December 2000 Gasification Archive

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Dec 2 08:37:27 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Johnny Appleseed of Biomass Energy
Message-ID: <71.8c83c54.275a5359@cs.com>

Dear all:

Nice web site with convincing arguments for "integrated orchard agriculture".

Sounds like we have a new "Johnny Appleseed" here.

Tom Reed BEF/CPC

Kermit Schlansker wrote:

> Do you think that fruit trees could be an efficient basis for biomass
> growth? They have the advantages of producing fruit and topsoil while
> growing energy. It should be possible to make ethanol from apples if you
> have too many apples. They also provide food for animals and support
> wildlife. I suppose the catch would be that they grow too slowly.

Phil Rutter in southern Minnesota has done quite a lot of research and
thinking
about "woody agriculture." See
http://www.badgersett.com/Intro%20to%20woody%20Ag.html for more info.
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From LINVENT at aol.com Sat Dec 2 10:24:06 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Johnny Appleseed of Biomass Energy
Message-ID: <43.d560b18.275a6c50@aol.com>

Dear Tom Reed et.al.,
Most of the prunings from California trees, vines and other permanent
crops go to the 49Mwe power plants in the San Joaquin and other valleys in
California. Some are still burned, some growers mulch them and put them back
into the soil. Many regulators are restricting the input to landfills of yard
waste and other organics, so there is a series of events which are leading to
reuse of biomass although in different forms than what might be expected. Of
course, it would be very nice to have an on farm power production so that
crop residues could be used for on farm power generation. This is a big cost
in many areas of agriculture, aka water costs. When it costs $300/acre to
irrigate a crop and crop residue may be worth much more than that, it is a
ridiculous situation, one where technology may very well step in and make a
sensible connection. Shipping valuable crop residues or burning them in the
field, such as rice staw and importing the energy back at several multiples
of this will end many ag careers. Farmers cannot afford high energy costs.
Tom Taylor
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From tmiles at teleport.com Sat Dec 2 13:37:00 2000
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier for Integrated 350- 500 kW systems
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20001202102330.00d9e750@mail.teleport.com>

Gasification Group,

An OEM is looking for a proven gasifier that will produce a clean gas for
firing in internal combustion engines in the 350 kW-500 KW range. The OEM
will integrate the gasifier into their package.
Fuel typically wood.
Target price is $100,000.

What commercial gasifiers can meet these criteria?

Regards,

Tom Miles
Thomas R Miles tmiles@trmiles.com
Technical Consultants, Inc. 503-292-0107
1470 SW Woodward Way 503-292-2919(fax)
Portland, OR 97225 USA www.teleport.com/~tmiles

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Sat Dec 2 15:02:31 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier for Integrated 350- 500 kW systems
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001202135154.00925a50@wgs1.btl.net>

Try:

K.R.Suryanarayana
aewgassifier@usa.net
suryakota@usa.net
608-water side view Drive
Blacklick-OHIO-43004
phone:614-322-2348

500 KW unit was quoted to me for $58,000 US last year.

This in India.

Mr. Suryanarayana moves around. I did manage to receive a lot of info by
Email file attachments from him directly from India. Very impressive
equipments -- fully meeting the requirements you state. Well proven systems.

Unfortunately -- no Url I am aware of.

Peter Singfield
Belize, Central America

At 10:30 AM 12/2/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>Gasification Group,
>
>An OEM is looking for a proven gasifier that will produce a clean gas for
>firing in internal combustion engines in the 350 kW-500 KW range. The OEM
>will integrate the gasifier into their package.
>Fuel typically wood.
>Target price is $100,000.
>
>What commercial gasifiers can meet these criteria?
>
>Regards,
>
>Tom Miles
>Thomas R Miles tmiles@trmiles.com
>Technical Consultants, Inc. 503-292-0107
>1470 SW Woodward Way 503-292-2919(fax)
>Portland, OR 97225 USA www.teleport.com/~tmiles
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Si-gru at frisurf.no Sat Dec 2 15:20:52 2000
From: Si-gru at frisurf.no (Sigurd)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: marine diesel gasification
Message-ID: <001801c05c9c$6a73c740$0100a8c0@jg>

I need some technical help for applying wood gas to a Yanmar
pmx6 5hp 4 stroke marine diesel.
And also I would like some advice for which gasifier type to
use. Should the combustion chamber (heat source) be separate from the
gasification chamber (hopper?) or should the gasification and combustion chamber
be the same?

Thanks, new member, Sigurd Grung

From snkm at btl.net Sat Dec 2 15:24:35 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier for Integrated 350- 500 kW systems
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001202141352.00925dd0@wgs1.btl.net>

Again --

After a search -- this is all I found:

http://www.webpan.com/BEF/small.htm

Peter

Try:

K.R.Suryanarayana
aewgassifier@usa.net
suryakota@usa.net
608-water side view Drive
Blacklick-OHIO-43004
phone:614-322-2348

500 KW unit was quoted to me for $58,000 US last year.

This in India.

Unfortunately -- no Url I am aware of.

Peter Singfield
Belize, Central America

From parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in Mon Dec 4 02:54:06 2000
From: parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier for Integrated 350- 500 kW systems
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001202102330.00d9e750@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0012041259570.5087-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ernet.in>

Please contact the following manufacturers in India. They manufacture
500kW units for engine/power applications and have installed some in the
field with good success.

M/s Ankur Scientific Energy

ANKUR
Near Old Jakat Naka
Baroda 39998
India

COnact Person Dr. B. C. Jain
Tel 91 265 794021
Fax 91 265 794042
email ascent@wilnetonline.net

M/s Cosmo Products
Devpuri Near Jain Public School
Dhamtari Road
Raipur 492015
India

Contact Person

Mr. B. Ravi Kumar
Tele/fax 91 0771 412927

I will get his email address and write back.

