.

· Producer gas has an energy content of approximately 5,500 kJ/Nm3
(145 Btu/ft2).

· Depending on moisture content, biomass consumption of the gasifier
is approximately 1.2-1.5 kg/kWh electrical output and 2kWh heat
output (with CHP applications- Gas engine efficiency 25 %).

Hope this bit helps..

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

From ashoktoshniwal at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 00:36:18 1999
From: ashoktoshniwal at yahoo.com (ASHOK TOSHNIWAL)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: request!!
Message-ID: <19990920044109.21642.rocketmail@web105.yahoomail.com>

Dear Mr.Reddy,
Please refer to my previous e-mail wherein I had requested your
mailing address. Please let me have the same to enable me to send the
literature pertaining to gasifiers capable of generating upto 7 MW
(from tyres ) in a single unit, from M/s Environmental Engineering
Corporation. USA.

Your reply shall be appreciated.

With good wishes & kind regards

Ashok Toshniwal
--- "M.S.Reddy" <msreddy@cc.iitb.ernet.in> wrote:
> Dear Sir(s)
>
> I am interested in names of the
> organisations/companies offering biomass
> (bagasse) based gasification technolgy at commercial
> level. The purpose is
> to find out the scope of this particular technology
> for decentralised
> power plants for sugar mills in India. There is
> large number of queries
> from sugar mills and the contact number of these can
> be provided to the
> relevent parties intersted in business in India.
>
> Thanking you
> Rajan
>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Sep 20 12:06:22 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: NOX
Message-ID: <b3fd9235.2517b644@aol.com>

Dear Tom Reed and others,
The way I found out that Nitric Oxide has a mild anaesthetic effect,
somewhat after it begins destroying lung, eye, mucous, and other tissue was
from a study of the amounts of it found at the mouths and inside of highly
travelled vehicular tunnels with minimal ventilation published in
Environmental Science and Technology where it was also shown that it appeared
to be a vascodilator in which it causes the blood vessels in the lungs to
expand, making it's entry even easier. Nasty stuff, will take paint off of
anything, attach certain stainless steels, and will mix with water to form
nitric acid.
You may not even know you have been injured and you will start coughing
up blood. Ozone, monatomic oxygen(which doesn't exist in the atmosphere),
hydroflouric acid will all do the same damage to the lungs, painless damage,
and that is particularly why they are so nasty.
Not only will these materials have severe impacts upon humans, but they
will also wreak havoc upon plants and other growing things-perhaps frogs?
This particular element is of more concern to me in the atmospheric gases
than any other including ozone depleting elements such as CFC's, which in my
opinon have minimal impact upon the atmosphere, if any really detectable
impact.
So, the faster we get gasifier powered engine/turbine sets out there
generating power with less NOx's the better. We are pushing as hard as we
can to do that.
Dr. Tom Reed, thank you for the compliment and support.

Sincerely,

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

From parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in Tue Sep 21 04:05:42 1999
From: parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
In-Reply-To: <83b2d3fa.25146399@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.990921135115.11787B-100000@agni.me.iitb.ernet.in>

That is a wonderful idea. We have already started doing it keywordwise.
The work has started very recently.
PPP

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

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

On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 LINVENT@aol.com wrote:

> Dear Gas ification group members,
> How about putting up a reference section with all kinds of conversions,
> standards, definitions and the like? That would answer many of the questions
> and if someone forgot, they could look at easily?
>
> 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 pchakra at teri.res.in Tue Sep 21 05:58:03 1999
From: pchakra at teri.res.in (P Chakravarty)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help!
Message-ID: <s7e7a226.024@dakghar.teri.res.in>

This is no doubt a great idea. However, I suggest that the list members take a look at the following reference which is a bible for details on conversion factors, SI units etc.

"The International System of Units [Physical constants and Conversion factors], 2nd Revision, E. A. Mechtly, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Report No. NASA SP-7012, 1973. 22 pages.

The Report is available from:

Scientific and Technical Information Office, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC-20546, USA.

It is a widely used resource report in Aerospace Engineering which is another branch which had this problem of British to SI conversions.

P. Chakravarty

**************************************
1974-1975 to 1999-2000
25 years of innovation and change
TERI's silver jubilee
**************************************

P. Chakravarty, Ph.D
Fellow and Resource Advisor
Energy and Environment Technology Division
Tata Energy Research Institute [TERI]
Darbari Seth Block,
India Habitat Centre,
Lodi Road, New Delhi - 110003, INDIA

Phone: [Office] ++91-11-462-2246, 460-1550
[ Res. ] ++91-11-271-6387
Fax: ++91-11-462-1770, 463-2609
E-Mail: [Office] pchakra@teri.res.in
[Res. ] chaks@del3.vsnl.net.in
Web Site: http://www.teriin.org

>>> Prof P P Parikh <parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in> 09/21/99 01:52PM >>>
That is a wonderful idea. We have already started doing it keywordwise.
The work has started very recently.
PPP

On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 LINVENT@aol.com wrote:

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

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Chakravarty, P
ORG:;Biomass Energy Tech.=0A=
Application
EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:pchakra.TERIDL.TERI
N:Chakravarty;P
TITLE:Fellow
X-GWUSERID:pchakra
END:VCARD

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Sep 21 07:57:05 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ENERGY SOURCE
Message-ID: <e4d1f605.2518cd54@cs.com>

Dear Harry Parker et al:

Normally, and sometimes reluctantly, I agres with Harry Parker's words of
wisdom. However, when Harry writes:

Simple economics and thermodynamics are known to all professionals. If
additional recovery of energy from high pressure gas wells were at all
attractive it would have already have been accomplished.

As an inventor, I can assure Harry that I have heard that argument - and made
it to myself - many times, often just before making an important invention.
New ideas come along every day.

Times they are a'changin and what was economically and technically true
yesterday is often false tomorrow.