Mrs Parikh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prof. (Mrs.) P.P.Parikh Phone Office : 5723496, 5767548
Dept. of Mechanical Engg. 5722545 Ext. 7548 / 8385
I.I.T. Bombay Home : 5704646
Mumbai 400 076 INDIA Fax Office : 5723496, 5723480

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

On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Tom Miles wrote:

> Gasification Group,
>
> An OEM is looking for a proven gasifier that will produce a clean gas for
> firing in internal combustion engines in the 350 kW-500 KW range. The OEM
> will integrate the gasifier into their package.
> Fuel typically wood.
> Target price is $100,000.
>
> What commercial gasifiers can meet these criteria?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Miles
> Thomas R Miles tmiles@trmiles.com
> Technical Consultants, Inc. 503-292-0107
> 1470 SW Woodward Way 503-292-2919(fax)
> Portland, OR 97225 USA www.teleport.com/~tmiles
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in Mon Dec 4 03:00:40 2000
From: parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier for Integrated 350- 500 kW systems
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20001202135154.00925a50@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0012041316340.5087-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ernet.in>

Some correction to the message below. It is Mr Satyanarayana and not Mr
Suryanarayana.
There are two more very established manufacturers with pretty good track
records in 300 500kW power range M/s Ankur and M/s Cosmo about whom an
email has already been sent.
Mrs Parikh

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prof. (Mrs.) P.P.Parikh Phone Office : 5723496, 5767548
Dept. of Mechanical Engg. 5722545 Ext. 7548 / 8385
I.I.T. Bombay Home : 5704646
Mumbai 400 076 INDIA Fax Office : 5723496, 5723480

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

On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Peter Singfield wrote:

>
> Try:
>
> K.R.Suryanarayana
> aewgassifier@usa.net
> suryakota@usa.net
> 608-water side view Drive
> Blacklick-OHIO-43004
> phone:614-322-2348
>
> 500 KW unit was quoted to me for $58,000 US last year.
>
> This in India.
>
> Mr. Suryanarayana moves around. I did manage to receive a lot of info by
> Email file attachments from him directly from India. Very impressive
> equipments -- fully meeting the requirements you state. Well proven systems.
>
> Unfortunately -- no Url I am aware of.
>
>
> Peter Singfield
> Belize, Central America
>
>
> At 10:30 AM 12/2/2000 -0800, you wrote:
> >Gasification Group,
> >
> >An OEM is looking for a proven gasifier that will produce a clean gas for
> >firing in internal combustion engines in the 350 kW-500 KW range. The OEM
> >will integrate the gasifier into their package.
> >Fuel typically wood.
> >Target price is $100,000.
> >
> >What commercial gasifiers can meet these criteria?
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Tom Miles
> >Thomas R Miles tmiles@trmiles.com
> >Technical Consultants, Inc. 503-292-0107
> >1470 SW Woodward Way 503-292-2919(fax)
> >Portland, OR 97225 USA www.teleport.com/~tmiles
> >
> >The Gasification List is sponsored by
> >USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> >and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> >
> >Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> >http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> >http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> >
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in Mon Dec 4 03:14:58 2000
From: parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: marine diesel gasification
In-Reply-To: <001801c05c9c$6a73c740$0100a8c0@jg>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0012041328210.5087-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ernet.in>

You can dual-fuel the engine with Producer gas i.e. supply a gas and air
mixture instead of air alone, and inject a very small quantity of diesel
may be about 25% of the full load diesel rate, to provide combustion. This
will not need any other engine modification, other than retrofitting a
gas-air mixture in the air passage and appropriately connecting it to a
gasifier. A downdraft gasifier is better suited for engine applications.
Mrs Parikh

On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Sigurd wrote:

> I need some technical help for applying wood gas to a Yanmar pmx6 5hp 4 stroke marine diesel.
> And also I would like some advice for which gasifier type to use. Should the combustion chamber (heat source) be separate from the gasification chamber (hopper?) or should the gasification and combustion chamber be the same?
>
> Thanks, new member, Sigurd Grung
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From si-gru at frisurf.no Mon Dec 4 04:18:10 2000
From: si-gru at frisurf.no (sigurd grung)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: marine diesel gasification
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0012041328210.5087-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ernet.in>
Message-ID: <000b01c05dd1$f5ebe740$d2c74382@itstep>

Dear Prof. (Mrs.) P.P.Parikh

Thank You a lot for the advice.
Happy days
Sigurd Grung

----- Original Message -----
From: Prof P P Parikh <parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: marine diesel gasification

> You can dual-fuel the engine with Producer gas i.e. supply a gas and air
> mixture instead of air alone, and inject a very small quantity of diesel
> may be about 25% of the full load diesel rate, to provide combustion. This
> will not need any other engine modification, other than retrofitting a
> gas-air mixture in the air passage and appropriately connecting it to a
> gasifier. A downdraft gasifier is better suited for engine applications.
> Mrs Parikh
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
> Prof. (Mrs.) P.P.Parikh Phone Office : 5723496, 5767548
> Dept. of Mechanical Engg. 5722545 Ext. 7548 / 8385
> I.I.T. Bombay Home : 5704646
> Mumbai 400 076 INDIA Fax Office : 5723496, 5723480
>
> email : parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
>
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Sigurd wrote:
>
> > I need some technical help for applying wood gas to a Yanmar pmx6 5hp 4
stroke marine diesel.
> > And also I would like some advice for which gasifier type to use. Should
the combustion chamber (heat source) be separate from the gasification
chamber (hopper?) or should the gasification and combustion chamber be the
same?
> >
> > Thanks, new member, Sigurd Grung
> >
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Dec 4 08:24:17 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Listing on site
Message-ID: <4a.e6000a4.275cf324@cs.com>

Dear Gene:

Wrong wrong wrong! I just checked my hard copy of the book "Survey of
Biomass Gasification - 2000" and Hurst Boiler is right there between HTV
energy and Hydro-Quebec. (Haven't checked website, but they are the same
list. Will do next time I'm online.)

In my opinion there has been MUCH too much emphasis on gasifiction for power
(requires very clean gas) and not enough on gasification for heat (burn those
tars!). We are hung up on high tech solutions at the expense of simple more
practical ones.

A gallon of oil saved is the same whether it was destined to be used for heat
or direct power. And the ease of combustion of gas vs wood justifies a
separate stage (not to mention the tax credits that acrue).

Yours, TOM REED

In a message dated 12/2/00 1:39:19 PM Mountain Standard Time,
zebley1@email.com writes:

<<
Hey Tom,

Saw a reference to your site on discussion list and was suprised my firm
was not listed with the likes of Foster Wheeler and Chiptec in either
the small or large list. Are you still maintaining this page and, if so,
can you add my info? It would be appreciated.

Best regards,
Gene Zebley
International Project Marketing and Management

Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc.
21971 US Hwy 319 North
Coolidge, GA 31738
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Dec 4 10:12:27 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier for Integrated 350- 500 kW systems
Message-ID: <14.c7375ed.275d0c83@cs.com>

Dear Gasification:

I visited the second COSMO 500 kW gasifier installation in India two weeks
ago. Very impressive, simple and an interesting variation on downdraft
gasifiers.

He has also built about 10 gasifiers to produce gas for heat only. Much
simpler.

TOM REED

In a message dated 12/4/00 12:54:42 AM Mountain Standard Time,
parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in writes:

<<
Some correction to the message below. It is Mr Satyanarayana and not Mr
Suryanarayana.
There are two more very established manufacturers with pretty good track
records in 300 500kW power range M/s Ankur and M/s Cosmo about whom an
email has already been sent.
Mrs Parikh
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Murat.Dogru at newcastle.ac.uk Mon Dec 4 10:20:52 2000
From: Murat.Dogru at newcastle.ac.uk (Murat DOGRU)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier for Integrated 350- 500 kW systems
In-Reply-To: <14.c7375ed.275d0c83@cs.com>
Message-ID: <3A2BB4CC.625.F11254@localhost>

Tom,

Are those people in India have a web page so that we can get
some Info about their system and their impressive designs.

Cheers

Murat

University of Newcastle
UK

From: Reedtb2@cs.com
Date sent: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:04:35 EST
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasifier for Integrated 350- 500 kW systems
To: gasification@crest.org
Send reply to: gasification@crest.org

> Dear Gasification:
>
> I visited the second COSMO 500 kW gasifier installation in India two weeks
> ago. Very impressive, simple and an interesting variation on downdraft
> gasifiers.
>
> He has also built about 10 gasifiers to produce gas for heat only. Much
> simpler.
>
> TOM REED
>
> In a message dated 12/4/00 12:54:42 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in writes:
>
> <<
> Some correction to the message below. It is Mr Satyanarayana and not Mr
> Suryanarayana.
> There are two more very established manufacturers with pretty good track
> records in 300 500kW power range M/s Ankur and M/s Cosmo about whom an
> email has already been sent.
> Mrs Parikh
> >>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Mon Dec 4 12:16:58 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier for Integrated 350- 500 kW systems
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001204101433.008cee10@wgs1.btl.net>

Murat,

I did manage to receive enough info and graphics from Mr Satyanarayana to
put together a good site. We have very restrictive Email/WWW access here in
Belize. Uploading is a real problem. Mr Satyanarayana has these same
problems -- probably more so -- in India.

If anyone on this list is seriously interested -- I can try to package all
the stuff I have into one zip file and send it to them for mounting. I have
an old "permission" from Mr Satyanarayana to do such.

The photos are excellent. And lots of details can be seen.

Complete and very conclusive price listings for the numerous products
produced.

Mr Satyanarayana specializes in thermal and IC power gasifiers -- up to 500
kw. Also wood chips or rice husks -- though two different models.

Tom -- never realized that search found your site!

But one can't help but notice the extreme price differences in that data
base -- can they?

Anyone considering gasifiers would be well advised to look for a supplier
in India. The price differences are astronomical!

Peter Singfield/Belize

At 03:14 PM 12/4/2000 -0000, you wrote:
>
>Tom,
>
>Are those people in India have a web page so that we can get
>some Info about their system and their impressive designs.
>
>Cheers
>
>Murat
>
>University of Newcastle
>UK
>
>From: Reedtb2@cs.com
>Date sent: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:04:35 EST
>Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasifier for Integrated 350- 500 kW systems
>To: gasification@crest.org
>Send reply to: gasification@crest.org
>
>> Dear Gasification:
>>
>> I visited the second COSMO 500 kW gasifier installation in India two
weeks
>> ago. Very impressive, simple and an interesting variation on downdraft
>> gasifiers.
>>
>> He has also built about 10 gasifiers to produce gas for heat only. Much
>> simpler.
>>
>> TOM REED
>>
>> In a message dated 12/4/00 12:54:42 AM Mountain Standard Time,
>> parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in writes:
>>
>> <<
>> Some correction to the message below. It is Mr Satyanarayana and not Mr
>> Suryanarayana.
>> There are two more very established manufacturers with pretty good track
>> records in 300 500kW power range M/s Ankur and M/s Cosmo about whom an
>> email has already been sent.
>> Mrs Parikh
>> >>
>> The Gasification List is sponsored by
>> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>>
>> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Mon Dec 4 12:17:08 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Listing on site
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001204102949.0092f1f0@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Tom;

>In my opinion there has been MUCH too much emphasis on gasifiction for power
>(requires very clean gas) and not enough on gasification for heat (burn
those
>tars!). We are hung up on high tech solutions at the expense of simple more
>practical ones.

The exact conclusions I reached -- independently.

We are back to square one -- that is finding the good external combustion
engine.

For those that are curious -- I have an excellent design for a simple
uniflow piston engine lately completed.

It is to be based on butane as working fluid. This lowers operating
temperatures incredibly -- allowing simpler materials for motor
construction. Further -- it greatly simplifies boiler design. A simple (and
very economic) hot water heater (and these run to very high efficiencies)
-- this then circulated through a simple (and very economic) heat exchanger
to boil/superheat the butane (or other preferred refrigerant working fluid)

Turbines -- to expensive.

Sterlings -- very poor efficiencies -- far to costly.

A piston engine expanding to completion in one cylinder stroke (as in the
uniflow) appears to be the only sensible way to go.

It is unfortunate that there is no interest along these lines. We are so
side tracked with supplying clean gas to an IC motor.

Maybe one day I will have the opportunity to build the right engine. But do
not hold your breath.

As you mention -- gasification of biomass (to producer gas) is a simple
operation when applied as a heating source only -- and far more efficient!

However -- the world is concerned with only how fast we can use up all
fossil fuel reserves. It is questionable if the planet can even survive
this folly. When faced with this scenario -- it bodes poorly to be involved
with any innovation not following this party line.

It is all about money from this point on -- not about survival as a species.

Gasification will now become a hobbiest function.

Except in some 3rd world countries -- India being one exceptional example.

Peter Singfield - Belize

At 08:16 AM 12/4/2000 EST, you wrote:
>Dear Gene:
>
>Wrong wrong wrong! I just checked my hard copy of the book "Survey of
>Biomass Gasification - 2000" and Hurst Boiler is right there between HTV
>energy and Hydro-Quebec. (Haven't checked website, but they are the same
>list. Will do next time I'm online.)
>
>In my opinion there has been MUCH too much emphasis on gasifiction for power
>(requires very clean gas) and not enough on gasification for heat (burn
those
>tars!). We are hung up on high tech solutions at the expense of simple more
>practical ones.
>
>A gallon of oil saved is the same whether it was destined to be used for
heat
>or direct power. And the ease of combustion of gas vs wood justifies a
>separate stage (not to mention the tax credits that acrue).
>
>Yours, TOM REED
>
>
>
>In a message dated 12/2/00 1:39:19 PM Mountain Standard Time,
>zebley1@email.com writes:
>
><<
> Hey Tom,
>
> Saw a reference to your site on discussion list and was suprised my firm
> was not listed with the likes of Foster Wheeler and Chiptec in either
> the small or large list. Are you still maintaining this page and, if so,
> can you add my info? It would be appreciated.
>
> Best regards,
> Gene Zebley
> International Project Marketing and Management
>
> Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc.
> 21971 US Hwy 319 North
> Coolidge, GA 31738
> >>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From zebley1 at email.com Mon Dec 4 12:54:50 2000
From: zebley1 at email.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Listing on site
Message-ID: <200012041754.MAA23624@crest.solarhost.com>

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:49:00
Organization: Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc.
To: gasification@crest.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=PMail:=_0000@@FsBVqHddqQN5lb1a6sC2"

--=PMail:=_0000@@FsBVqHddqQN5lb1a6sC2
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey Tom,

Well said.