Trust your energy professional just as you do your physician and
attorney. The energy professional is registered professional engineer.

Now we know Harry has slipped off the track. I listen to and learn from both
my lawyer and doctor, and then make up my own mind. I am continually amazed
at what doctor's can't see that I can see and I attribute my physical and
financial health to discriminating between true and "professional " advice.
(The current bull market has been defying the predictions of most experts for
10 years.)

As to recovering the pressure energy of the gas in wells, hmmm... I wonder.

So, Harry, I hope this last missive (missile) was intended as a joke.

Your pal all, TOM REED BEF/CPC

In a message dated 9/20/99 4:43:57 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
MIHWP@TTACS.TTU.EDU writes:

<<
Simple economics and thermodynamics are known to all professionals. If
additional recovery of energy from high pressure gas wells were at all
attractive it would have already have been accomplished.

Trust your energy professional just as you do your physician and
attorney. The energy professional is registered professional engineer.

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

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

Professor of Chemical Engineering Consulting Chemical Engineer
Texas Tech University 8606 Vicksburg Avenue
Lubbock, TX 79409-3121 Lubbock, TX 79424
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From snkm at btl.net Tue Sep 21 10:35:41 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Drying Cane
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990921084233.00f4b104@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Folks;

Presently drying sugar cane to get the real moisture values.

Date Weight Temp Time

Started 3:00 PM Sept 20 ---- 1,970 grams 0
6:00 PM Sept 20 ---- 80.5 C 3 hrs
7:00 AM Sept 21 ---- 860 grams 87.8 C 16 hrs

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

Regarding over all efficiencies:

"Energy to Keep Everything Running"

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Energy.html

That Url is a fine demonstration!

Just a few excerpts:

TO the unknowing eye, the energy chart produced by Livermore's Energy
Directorate is just a tangle of lines, patterns, and colors (Figure
1). But to Energy staffers, it provides useful information about
energy flow for a given year in the United States, from source to
use.

Beyond its numbers, the chart portrays the complexities and
interrelationships of the energy systems needed to support the
quality of life and economic stability of the U.S. and, by inference,
of any developed economy. It also points to substantial
inefficiencies in converting energy into usable forms and
transmitting, distributing, and using it.

Reducing these inefficiencies is one of the challenges that
the Department of Energy faces in ensuring that U.S. energy needs can
continue to be met.

******huge snip!********

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

I would think there would be more study on recuperating lost heat, in the
fuel to net electrical energy, processes.

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

From snkm at btl.net Wed Sep 22 17:44:58 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Burning Cane
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990922144622.00754ca4@wgs1.btl.net>

Cane Drying:

Date Weight Temp Time

Started 3:00 PM Sept 20 ---- 1,970 grams 0
6:00 PM Sept 20 ---- 80.5 C 3 hrs
7:00 AM Sept 21 ---- 860 grams 87.8 C 16 hrs
12:00 Noon 21 ---- 710 grams 90.0 C 21 hrs
12:00 Midnight21 ---- 500 grams 97.2 C 33 hrs
9:00 AM Sept 22 ---- 480 grams 92.2 C 42 hrs

So -- at no, or extremely low, moisture - 480 grams from a start of 1,970
grams!

Ratio of 24.4% solids to 75.6% moisture.

Cane is not a viable fuel!

Mind you -- this is not the right time to harvest cane!

I did receive one reference from Jack that stated 30/70. So that is
definitely in the ball park.

I shall be looking for a better biomass to raise -- here in the tropics --
to fuel a biomass, cogen, operation.

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

From thomas_milne at nrel.gov Thu Sep 23 19:37:47 1999
From: thomas_milne at nrel.gov (Milne, Thomas)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSDS on pyrolysis oils.
Message-ID: <199909232337.TAA21448@solstice.crest.org>

Dr. Peacocke:

I do not know of an MSDS on such oils but there is a report by Jim Diebold
that addresses toxicity.

* NREL/TP-430-22739. "A Review of the Toxicity of Biomass Pyrolysis
Liquids Formed at Low Temperatures."

James P. Diebold, Thermalchemie, Inc., 57 Yank Way, Lakewood, CO 80228.
Also available from NREL.(Let me know if you want a copy.)

Tom.

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

From snkm at btl.net Thu Sep 23 21:13:27 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Great Belize Data Base!!!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990923192023.0075a35c@wgs1.btl.net>

Frank and Zain;

Check this Url:

http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./belize/welcome.html

How are you for "browsing"??

If you want --

I have been "GetWebbing" or "mining" this new site.

Let me say it in a few words --

Simply fantastic!

Do you really want to know what is going on here right now??

If you do -- I can flood you with an incredible amount of information --
day by day -- as I strip mine this site to the bone.

As example -- here is the "Data" on Citrus -- in GETWEB format.

I am arranging this all into their own directories on my hard drive -- as
they come in. I have just finished the agricultural sector -- here is the
one on Citrus-

Believe me -- with this site we are no longer in the dark or depending on
"rumors".

Excellent work!

Peter

Subject: <URL:http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/citrus.html>

Citrus

[IMAGE]The Citrus Industry in Belize is primarily comprised of orange
and grapefruit production and processing. Currently, orange is
responsible for approximately 80% of citrus earnings, grapefruit
accounts for almost 20% while lime and pineapple accounts for less
than 1% of earnings. Citrus is grown commercially in Stann Creek,
Cayo, Belize, Toledo and Orange Walk districts of Belize. The bulk of
the acreage exists in the Stann Creek District. The 1996/97 crop year
produced record high yields which faced the lowest prices since 1982.
The push for expansion that has characterized the industry over the
past decade does not appear to be slowing even in light of current
prices.

Belize's citrus production systems are characterized as either
large-scale or small-scale systems. Large-scale systems are
responsible for most of the country's citrus output and foreign
exchange earnings, while the small-scale farms are important for
their role in rural incomes and employment. For small-scale farmers,
citrus groves also represent a measure of economic opportunity and
security as they can be used as collateral when borrowing money.