IT ALWAYS comes back to K.I.S.S. It's hard enough to justify the cost
of variable frequency fans to some clients.

I'm currently helping clients in several states obtain grant money that
is available. More than you'd think, but it looks like we are finally
making some headway in this area. Hey, it's free money and why should
the defense contractors get it all?.

Someone recently posted in reference to finding these projects. The project=
s
are already there (enough to sustain many manufacturers). The clients
just don't realize it. EDUCATION.

Best regards,
Gene Zebley
International Project Marketing and Management

Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc.
21971 US Hwy 319 North
Coolidge, GA 31738

Phone: (229) 346-3545, ext. 139
(877) 99HURST (4-8778)
Fax: (229) 346-3874
http://www.hurstboiler.com/wood.htm
mailto:boilrmkr@surfsouth.com
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

From: gasification@crest.org
To: Internet Mail::[zebley1@email.com]; Internet Mail::[gasification@crest.=
org]

Subject: GAS-L: Re: Listing on site
Date: 12/4/00 8:16 AM

Dear Gene:

In my opinion there has been MUCH too much emphasis on gasifiction for
power =

(requires very clean gas) and not enough on gasification for heat (burn
those =

tars!). We are hung up on high tech solutions at the expense of simple
more =

practical ones. =

A gallon of oil saved is the same whether it was destined to be used for
heat =

or direct power. And the ease of combustion of gas vs wood justifies
a =

separate stage (not to mention the tax credits that acrue). =

Yours, TOM REED

In a message dated 12/2/00 1:39:19 PM Mountain Standard Time, =

zebley1@email.com writes:

<< =

Hey Tom,
=

Saw a reference to your site on discussion list and was suprised my firm
was not listed with the likes of Foster Wheeler and Chiptec in either
the small or large list. Are you still maintaining this page and, if
so,
can you add my info? It would be appreciated.
=

Best regards,
Gene Zebley
International Project Marketing and Management
=

Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc.
21971 US Hwy 319 North
Coolidge, GA 31738
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

--=PMail:=_0000@@FsBVqHddqQN5lb1a6sC2--

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Mon Dec 4 16:59:26 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:47 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier for Integrated 350- 500 kW systems
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001204154947.00930190@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Folks;

For those curious about gasifiers presently being made and marketed from
India.

I did manage to make contact with Mr Satyanarayana by Email and he gave me
this Url:

http://aew.aewgasifiers.com/

Here is up-to-date contact info as well:

Associated Engineering Works
Gamini compound, Main Road,
Tanuku - 534 211 (A.P.) INDIA.

Phones:(Country code 91)
08819 - 23410 (Work)
08819 - 24572 (Home)

One last comment -- I have far more information on file than the WWW site
has available. I have also forwarded such to two members of this list.
Hopefully they will mount such -- and then you shall see in living color.

Peter Singfield / Belize
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Mon Dec 4 19:20:54 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Why Gasification?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001204180124.009354f0@wgs1.btl.net>

I guess it is up to 3rd world to lead the way in human race survival.

Peter Singfield / Belize

From:

http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/gasification.html

Rapid Industrialization necessitated the supply of various energy
sources to increase many folds. The obvious choice is fossil fuels
and their excessive utilization brought ecological imbalance by
polluting the environment. The ill effects due to excessive use of
fossil fuels is being felt all over the world. It is time that the
energy needs be met from Environmental friendly sources. One of the
main source is energy from Biomass. By gasification of Biomass, a
convenient, cost effective & environmental friendly gaseous energy
can be formed which can meet the energy needs of advanced societies,
be it for engine running or industrial burning. The important fact is
biomass is renewable as it can be grown. Biomass cultivation gives
rural employment as it is an agriproduce.

About 2000 hectares of waste land can provide enough Biomass to
generate 3 MW of power besides supporting energy needs of village of
150 families. A 1000 Kgs of Biomass can be processed to yield enough
gas which is equivalent to 200 Liters of oil or 380 Cubic Meters of
Natural gas or 15 cylinders of LPG. In addition to solid woody
Biomass, gasifiers work well with loose biomass like Rice Husk,
Groundnut Husk etc.

GASIFICATION:
In this process, the Biomass is burnt under controlled conditions in
a reactor Called Gasifier and the products of combustion are
converted into a gaseous fuel called " Producer Gas". The Hot gas
laden with Tarry and dusty particles will be cooled & filtered in
case of Engine application or directly burnt in a specially designed
burner for heating purpose or hot air generation.

SALIENT FEATURES OF BIOMASS GASIFIERS:

* High Conversion efficiency
* Clean environment compared to direct burning of Biomass
* Flame control is convenient and easy
* Flame temperature up to 1000 deg.C can be achieved
* Positive environmental impact
* Saving of more than 65% Diesel Oil in case of Dual Fuel Diesel
application
* Economic Hot Air Generation
* Negligible Carbon Dioxide emission

OPERATIONAL ECONOMICS:

* Capital Investment is low. Around 300 U.S. Dollars per KW in
case of power mode and 100 US Dollars per KW in case of Heating
Mode
* Very small project gestation period (it can be as low as `3'
months)
* Economical running costs compared to fossil fuels
* Attractive pay back periods.In some areas biomass is available
at nominal cost only collection charges are to be incurred.In
such cases the pay back period will be less than 12 months

*** References from this document ***

[orig] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/gasification.html
[1] http://www.netfirms.com/
[2] http://connect.247media.ads.link4ads.com/click/1/netfirms/ne\
tfirmsros/netfirmsros/24903;uniq=1
[3] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/index.html
[4] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/prod.html
[5] mailto:aew_gasifiers@usa.net
[6] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/aboutus.html
[7] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/gasification.html
[8] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/services.html
[9] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/index.html
[10] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/prod.html
[11] mailto:aew_gasifiers@usa.net
[12] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/aboutus.html
[13] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/gasification.html
[14] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/services.html

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in Tue Dec 5 06:26:38 2000
From: parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier for Integrated 350- 500 kW systems
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20001202135154.00925a50@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0012051454030.24103-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ernet.in>

Here are the email address and website details of M/s AKUR Scientific of
Baroda India.

website www.ankurscientific.com

email address ascent@wilnetonline.net

They can be contacted for gasifier systems ranging from 15 cu.m./h to 1500
cu.m./h for engine as well as thermal applications.

Mrs Parikh

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From douglasmcc at cnl.com.au Tue Dec 5 07:05:48 2000
From: douglasmcc at cnl.com.au (Douglas Costello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Why Gasification?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20001204180124.009354f0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <01d001c05eb3$80723860$261f38cb@douglasmcc>

Peter,

You may be correct on the 3rd world leading the way.