Major production constraints include poor road infrastructure,
shortage of land, continuous threat of the Brown Citrus Aphid, high
costs of fuel, and lack of training especially of small growers.
Another problem suffered by small farmers who plant trees into flat
ground rather than cambered beds is poor drainage capacity.
Unfortunately, as the industry expands, more fragile land has come
under cultivation. Increased good record keeping of a complete tree
count and grove maps is needed to assist the management of the
industry.

The Citrus Industry benefits from two trade arrangements, the
Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) and the Lome Convention, which allow
citrus exported from Belize into the United States and Europe
respectively, to enter duty free. Despite indications that these
preferential markets might end in the next five to ten years, the
industry operates as if the benefits of these arrangements will
continue.

Presently, citrus is a top priority for the Ministry of Agriculture
and the government plans to lobby to guarantee that markets remain
viable. The government is also interested in ensuring that citrus
acreage expansion is accomplished in an environmentally sustainable
manner.
Organizations that assist in the development of the Belizean Citrus
Industry are the Citrus Control Board and the Citrus Grower's
Association (CGA). The Citrus Control Board was formed in 1967 by the
Government of Belize to regulate the organization and activities of
the citrus industry. The Citrus Grower's Association (CGA) is the
integral link for negotiations between the grower and the processor.
Its primary functions include the negotiation of prices with
processors on behalf of growers.

CITRUS PRODUCTION (1996 - 1998)

Year 1996 1997 1998
Production
('000 90 lb. Boxes) 3,166 4,555 3,898
Value
('000 BZ$) 16,586 14,272 14,313

Source: Central Statistical Office

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

From snkm at btl.net Thu Sep 23 22:09:47 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Juices
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990923200812.00eff6bc@wgs1.btl.net>

Near the end -- we see this:

Another obstacle faced by the rapid growth of citrus processing,
is the disposal of solid waste especially waste skins.

But I have that solved!!

Peter

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

Frozen Juice Concentrates

[IMAGE]Citrus concentrate production is one of the most important
food processing industries of Belize. Two companies, Belize Food
Products Limited (BFP) and Citrus Company of Belize (CCB), process
the bulk of citrus produced in the country. The CCB is currently
owned publicly by Belizean shareholders with 30% held by shareholders
in Trinidad and Tobago. The BFB is a public company owned by domestic
citrus producers and a commercial holding company. Currently and
historically, the production of orange and grapefruit concentrate has
been BFB's mainstay, with orange and grapefruit oils produced as
by-products.

CITRUS CONCENTRATE PRODUCTION (1996 - 1998)

Year 1996 1997 1998
Production
(gallons) 2,677,364 3,127,223 2,548,040
Value
('000 BZ$) 47,532 42,330 36,113

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Cooperatives/Central
Statistical Office

Currently the majority of orange concentrate is exported to the U.S.
and the majority of orange and grapefruit Not From Concentrate (NFC)
and grapefruit concentrate go to Europe. Trade arrangements and
policies for citrus concentrates are the same as for all citrus
products. In 1997, 3.617 million gallons of citrus concentrate at 65o
Brix was produced which earned Bz.$48.1 million in foreign exchange.

Tropical Fruit Juices and Squashes

A few companies such as Citrus Valley Manufacturing, Big H and Belize
Fruit Processors Limited are producing tropical fruit juices and
squashes from orange, grapefruit, pineapple and coconut for the
domestic and foreign markets.

Major processing constraints within the industry are high cost of
energy, high processing costs, product delivery and timing conflicts,
and limited road and shipping infrastructure. Another obstacle faced
by the rapid growth of citrus processing, is the disposal of solid
waste especially waste skins. There is also a need for an adequate
information system characterizing the industry in order to facilitate
adequate improvements.

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

[IMAGE MAP] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

*** References from this document ***
[orig] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/frozen_juic\
e.html
[1] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./welcome.shtml
[2] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./welcome.shtml
[3] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/agro_process.html
[4] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/meat_process.html
[5] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/marine_process.html
[6] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/dehydrated_fru\
its.html
[7] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/hot_pepper_sau\
ces.html
[8] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/coffee.html
[9] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/manufacture_in\
dex.html
[10] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/welcome.html
[11] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/frozen_juice.\
html#top
[12] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./belize/welcome.html
[13] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./tips/welcome.html
[14] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./press/welcome.shtml
[15] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/welcome.html
[16] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./directory/welcome.shtml
[17] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./contact/welcome.html
[18] http://www.netkombelize.com/
[19] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./contact/welcome.html
[20] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./directory/welcome.shtml
[21] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/welcome.html
[22] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./press/welcome.shtml
[23] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./tips/welcome.html
[24] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./belize/welcome.html

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

From snkm at btl.net Thu Sep 23 22:09:49 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Dehydrated Fruits
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990923201432.00eff6bc@wgs1.btl.net>

Oh how long have I "harped" on this!

Peter

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

Dehydrated Fruits

There is a good demand for dehydrated products in North America and
Europe.

Mayan King and Monkey River Estate in southern Belize are involved in
dehydrated fruit production of banana, papaya, mango and pineapple.

Because of the high quality standards imposed upon fruit exports into
the United States and EU, large quantities of Belizean fruit are
rejected each year. Most rejected fresh fruit are not qualified for
export because of improper coloring, size or maturation but are still
adequate for consumption. This rejected portion of fruit exports can
represent a large loss of profitable gains to the producer if it is
not properly managed. By entering the dehydrated fruit industry,
producers are given the opportunity of increasing their profits while
avoiding inevitable losses caused by rejected fruit exports each
year.

Presently, the dehydrated fruit industry in Belize is still in its
premature stage. The industry has not yet been fully developed but
has potential for economic success within the United States and EU
market. Investment in this sector is encouraged.