Some years ago I was involved in a project for a client and the point I
found interesting was that there are groups in the UK & USA who are
simplifying our technology for 3rd world countries. One development thay
came up with was for the manufacture of cement powder in India. It was a
vertical batch kiln capable of producing 25T of cement powder per day (a
single batch). Compared to current western cement manufacturing technology,
it was more energy efficient, gave better control of the manufacturing
process and resulted in a higher quality cement powder.

But as this discussion group has recently heard, there seems to be a
fixation with the more complex the technology the better.

Douglas Costello

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 December 2000 11:11
Subject: GAS-L: Why Gasification?

>
> I guess it is up to 3rd world to lead the way in human race survival.
>
> Peter Singfield / Belize
>
> From:
>
> http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/gasification.html
>
> Rapid Industrialization necessitated the supply of various energy
> sources to increase many folds. The obvious choice is fossil fuels
> and their excessive utilization brought ecological imbalance by
> polluting the environment. The ill effects due to excessive use of
> fossil fuels is being felt all over the world. It is time that the
> energy needs be met from Environmental friendly sources. One of the
> main source is energy from Biomass. By gasification of Biomass, a
> convenient, cost effective & environmental friendly gaseous energy
> can be formed which can meet the energy needs of advanced societies,
> be it for engine running or industrial burning. The important fact is
> biomass is renewable as it can be grown. Biomass cultivation gives
> rural employment as it is an agriproduce.
>
> About 2000 hectares of waste land can provide enough Biomass to
> generate 3 MW of power besides supporting energy needs of village of
> 150 families. A 1000 Kgs of Biomass can be processed to yield enough
> gas which is equivalent to 200 Liters of oil or 380 Cubic Meters of
> Natural gas or 15 cylinders of LPG. In addition to solid woody
> Biomass, gasifiers work well with loose biomass like Rice Husk,
> Groundnut Husk etc.
>
> GASIFICATION:
> In this process, the Biomass is burnt under controlled conditions in
> a reactor Called Gasifier and the products of combustion are
> converted into a gaseous fuel called " Producer Gas". The Hot gas
> laden with Tarry and dusty particles will be cooled & filtered in
> case of Engine application or directly burnt in a specially designed
> burner for heating purpose or hot air generation.
>
> SALIENT FEATURES OF BIOMASS GASIFIERS:
>
> * High Conversion efficiency
> * Clean environment compared to direct burning of Biomass
> * Flame control is convenient and easy
> * Flame temperature up to 1000 deg.C can be achieved
> * Positive environmental impact
> * Saving of more than 65% Diesel Oil in case of Dual Fuel Diesel
> application
> * Economic Hot Air Generation
> * Negligible Carbon Dioxide emission
>
> OPERATIONAL ECONOMICS:
>
> * Capital Investment is low. Around 300 U.S. Dollars per KW in
> case of power mode and 100 US Dollars per KW in case of Heating
> Mode
> * Very small project gestation period (it can be as low as `3'
> months)
> * Economical running costs compared to fossil fuels
> * Attractive pay back periods.In some areas biomass is available
> at nominal cost only collection charges are to be incurred.In
> such cases the pay back period will be less than 12 months
>
> home [9]| our Products [10]| e-mail us [11]| about us [12]|
> gasification [13]| our services [14]
> All copy rights co reserved AEW
>
> *** References from this document ***
>
> [orig] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/gasification.html
> [1] http://www.netfirms.com/
> [2] http://connect.247media.ads.link4ads.com/click/1/netfirms/ne\
> tfirmsros/netfirmsros/24903;uniq=1
> [3] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/index.html
> [4] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/prod.html
> [5] mailto:aew_gasifiers@usa.net
> [6] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/aboutus.html
> [7] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/gasification.html
> [8] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/services.html
> [9] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/index.html
> [10] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/prod.html
> [11] mailto:aew_gasifiers@usa.net
> [12] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/aboutus.html
> [13] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/gasification.html
> [14] http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/services.html
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Dec 5 07:45:53 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Christmas Books...
Message-ID: <b8.e9ce46b.275e3b9c@cs.com>

Dear All:

I am attaching our book list in case you want to give yourself or a friend a
book on biomass energy and gasification.

If one book is enough, download "CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLIFIED WOOD GAS
GENERATOR" by my ingeneous former partner, Harry LaFontaine at the website..

http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/index.shtml

maintained by Markus Almroth. (His site is www.gengas, mine is www.woodgas -
translation of the Swedish).

Merry Christmas everyone...

Yours for better biomass use through gasification.

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
President, The Biomass Energy Foundation
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401; 303 278 0558; 303 278 0560 fax.
www. woodgas.com

BOOKS FROM THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS
Classic Books on Biomass and Alternate Energy
Book Descriptions - Order Blank Follows

NEW OR REVISED:

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. ISBN
1-890607-13-4 180 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 1-890607-14-2 180 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 1-890607-15-0
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. J & K Tickell have 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 $25

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. New appendix on the physics of
densification. ISBN 1-890607-16-9 35 pp $12

NEW/OLD: MODERN GAS PRODUCERS: N. E. Rambush, the most complete collection
of information on the golden age of coal gasification, when every city had a
"gasworks" . Lots of food for thought on biomass gasification and why it's
different. 550 pp $30

NEW/OLD: FREE ENERGY OF BINARY COMPOUNDS: AN ATLAS OF CHARTS FOR
HIGH-TEMPERATRUE CALCULATIONS, 2nd edition, Thomas B. Reed. I published this
book with MIT Press in 1971 when I was working in high temperature materials
research. The data and charts apply to all of chemistry, so you can
calculate the thermodynamics of almost any reaction., MIT Press, 1971. My
magnum opus! 90 pp $20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CLASSICS