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

[IMAGE MAP] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

*** References from this document ***
[orig] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/dehydrated_\
fruits.html
[1] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./welcome.shtml
[2] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./welcome.shtml
[3] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/agro_process.html
[4] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/frozen_juice.html
[5] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/meat_process.html
[6] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/marine_process.html
[7] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/hot_pepper_sau\
ces.html
[8] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/coffee.html
[9] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/manufacture_in\
dex.html
[10] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/welcome.html
[11] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/dehydrated_fr\
uits.html#top
[12] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./belize/welcome.html
[13] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./tips/welcome.html
[14] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./press/welcome.shtml
[15] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/welcome.html
[16] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./directory/welcome.shtml
[17] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./contact/welcome.html
[18] http://www.netkombelize.com/
[19] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./contact/welcome.html
[20] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./directory/welcome.shtml
[21] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/welcome.html
[22] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./press/welcome.shtml
[23] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./tips/welcome.html
[24] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./belize/welcome.html

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

From snkm at btl.net Thu Sep 23 22:26:17 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: International Financial Services
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990923203239.00eff69c@wgs1.btl.net>

This one is for you Don!

Read the last paragraph! Course, not that I am even vaguely suggesting you
would ever deprive Canada of that part of your earnings that rightfully
belong to THEM;)

I am only sending you guys the "odd" one. I am going through huge amounts
of info -- in my special "GETWEB" way.

I take down 10 to 20 of these in one shot. Boy I feel sorry for those
people that are restricted to "browsing".

And Don -- if you are browsing your way through this -- how does it compare
to Terry's site???

Peter

International Financial Services

[IMAGE]Offshore corporations can be utilized to obtain benefits in
the areas of tax minimization, asset protection and preservation of
confidentiality. In general offshore corporations are used to
minimize taxes by transferring profits and other taxable events from
a high tax jurisdiction. A frequently used example of this is what is
known as "upstreaming of profits" or "transfer pricing". This
involves using an offshore company as an intermediary in a business
transaction between parties from two high tax jurisdictions.

In certain circumstances substantial tax saving can also be achieved
by interposing an offshore company as an intermediary in an
inter-group loan or other financial arrangement. An offshore finance
company with legally separate, beneficial ownership can be used, for
example, to obtain tax relief on interest that would otherwise not be
obtainable if the same arrangement were made directly between members
of a company group. This is particularly applicable for jurisdictions
such as in the U.S. where relief on interest can be disallowed when
considering the debt-to-equity ratios it determines that an
inter-group loan is an improper substitute for equity funding.

In addition, acquiring property, whether real or personal, in the
name of an offshore rather than a domestic entity can provide
significant long-term savings in Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax and
Inheritance Tax. Interest income earned by an offshore company on
investments for mortgage loans is not taxable in the U.S. provided
these loans meet the portfolio mortgage loan requirements.

A person not domiciled in the U.K. who wishes to buy investment
property in that country may minimize income taxes on rents earned
from the property if, rather than purchasing the property personally,
the person purchases through an offshore company and uses an
appropriate ratio of debt to equity financing.

Also, Belize offers an extremely efficient and cost effective ship
and yacht registry with an excellent reputation for integrity and
reliability. An offshore company may be registered as a ship owner in
the International Marine Registry of Belize (INMARBE) as well as in
other popular registries such as Liberia, Cyprus, the Bahamas and
Panama.

Individuals or corporations in high-tax jurisdictions may realize
significant tax advantages by selling their ownership of copyrights,
patents, trade marks, licenses or franchises to an offshore company
usually in a single-payment purchase. The ownership of the offshore
company in this structure may be vested in an irrevocable
discretionary trust. The offshore company can, in turn, exploit the
copyright, patent, trade mark, license or franchise by entering into
agreements with licensees wishing to utilize them. The income,
subject to any withholding tax, is accumulated free of tax in the
offshore company.

Performers, movie stars, actresses, musicians, sportsmen, engineering
and financial consultants can gain considerable tax advantages by
entering into contracts with independent employment companies,
incorporated in appropriate jurisdictions, which sell their services
outside the individual's country of residence. The offshore
employment company will not have to pay taxes on its earnings and
payments to the individuals are structured in a way which minimizes
their tax liability.

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

[IMAGE MAP] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

*** References from this document ***
[orig] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/intl_financ\
e.html
[1] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./welcome.shtml
[2] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./welcome.shtml
[3] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/tourism.html
[4] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/high_tech_asse\
mbly.html
[5] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/gaming.html
[6] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/data_process.html
[7] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/welcome.html
[8] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/intl_finance.h\
tml#top
[9] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./belize/welcome.html
[10] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./tips/welcome.html
[11] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./press/welcome.shtml
[12] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/welcome.html
[13] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./directory/welcome.shtml
[14] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./contact/welcome.html
[15] http://www.netkombelize.com/
[16] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./contact/welcome.html
[17] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./directory/welcome.shtml
[18] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./opportunities/welcome.html
[19] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./press/welcome.shtml
[20] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./tips/welcome.html
[21] http://www.belizeinvest.org.bz./belize/welcome.html

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

From snkm at btl.net Thu Sep 23 22:29:38 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Juices
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990923203510.00eff0b8@wgs1.btl.net>

Please all -- profoundly sorry -- this went to this mail list by accident!

How embarrasing!!

Peter

At 08:17 PM 9/23/99 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Near the end -- we see this:
>
>Another obstacle faced by the rapid growth of citrus processing,
>is the disposal of solid waste especially waste skins.
>
>But I have that solved!!
>
>Peter
**********************snipped*****
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From snkm at btl.net Fri Sep 24 09:08:03 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MRS PARIKH
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990924071411.00f0f81c@wgs1.btl.net>

Ok Folks -- We are in the circuit now -- so to speak.

Time to start considering how to proceed from this point on.

What are we going to do now?

I'll try to put together a basic "report" today on the feasibility.

Peter

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

MY REPLY TO YOUR POINTS IS INTERPOSED.

On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Peter Singfield wrote:

> Dear Mrs Parikh;
>
> You have confirmed my worst fears! But I am so glad you did!
>
> India must have a great experience with biomass for fueling these systems.
> Here in Belize, Central America, we have the same climate.
>
> I am wondering if you can advise us regarding any potential source of
> biomass fuel suitable to cultivation. We would then encourage our to many
> sugar cane farmers to grow that alternative. And where I could find further
> reference to their use -- in the real applications.

EUCALYPTUS WAS MENTIONED AS ONE SPECIES AND PROSOPIS IS A SHRUB WHICH IS
CONSIDERED HAVING GREAT POTENTIAL. PROSOPIS GROWS WITHOUT MUCH ATTENTION
IN WORST LAND AND MINIMUM WATER. OF LATE PEOPLE HAVE DEVELOPED
RESERVATIONS ABOUT EUCALYPTUS SAYING ITS ROOTS GO DEEP IN THE LAND AND
EVENTUIALLY THERE IS DEGRADATION OF LAND AND SUBSOIL WATER ALSO GETS DRIED
UP. THESE FEARS HAVE SOURCE FROM CERTAIN EXPERIENCES. ONE SPECIES
LEUCAENA LEUCOCEPHALA CALLED 'SUBABOOL' HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE VERY GOOD FOR
HIGH DENSITY ENERGY PLANTATION. LOTS OF STUDIES HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT ON
THIS SPECIES WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE GOOD FEED MATERIAL FOR GASIFIERS.
IT IS THE MOST USED MATERIAL TODAY HAVING GOOD HOPPER FLOW PROPERTIES AND
REQUIRING MINIMAL PREPROCESSING AT THE SAME TIME NOT WARRENTING TOO MUCH
FARMING ATTENTION AND EXPERTISE.
I WOULD LIKE TO REFER YOU TO TWO BOOKS:
1. A NEW STRATEGY FOR HIGH DENSITY AGROFORESTRY
2. INTEGRATED APPROACH TOWARDS PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS FOR PLANNEED
GROWTH.
BOTH BOOKS ARE AUTHORED BY LATE DR V. J. PATEL AND CAN BE OBTAINED FROM

JIVRAJBHAI PATEL AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
SURENDRABAG-KADREJ
PIN 364061, GUJARAT, INDIA

> For instance -- eucalyptus.
> > As I just posted to the list -- sugar cane plant is not economically
> feasible as a cultivated biomass for cogeneration projects.
>
> One last question -- I hear that India has well developed gasifier
> technology. Have you any ideas how we could source such equipment, in
> India, for export to Belize?
>
ABOUT THIS QUESTION I HAVE ALREADY TALED TO DR B C JAIN WHO IS THE BIGGEST
MANUFACTURER OF GASIFIERS AND BY NOW YOU MAY HAVE RECEIVED A MAIL FROM HIM
IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE I CAN DO, PLEASURE WILL BE ENTIRELY MINE.
IT WILL BE MY GREAT PLEASURE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT YOU, YOUR ORGANISATION AND
YOUR GASIFICATION WORK/INTEREST. PLEASE WRITE.

REGARDS

MRS PARIKH

> I need to do a cost appraisal between gasifier and boiler/steam.
>
> We have a substantial community of people from India living here in Belize.
> Our first wave of immigrants coming in the mid 1800's, brought by the
> British for the purposes of sugar cane production. The descendants from
> these people make a substantial part of the sugar cane farmers here today.
> We also have current people from India as well. They make a substantial
> part of our business community. They travel regularly between countries.
> The little refrigeration unit I use in my house, as just one example, was
> manufactured in India. So lines of commerce are already in place.
>
> Thank you with taking the time to instruct. I truly feel privileged to have
> some one of your caliber of knowledge and experience to turn to for advice.
>
> Peter Singfield
> Belize

SO YOU ALREADY KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT INDIA AND INDIANS. I AM PRIVILEDGED TO
KNOW THIS PART. I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUED INTERACTION AND MAY BE AN
EVENTUAL MEETING WITH YOU SOMETIME IN FUTURE.
REGARDS
MRS PARIKH

> At 10:15 AM 9/22/99 +0530, you wrote:
> >Dear Mr. Singfield
> >The figures of 15-17% are from a biomass gasifier producer gas cum
> >diesel dual fuel engine. The figures belong to full load operation.
> >The values are about the same if spark engine with high compression ratio
> >is used. Such spark ignition engines are built from diesel engines
> >modifying the combustion and ignition systems. Please let me know if I
> >have answered your question fully. You are welcome to ask more!!
> >I have experience of operationg variety of gasifiers with variety
> >ofbiomass materials but with reciprocating engines.
> >Rgds
> >Mrs Parikh
> >
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~
> >Prof. (Mrs.) P.P.Parikh Phone Office : 5783496, 5767548
> >Dept. of Mechanical Engg. 5782545 Ext. 7548 / 8385
> >I.I.T. Bombay Home : 5704646
> >Mumbai 400 076 INDIA Fax Office : 5783496, 5783480
> >
> > email : parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Peter Singfield wrote:
> >
> >> Mrs Parikh,
> >>
> >> Thank you for this answer. I am doing a last minute feasibility study
> >> regarding sugar cane biomass to electricity for one of our sugar
factories
> >> here that can only be scrapped due to lack of price for sugar.
> >>
> >> All this talk of 30 to 40% efficiencies is very confusing. Your figures
> >> agree totally with what I have learned to expect.
> >>
> >> Have you any experience with working out such a model? That is green cane
> >> biomass to net output of electrical power? I am presently drying fuel
> >> samples (cane) to get accurate moisture content figures.
> >>
> >> If we were in India -- I am sure there would be no problem regarding
> >> finding uses for the molasses. But here -- our only option --
economically
> >> -- is to burn it all!
> >>
> >> Peter Singfield/Belize Central America
> >>
> >> At 01:50 PM 9/21/99 +0530, you wrote:
> >> >about 15 to 17% overall.
> >> >Mrs Parikh
> >> >
> >>
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> ~~~~
> >> >Prof. (Mrs.) P.P.Parikh Phone Office : 5783496, 5767548
> >> >Dept. of Mechanical Engg. 5782545 Ext. 7548 /
8385
> >> >I.I.T. Bombay Home : 5704646
> >> >Mumbai 400 076 INDIA Fax Office : 5783496, 5783480
> >> >
> >> > email : parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in
> >>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