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 and still
active in the field! 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, a companion to GENGAS.
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 stratified downdraft 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). Pegasus = Petroleum/Gasoline Substitute Systems.
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) Ali's
thesis 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
~~~~~~
The Biomass Energy Foundation operates a small press, archiving and printing
books useful in the field of biomass and the environment. We are able to
print, and attractively bind, out -of-print books in this field at reasonable
prices (i.e. far less than NTIS). We also have a large library of books in
the field of biomass collected by Tom Reed during his years at SERI/NREL and
at CSM.

If you have "classic" books you would like to see made available, please send
us suggestions. If there is enough demand we may add your book to our list -
and send you a free copy for your suggestion.

ORDER LIST - Biomass Energy Books
(Nicknames in Bold, see book descriptions, p. 1 and 2)

1. A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: $25

2. BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: $25

3. CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $10

4. BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: $25

5. GENGAS: THE SWEDISH CLASSIC ON WOOD FUELED VEHICLES: $30

6. SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $30

7. PRODUCER-GAS: ANOTHER FUEL FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT: $10

8. FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED
DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER: $30

9. EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES
FOR THE TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - MSW $25

10. DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: $12

11. WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: $4

12. CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLIFIED WOOD GAS GENERATOR: $15

13. BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: $30

14. THE PEGASUS UNIT: THE LOST ART OF DRIVING WITHOUT GASOLINE: $20

15. GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: $30

16. TREES: $1

17. TREE CROPS FOR ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION ON FARMS: $30

18. FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP,
CLEAN FUEL FROM FREE VEGETABLE OIL: $25

19. MODERN GAS PRODUCERS by N. E. Rambush (1923) $30

20. FREE ENERGY OF BINARY COMPOUNDS $20

TOTAL FOR BOOKS ___________
ORDER BLANK
-10% if 3 or more books ordered or to booksellers ______+ $3 handling + (US
and Canada
$1.50 (bookrate, or request air, $3) or (other foreign, $9/large book- air
only) TOTAL___________

E-mail order to reedtb2@CS.com or Mail orders to The Biomass Energy
Foundation Press, 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 (no
foreign checks - can cost $25 to clear), or Electronic payment to Wells Fargo
Bank, Golden, CO 80401, Bank No. 102 0000 76, Account 300 800 2911.

THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION

The Biomass Energy Foundation was founded in 1984 by Dr. Harry LaFontaine as
a 501(c) 3, not for profit organization to do research and educational tasks
in the field of biomass, the environment and related areas. With Harry's
death in April, 1994, the work of the foundation has been taken over by the
new president, Dr. Thomas B. Reed

Tom Reed has a wide interest and experience in the energy and environmental
areas and has specialized in biomass thermal conversion, (gasification,
pyrolysis and combustion) since the first energy crisis in 1973. Tom is
currently working with the Community Power Corporation to develop Small
Modular BIomass Power Systems and clean wood-gas cooking stoves for
deployment in developing countries. Tom won an R&D-100 award (best invention
of the year) for the high pressure oxygen gasifier in 1982, and he thinks
we'll need that technology soon, as the oil runs dry.

Tom is also currently working on the new alternative diesel fuel,
"biodiesel", especially from waste cooking oils and Sea Sweep, an oil
absorbent made from wood waste. Sea Sweep won a "R&D 100" award for one of
the 100 best inventions of 1993. Dr. Reed continues his research in other
fields of biomass and gives lectures in these fields. He is available for
consulting in his fields of interest.

LINKS

To find out more about us, visit our websites at www.woodgas.com and www.
webpan.com/bef. (We hope to update the former ASAP, butâ€¦.)

You can download one of our books from the site...
http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/index.shtml

To find out more about biomass, visit the Center for Renewable Energy and
Sustainable Technology's site at www.crest.org. They maintain discussion
groups on gasification, stoves, biomass energy etc. and archives of all
letters that have ever been sent. I am webmaster at the GASIFICATION site.
They also maintain links to the other important biomass energy sites.

THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS
Classic books on Gasification, Pyrolysis and Combustion of Wood

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Dec 5 08:50:05 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Why Gasification?
Message-ID: <9b.daaf19f.275e4ab4@cs.com>

Dear All:

Why gasification indeed?

The industrial revolution began in 1800 and was mainly fueled by the just
discovered gasification (mostly coal). By 1830 the Paris exposition was
completely gas lit and by 1850 most of London had gas pipes and gas lights.

In 1880 electric power was generated in gas engines. It took another 20
years to reduce the engine technology to gasoline/alcohol fuels and make
cars.

So, making producer gas is the basis of our progress and when liquid fuels
are not so cheap we can return to wood/coal gasification as a major energy
sourve.

I prefer wood and biomass....

TOM REED

In a message dated 12/4/00 5:16:15 PM Mountain Standard Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

<>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Tue Dec 5 11:01:10 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small Cement Factory
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001205094942.008e7970@wgs1.btl.net>

Gee Douglas -- you hit a raw nerve with that posting! 25 ton cement
production per day per kiln would be a miracle device for even a "rich" 3rd
world country like Belize.

I also wonder if producer gas is hot enough to fire such a device??

Douglas -- could you possibly supply me more info on this process?? This is
all simply to incredible!!!

Peter / Belize

>Peter,

>You may be correct on the 3rd world leading the way.

>Some years ago I was involved in a project for a client and
>the point I found interesting was that there are groups in
>the UK & USA who are simplifying our technology for 3rd world
>countries. One development thay came up with was for the
>manufacture of cement powder in India. It was a vertical
>batch kiln capable of producing 25T of cement powder per day
>(a single batch). Compared to current western cement
>manufacturing technology, it was more energy efficient,
>gave better control of the manufacturing process and resulted
>in a higher quality cement powder.

>But as this discussion group has recently heard, there seems
>to be a fixation with the more complex the technology the better.

>Douglas Costello

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
>To: <gasification@crest.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, 5 December 2000 11:11
>Subject: GAS-L: Why Gasification?

>>
>>I guess it is up to 3rd world to lead the way in human race survival.
>>
>>Peter Singfield / Belize
>>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Tue Dec 5 11:08:56 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: India Gasifier manufacturers
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001205095913.008e4940@wgs1.btl.net>

Thank you so much for posting this Mrs Parikh.

We have such a limited knowledge of manufacturing activity in India.

Please continue along this present line and post any more such Urls you can.

I have appended the GETWEB ASCII version of this Url for reference.

Peter Singfield / Belize

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org
[mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of Prof P P Parikh