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

From MIHWP at TTACS.TTU.EDU Fri Sep 24 12:51:30 1999
From: MIHWP at TTACS.TTU.EDU (Harry W. Parker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: ENERGY SOURCE
In-Reply-To: <e4d1f605.2518cd54@cs.com>
Message-ID: <37EB6F33.BDC4B01A@ttacs.ttu.edu>

Hello Tom Reed and all,

Good to hear from you Tom.

No, my note on trusting the appropriate professionals, in this case
petroleum, chemical and mechanical engineers was not a joke. They are
paid good salaries to make the best possible financial return for their
employer from a given lease. If recovery of energy via flow of high
pressure gas through expansion turbines were attractive, they would
already be implementing it. The amount of energy available is readily
calculated, and expansion turbines are available from vendors. No
inventions are needed.

<><>

The "shut-in" pressure on a high-pressure gas well might be 10,000 psi
or even 15,000 psi. That pressure represents zero flow of gas, so
zero energy is available from it. The flowing well-head pressure is
what counts, and it will be much much less in the long-term context of a
particular gas reservoir. The well-head pressure while flowing is a
function of the well design, as determined by professionals, and the
permeability of the gas reservoir as determined by nature. The best use
of pressure energy inherent in a gas reservoir is the economic
production of the gas contained in the reservoir, and then its
subsequent movement to processing facilities.

<><>

One of the failed ideas of the 70's energy research program was to
recover energy from geopressured brines along the gulf coast of Texas.
It was determined that just the dissolved methane in the brine contained
more energy than did the pressure head of the brine.

Harry

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

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

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

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Sep 25 08:43:57 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: [ARILIST] wood fuel smoke particles
Message-ID: <799d0646.251e1e4e@cs.com>

Dear David:

You are asking a question that currently does not have an answer. When you
speak of "density" of a gas, you usually want it at 20 C or similar reference
temperature. However, wood smoke condenses at this temperature, so you then
have two phases (liquid + gas) and the question has no single answer.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF/CPC

In a message dated 9/22/99 6:05:11 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
Maina@schonlan.src.wits.ac.za writes:

<< From: "David" <Maina@schonlan.src.wits.ac.za>

Any one who knows the density of wood fuel smoke and its dynamic
shape factor?

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Sep 25 09:54:50 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "Professional Opinion" on Energy from Gas Pressure
Message-ID: <7855cda4.251e2ef6@cs.com>

Dear Harry et al:

Your answer is satisfactory - for the present. Do you remember when gas
costs exceeded $5/MBtu in the period 1980-82 and the "professionals" were
bidding long term contracts to buy at that price?

Do you remember when the "professionals" all warned of oil shortages and
bought Oil Shale properties in Colorado, only to sell them off a few years
later?

Do you remember when the "professionals" told us nuclear energy would be "too
cheap to monitor"?

Do you remember when the "professionals" (the Bulls in fact) believed (in
1985) that the DOW might hit 3000 by the year 2000? (Glad I was more more
bullish than that!

The only real "professional" is Mother Nature. She tells us some of her
secrets, but the future is not fully revealed. Pay close attention to her
hints.

So, I repeat, listen to the professionals - and do the opposite of what they
say if your mind gives you good reasons.

In a message dated 9/24/99 11:03:30 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
MIHWP@TTACS.TTU.EDU writes:

<<

Hello Tom Reed and all,

Good to hear from you Tom.

No, my note on trusting the appropriate professionals, in this case
petroleum, chemical and mechanical engineers was not a joke. They are
paid good salaries to make the best possible financial return for their
employer from a given lease. If recovery of energy via flow of high
pressure gas through expansion turbines were attractive, they would
already be implementing it. The amount of energy available is readily
calculated, and expansion turbines are available from vendors. No
inventions are needed.

<><>

The "shut-in" pressure on a high-pressure gas well might be 10,000 psi
or even 15,000 psi. That pressure represents zero flow of gas, so
zero energy is available from it. The flowing well-head pressure is
what counts, and it will be much much less in the long-term context of a
particular gas reservoir. The well-head pressure while flowing is a
function of the well design, as determined by professionals, and the
permeability of the gas reservoir as determined by nature. The best use
of pressure energy inherent in a gas reservoir is the economic
production of the gas contained in the reservoir, and then its
subsequent movement to processing facilities.

<><>

One of the failed ideas of the 70's energy research program was to
recover energy from geopressured brines along the gulf coast of Texas.
It was determined that just the dissolved methane in the brine contained
more energy than did the pressure head of the brine.

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Sep 25 09:54:53 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: ACHTUNG; NOTE BENE: Re: GAS-L: MRS PARIKH
Message-ID: <98a2b1fc.251e2ef7@cs.com>

Dear GASIFICATION (and Peter and Mrs. P):

This is a housekeeping note from your moderator...

The subject heading
<< GAS-L: MRS PARIKH >>

is not very informative.