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 3:28 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasifier for Integrated 350- 500 kW systems

Here are the email address and website details of M/s AKUR Scientific of
Baroda India.

website www.ankurscientific.com

email address ascent@wilnetonline.net

They can be contacted for gasifier systems ranging from 15 cu.m./h to 1500
cu.m./h for engine as well as thermal applications.

Mrs Parikh

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
Prof. (Mrs.) P.P.Parikh Phone Office : 5723496, 5767548
Dept. of Mechanical Engg. 5722545 Ext. 7548 / 8385
I.I.T. Bombay Home : 5704646
Mumbai 400 076 INDIA Fax Office : 5723496, 5723480

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

***********appended*************

Return-Path: <getweb-admin@usa.healthnet.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:30:26 -0500 (EST)
Content-Disposition: inline
To: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
Subject: <URL:http://www.ankurscientific.com/> ANKUR SCIENTIFIC ENERGY
TECHNOLOGIES PVT
Errors-To: getweb-admin@usa.healthnet.org
X-Loop: MailBot
From: getweb@usa.healthnet.org
Reply-To: getweb@usa.healthnet.org

Ankur Scientific

[IMAGE MAP][1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Biomass Gasifiers

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

ANKUR SCIENTIFIC ENERGY
TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.
"ANKUR",
Near Old Sama Jakat Naka,
Baroda - 390 008 (India).
Phone : 91-265-793098/794021
Fax : 91-265-794042
Email : info@ankurscientific.com[8]
Factory :
Baroda-Savli Road
Near Village Gothda-391 773
Phone : 91-2667-22342

Major 'Ankur' Products

. 'ANKUR' BIOMASS GASIFIERS FOR WOOD WASTE, RICE HUSK & OTHER BIOMASS
MATERIALS

. 'ANKUR' SOLAR THERMAL SYSTEMS INCLUDING WATER HEATING, AIR HEATING
& DESALINATION

You Deserve The Very Best !....

Your Visitor No # [IMAGE]
This site is Designed, Hosted and Maintained by
Barodaweb The E-Catalogue Designer[9]
Best View In IE 4.0 or higher with 600X480 Resolution

*** References from this document ***

[orig] http://www.ankurscientific.com/
[1] http://www.ankurscientific.com/feed.htm
[2] http://www.ankurscientific.com/reference.htm
[3] http://www.ankurscientific.com/achievements.htm
[4] http://www.ankurscientific.com/facilities.htm
[5] http://www.ankurscientific.com/applications.htm
[6] http://www.ankurscientific.com/product_range.htm
[7] http://www.ankurscientific.com/intro.htm
[8] mailto:info@ankurscientific.com
[9] http://www.barodaweb.com/

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From PletkaRJ at bv.com Tue Dec 5 12:33:23 2000
From: PletkaRJ at bv.com (Pletka, Ryan J.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
Message-ID: <61BCB4275920D211AA5700A0C9DB18FB0A449242@BVMAIL02>

I have a client in Eastern Europe who is interested in non-combustion
technologies (i.e., gasification and pyrolysis) to dispose of tires
(200,000+ annually). Has anyone been following developments in this field?
Are commercial technologies offered?

Appreciate any responses.

Ryan Pletka

--
Black & Veatch Energy Services Group
11401 Lamar / Overland Park, KS 66211 USA
913-458-8222

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From PletkaRJ at bv.com Tue Dec 5 13:08:18 2000
From: PletkaRJ at bv.com (Pletka, Ryan J.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
Message-ID: <61BCB4275920D211AA5700A0C9DB18FB0A449247@BVMAIL02>

For clarification, the "200,000+" is tons not tires.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pletka, Ryan J. [SMTP:PletkaRJ@bv.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 11:26 AM
> To: 'gasification@crest.org'
> Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
>
>
> I have a client in Eastern Europe who is interested in non-combustion
> technologies (i.e., gasification and pyrolysis) to dispose of tires
> (200,000+ annually). Has anyone been following developments in this
> field?
> Are commercial technologies offered?
>
> Appreciate any responses.
>
> Ryan Pletka
>
> --
> Black & Veatch Energy Services Group
> 11401 Lamar / Overland Park, KS 66211 USA
> 913-458-8222
>
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From si-gru at frisurf.no Wed Dec 6 02:18:21 2000
From: si-gru at frisurf.no (sigurd grung)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
In-Reply-To: <61BCB4275920D211AA5700A0C9DB18FB0A449242@BVMAIL02>
Message-ID: <008701c05f53$709dfbe0$8ac64382@itstep>

I read in a chemistry book that there are some plants in U.S.A. where they
boil them in used motor oil, then burns the gas in turbines, and finally
uses a steam engine to get use for the heat from the turbine. Some of the
gas is sold as syngas. They achieve very high efficiencies with this type of
dual plant, the book said, and they also extracted the steel reinforcement
belts.

maybe theres something interesting here:
http://recycle.net/recycle/Rubber/pyro/index.html

Sigurd

----- Original Message -----
From: Pletka, Ryan J. <PletkaRJ@bv.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 6:25 PM
Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis

>
> I have a client in Eastern Europe who is interested in non-combustion
> technologies (i.e., gasification and pyrolysis) to dispose of tires
> (200,000+ annually). Has anyone been following developments in this
field?
> Are commercial technologies offered?
>
> Appreciate any responses.
>
> Ryan Pletka
>
> --
> Black & Veatch Energy Services Group
> 11401 Lamar / Overland Park, KS 66211 USA
> 913-458-8222
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in Wed Dec 6 02:24:33 2000
From: parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Christmas Books...
In-Reply-To: <b8.e9ce46b.275e3b9c@cs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0012061020150.18356-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ernet.in>

Dear ALL

We at IIT Bombay India have compiled a database on Gasification of
Biomass. This activity started in 1984. The database is know by the name
'SARGOB' [State of the Art Report on Gasification of Biomass]. The word
Gasification refers to Thermochemical Gasification and not Methanation
/Fermentation. In it's present form this database as on date contains 3620
records published in the period ranging from 1906 to 2000. The compilation
is quite exhaustive upto the year 1993 and not so exhaustive there-
after. In addition to the bibliographical information, the database also
contains the abstract of each paper. It is an interactive database in
which the records can be accessed / retreived on the basis of
keyword/sub-keyword OR country OR year of publication OR Author of the
record. Total number of keywords are 27 and sub-keywords are 437 and total
number of Authors/co-authors whose publications are part of this database
are 3767. The database is in the process of continuous up-dation where not
only new record are being added but also new keywords and sub-keywords
are being added. We now plan to put this database on our website of this
center [GARP_IITB] which is currently under construction. As per the plan
it will be an interactive database which will also be able to link to the
web-sites of the authors for complete papers.

Obviously we would like to make SARGOB as complete and up to date as
possible. It is in this context I request all the members of CREST mailing
list to kindly furnish information about their post-1994 publications in
the area of THERMOCHEMICAL GASIFICATION OF BIOMASS, PROCESSES, TECHNOLOGY
UTILISATION, PROGRAM IMPLEMTATION, MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND FIELD
EXPERIENCES.

Furnishing any further details on the EXISTING SARGOB will be our great
pleasure.

MRS PARIKH

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in Wed Dec 6 02:32:21 2000
From: parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Christmas Books...
In-Reply-To: <b8.e9ce46b.275e3b9c@cs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0012061246110.8728-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ernet.in>

This in continuation with my mail in connection with SARGOB.
The information you may please send in the first instance should include
the bibliographical details: Title authors, Where published/Presented etc
and an absract. It could be emailed to the following email address:
parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in
I will also need to request for a full publication to be mailed for
permitting Keywording etc. to the address given below.
Mrs Parikh

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From douglasmcc at cnl.com.au Wed Dec 6 04:07:10 2000