About half the letters I have received from GASIFICATION lately have started
with GAS:L. I don't know what it means, and unless someone tells me, I hope
we will have more ORIGINAL informative titles (for new subjects) and RE:
titles for continuing discussion.

~~~~~~~~~~

Let me introduce my old (young) friend Mrs. P. P. Parikh to the GASIFICATION
list. Prof. Parikh has been head of the gasification testing laboratories at
the Indian Institute of Technology in Bombay for the last two decades. (I
think she is close to retirement, but I hope not.)

She has turned out many fine students combined with many fine theses of which
I have moderated one and am looking forward to another. I wish I knew 1/10th
of all the information in those theses. She is my engine expert when all else
fails.

She also maintained for many years a superb bibliography on gasification,
everything printed in the 1980s, many in the 1990s. I hope she will find a
way to post it on the web and keep it going. I have planned MAYBE to put it
on my new BEF webpage. (Coming in October I hope.)

She also has children living in the U.S. and visits here annually, in case
any of you need her wisdom first hand.

Thanks for being here Mrs. P.

Your old (young) pal, TOM REED BEF
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From LINVENT at aol.com Sat Sep 25 14:11:14 1999
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "Professional Opinion" on Energy from Gas Pressure
Message-ID: <15913ba8.251e6b0a@aol.com>

To Harry and others interested in economic cycles:
We have seen several economic cycles of petroleum prices. Presumably
this one is dependent upon the OPEC group reducing production and sticking
together. However, there are many other factors which are also probably in
play. The other "cycle" is the basic prices of commodities, steel, aluminum,
copper, all of the agricultural commodities. They are all at long term lows.
In my mind, they will begin coming up to follow the rise in oil prices, and
the stock market will drop. Any forecasting of this nature is of course
dangerous, as if the stock market drops too much or "adjusts", the rest of
the economic system will suffer.
I doubt if there are enough high pressure, high flow rate wells which
would make it worthwhile tapping the inherent energy. I understand that
production rates from wells has a significant impact upon their lifetime and
this is another factor in determining how much energy might be released.
Tom Taylor
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From salvador.uranga at mad.servicom.es Sun Sep 26 20:07:45 1999
From: salvador.uranga at mad.servicom.es (S.F. Uranga)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Vermont Gasification Project
Message-ID: <19990926093205.AAA23352@a2815841>

Dear List Mambers,

I would be very thanked if anyone could inform me about the situation of
the Burlington Vermont gasification Project

Thank you in advance

S.F. Uranga
Gamesa Energía

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

From JIRVING104 at aol.com Mon Sep 27 08:53:21 1999
From: JIRVING104 at aol.com (JIRVING104@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Vermont Gasification Project
Message-ID: <79a6dc14.2520c38c@aol.com>

The Vermont Gasification Porject is in the testing phase. On 9/26/99 the
project successfully operated for 3 hours under full steam gasification. The
intent at this point is to demonstrate long term operation. John Irving
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From prwoodward at hotmail.com Mon Sep 27 16:38:13 1999
From: prwoodward at hotmail.com (Paul Woodward)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Vermont Gasification Project
Message-ID: <19990927204135.88873.qmail@hotmail.com>

John Irving (JIRVING104@aol.com) wrote:
>Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:56:44 EDT
>The Vermont Gasification Porject is in the testing phase. On 9/26/99 the
>project successfully operated for 3 hours under full steam gasification.
>The
>intent at this point is to demonstrate long term operation.

John:
Does the Vermont Project have a web site? Any pictures and/or specs that you
could share?

Thanx!
Paul Woodward
prwoodward@hotmail.com

From echo at peconic.net Mon Sep 27 20:02:23 1999
From: echo at peconic.net (Mohna-Michel-Sedona)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: GETWEB
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990923192023.0075a35c@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <026001bf0945$655ab4e0$af6661cc@ukb4c>

Dear Peter,

You mentioned GETWEB. Is that a program which helps you to search
the web. I have tried some like Bull's eye, but lots of problem...and
conflicts.

Thanks !

Michael Brosse
echo@peconic.net

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

From snkm at btl.net Tue Sep 28 00:32:01 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: GETWEB
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990927221936.00e20944@wgs1.btl.net>

At 10:34 AM 9/27/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Peter,
>
>You mentioned GETWEB. Is that a program which helps you to search
>the web. I have tried some like Bull's eye, but lots of problem...and
>conflicts.
>
>Thanks !
>
>Michael Brosse
>echo@peconic.net

Hi Michael;

In the early days of I-net -- Robot Email services (such as GETWEB) were
developed to allow one to browse without going on line. You simply send an
Email message to the "Bot" looking like this:

GET http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

And shortly after -- when you download your mail -- you get an ASCII Text
"dump" -- very nicely formatted -- from that WWW page.

This was a free service put out by a few universities around the planet.
Here in 3rd world -- where Browsing "on-line" is so expensive ( Belize was
$4.00 US per hour -- now is $2.00 US per hour) Bots like GETWEB were a life
saver.

As time went by -- these Bots got very overloaded -- and the main players
-- the Americans -- had such cheap access to browsing -- the services
collapsed.

I encouraged one American to continue offering the service -- but at a
small fee -- Presently $6.00 US per month -- and subscribed to his service
-- which gives me very quick replies (with in a minute) and unlimited use.
(The surviving "free" Getwebs restrict one to only a few uses per day and
may take hours to reply!)

Francis -- the man who has done this -- has just recently changed servers
-- so I do not have an Url at hand for promoting his service -- but if you
are interested -- can inquire at:

fpeters-getweb@emailfetch.com

What has happened -- is this style of service has turned out to be the
fastest way to work the WWW for information by "professionals".

Why?

Along with this service comes a search engine Bot. You chose which search
engine you want (I pretty well stick with Alta-vista) -- send your search
string to the bot -- and get any number of replies you want -- depending on
how you tell it to rely. I normally go for 100 results.

Now you get a plain ASCII text reply, well formatted, with the normal
"listing" you would see using a browser -- but no pictures, banners, or
advertisements. Makes for very quick "scanning" of relative info. Zip --
speed read down that line of the first 100 hits!

The Url is included for each site of course -- and I use a simple but
reliable "freeware" program that saves clip board info. I can quickly scan
down the list of 100 hits -- "copy" to clipboard the Urls I want -- then
paste them all back into a GetWeb message and receive the Text "dumps"
minutes later. (20 urls -- 20 replies -- all in separate messages for easy
filing -- the ones of no value -- into the trash.)

So I can run two or three searches at the same time, process the "hits" --
and be handling a 100 or more results -- all in a continuous stream to my
hard drive -- and all off-line!!

Further -- I use the old Eudora Pro Email program with its great
folder/mailbox system -- so I can conveniently "file" all pertinent
information received in a very easy format to find and review later.

Francis's Bot service also offers FTP by Email -- and News Groups.

You can also command GetWeb to send you back the Url in HTML. You do not
get the graphics -- but you receive a HTM file that can be viewed by your
browser -- off line. This will get you charts -- etc.

All in all -- it works out to a system that is faster than anyone "limited"
to on line browsing could ever dream off -- and makes filing all that info
a breeze.

The killer is this. We are allowed 4 hours per month of "free" time for our
$20 per month WWW accounts here in Belize -- after that it is $2.00 per
hour. It is very rare that I ever exceed my "free" quota. Yet as fellow
scientists that know me well can attest -- no one can "extract" as much
information -- and in such a quick manner -- from the WWW as I do -- and in
such amounts!

Tricks of the trade -- when living in a 3rd world environment. In this case
the silver lining is that it works much better than anyone with the best of
systems could expect to achieve in the modern 1st world.

The other great part -- is the information extracted in this manner is in
well formatted text -- so is easy to send on to any third party. I always
include the Url when doing this -- so that they can do their browsing
thingy as well.

Hmm -- should be research consulting possibilities there?

I grant you -- there may well be a learning curve to achieving proficiency
-- but after five years -- it is as easy as breathing to me.

Every now and then, Francis service will hang up for a day or two (but
rarely) and then I do go the regular full browsing route for "emergency
queries". Boy do I feel sorry for all the poor people out there that do not
have the alternative to using Email Bots. Working your way through searches
and follow-ups using a browser has to be one of the most frustrating
experiences known to man -- that is if you are after "hard-data". And
putting it somewhere for later reference, or getting the "data" out to send
as an Email -- is truly a major chore!

However -- I managed to research biomass cogeneration techniques and
present a complete proposal to the Government of Belize in a matter of
weeks! (Presented just this morning -- thanks for all the help I got from
this list -- and people still waiting for a reply from me -- excuse me -- I
got real busy -- will be catching up on the Email comms back log over the
next few days) During that time I downloaded and filed 15 megabytes -- all
in ASCII text! (That is a super amount of information!)

Bells and Whistles are killing the WWW. Using Email Bots you stay - in
control.

As far as I know (and I am out there so much!) -- I am the only such
"Power" Bot user left -- or maybe the only one ever -- hard to say which.

When you tell people you do it by Email only -- they simply can not fathom
it! They are to buried in modern conveniences that distract far more than
they produce.

Well, everyone dances to their own drum beat -- very few to the drummer I
follow.

And there is a definite dance to research at any time!

To sum it all up -- the WWW is simply a fantastic repository of information
-- but extracting that info is extremely difficult. Using Email Bots --
working off-line (from a fast hard drive instead of an on line connection
to go through the data you have derived) sure makes the job much easier.

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
Url: http://www.caske2000.org/snakeman.htm

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

From arcate at email.msn.com Tue Sep 28 04:06:13 1999
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied Wood
Message-ID: <001201bf0989$9bd8a7e0$0100007f@localhost>

Hello Gasification:

I recently received a 1991 FAO Publication, RUER Technical Series 20 :
"Charcoal Production & Pyrolysis Technology".

There is a paper on Torrefied Wood an alternative to charcoal. Torrefaction
occurs between 200 and 270 degrees C. Tests at 270 C. with a 1 1/2 hour
conversion time, indicated a weight yield of 80%, 28% fixed carbon and
22,680 kJ/kg. Energy conversion yields ranged from 80 - 90%.

I have been proposing "high yield" biomass charcoal for use as a solid fuel
and for co-firing with coal, etc. Torrefied wood may be a more economical
approach. It could also be used as a feedstock for Gasification.

Is anyone aware of any recent torrefied wood production projects ?

aloha,

Jim Arcate
www.techtp.com

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

From JIRVING104 at aol.com Tue Sep 28 08:30:06 1999
From: JIRVING104 at aol.com (JIRVING104@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Vermont Gasification Project
Message-ID: <ba02cfa1.25220f9a@aol.com>

Hi, webb sites that are related include: <A
HREF="http://burlingtonelectric.com/">New Burlington Electric Department
Website</A> <A HREF="http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/gasart2.html">A Big
Leap Forward for Biomass Gasification</A> <A
HREF="http://www.future-energy.com/">FERCO Home Page</A> <A
HREF="http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/gasart.html">Biomass Gasification</A>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

From Tatjana.Stevanovic at sbf.ulaval.ca Thu Sep 30 11:58:32 1999
From: Tatjana.Stevanovic at sbf.ulaval.ca (Tatjana Stevanovic)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: activated charcoal
Message-ID: <199909301558.LAA29301@solstice.crest.org>

I read about your conference 4t Biomass Americas on Internet. I wonder if
you had any information presented at the conference on activated charcoal.
We are considering here in Quebec utilisation of forest residues (from
thinning, smaller diameter) for charcoaling and activated charcoal
production. If you could indicate some recent publications related to this
topic, I would be grateful,

yours sincerely Tatjana Stevanovic
************************************************
Tatjana Stevanovic, Ph.D.
Professeure
Université Laval
Faculté de foresterie et géomatique
Département des sciences du bois et de la forêt
Pavillon Abitibi-Price
Sainte-Foy
Québec, Canada
G1K 7P4

Tél.: (418) 656-2131 ext. 7337
FAX: (418) 656-3177
************************************************
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

September 1999 Gasification Archive