From: douglasmcc at cnl.com.au (Douglas Costello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small Cement Factory
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20001205094942.008e7970@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <020301c05f63$c0cf8380$261f38cb@douglasmcc>

Peter,

Sorry to read about your raw nerve.

Mine just tingled when I came across that interesting piece of information.

I'll have a look back through my files. The groups I mentioned being UK &
USA based are engineers, scientists, consultants who all have an interest in
developing (backward engineering/simplification) of our technology which is
totally inappropriate for the developing countries where there is not the
support infrastructure or the skills to maintain advanced technologies.
But they are capable of operating and repairing systems that utilise what
they have to hand.

It'll take a couple of days to find the box with that specific project in.

Douglas Costello
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 December 2000 2:52
Subject: GAS-L: Small Cement Factory

>
> Gee Douglas -- you hit a raw nerve with that posting! 25 ton cement
> production per day per kiln would be a miracle device for even a "rich"
3rd
> world country like Belize.
>
> I also wonder if producer gas is hot enough to fire such a device??
>
> Douglas -- could you possibly supply me more info on this process?? This
is
> all simply to incredible!!!
>
> Peter / Belize
>
>
> >Peter,
>
> >You may be correct on the 3rd world leading the way.
>
> >Some years ago I was involved in a project for a client and
> >the point I found interesting was that there are groups in
> >the UK & USA who are simplifying our technology for 3rd world
> >countries. One development thay came up with was for the
> >manufacture of cement powder in India. It was a vertical
> >batch kiln capable of producing 25T of cement powder per day
> >(a single batch). Compared to current western cement
> >manufacturing technology, it was more energy efficient,
> >gave better control of the manufacturing process and resulted
> >in a higher quality cement powder.
>
> >But as this discussion group has recently heard, there seems
> >to be a fixation with the more complex the technology the better.
>
> >Douglas Costello
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
> >To: <gasification@crest.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, 5 December 2000 11:11
> >Subject: GAS-L: Why Gasification?
>
>
> >>
> >>I guess it is up to 3rd world to lead the way in human race survival.
> >>
> >>Peter Singfield / Belize
> >>
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From gayathri at cgpl.iisc.ernet.in Wed Dec 6 12:11:50 2000
From: gayathri at cgpl.iisc.ernet.in (Gayathri)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
Message-ID: <200012061711.MAA28211@crest.solarhost.com>

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:37:37 +0530
Message-ID: <ODEKJECGNBBANAIAMPNHOEOBCDAA.gayathri@cgpl.iisc.ernet.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
In-Reply-To: <61BCB4275920D211AA5700A0C9DB18FB0A449242@BVMAIL02>
Disposition-Notification-To: "Gayathri" <gayathri@cgpl.iisc.ernet.in>

Dear Mr. Ryan Pletka

please check our web page at
http://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in

Gayathri

Mrs. Gayathri V
Combustion Gasification Propulsion Lab.
Dept. of Aerospace Engineering
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560 012
Phone (Office) 91-80-3600536, 3092338
(Home) 91-80-6632717
(Mobile)00-91-98450 41913
Fax 91-80-3601692

Email gayathri@cgpl.iisc.ernet.in
gayathri@aero.iisc.ernet.in

Web: http://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Morten.G.Gronli at energy.sintef.no Wed Dec 6 12:12:23 2000
From: Morten.G.Gronli at energy.sintef.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?mg_Morten_Gunnar_Gr=F8nli?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
Message-ID: <200012061712.MAA28370@crest.solarhost.com>

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:14:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"

Pyrovac from Canada has developed a pyrolysis process (vacuum)
which can process tires. You can read more about the process
on PyNe's website (http://www.pyne.co.uk/tech2.htm) or contact
Prof. Christian Roy (croy@pyrovac.com) directly.

Morten Gronli

-----Original Message-----
From: Pletka, Ryan J. [mailto:PletkaRJ@bv.com]
Sent: 05 desember 2000 19:00
To: 'gasification@crest.org'
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis

For clarification, the "200,000+" is tons not tires.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From costaeec at kcnet.com Wed Dec 6 12:12:50 2000
From: costaeec at kcnet.com (Jim Dunham)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
Message-ID: <004e01c05fa2$8aace060$4765f0d1@default>

We have a system which does precisely that. It was developed by an Indian
group, operating in the USA. They have numerous patents which pertain to a
closed loop system which ensures greater carbon purity and oil products
clean enough for direct fueling. Plants are operating in Asia, with a
prototype in California.

Vastly superior to ones we experimented with a decade ago.
Let me know if you wish further info.

Jim Dunham
Environmental Engineering COrp.
Kansas City, MO
816-452-6663
-----Original Message-----
From: Pletka, Ryan J. <PletkaRJ@bv.com>
To: 'gasification@crest.org' <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 11:35 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis

>
>I have a client in Eastern Europe who is interested in non-combustion
>technologies (i.e., gasification and pyrolysis) to dispose of tires
>(200,000+ annually). Has anyone been following developments in this field?
>Are commercial technologies offered?
>
>Appreciate any responses.
>
>Ryan Pletka
>
>--
>Black & Veatch Energy Services Group
>11401 Lamar / Overland Park, KS 66211 USA
>913-458-8222
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Wed Dec 6 12:47:22 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001206113554.008cb560@wgs1.btl.net>

Extremely interesting Jim -- please supply any more info you can!!

Carbon runs 40 to 60% -- by weight -- of a tire. (If my memory serves me
correctly this morning)

I gather this system recovers the "binder" (Butanol???) as a burnable "oil"
and recycles the carbon, fiberglass and steel. The nylon cords (rayon??)
probably part of the "oil"???

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 10:35 AM 12/6/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>We have a system which does precisely that. It was developed by an Indian
>group, operating in the USA. They have numerous patents which pertain to a
>closed loop system which ensures greater carbon purity and oil products
>clean enough for direct fueling. Plants are operating in Asia, with a
>prototype in California.
>
>Vastly superior to ones we experimented with a decade ago.
>Let me know if you wish further info.
>
>Jim Dunham
>Environmental Engineering COrp.
>Kansas City, MO
>816-452-6663
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pletka, Ryan J. <PletkaRJ@bv.com>
>To: 'gasification@crest.org' <gasification@crest.org>
>Date: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 11:35 AM
>Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
>
>
>>
>>I have a client in Eastern Europe who is interested in non-combustion
>>technologies (i.e., gasification and pyrolysis) to dispose of tires
>>(200,000+ annually). Has anyone been following developments in this field?
>>Are commercial technologies offered?
>>
>>Appreciate any responses.
>>
>>Ryan Pletka
>>
>>--
>>Black & Veatch Energy Services Group
>>11401 Lamar / Overland Park, KS 66211 USA
>>913-458-8222
>>
>>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>>
>>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>>
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Wed Dec 6 16:13:58 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Converting to 100% gas operation in a diesel
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001206150350.008f8760@wgs1.btl.net>

A while back folks we were "groping" regarding running a diesel engine on
100% producer gas -- eg -- spark ignition -- etc.

Found this while poking around:

http://144.16.65.129/~cgplhome/cg_pl.html

Well now -- lookee here!!

Notice the comments on compression ratios -- and timing advance.

Hey -- anyone can do this -- right?? No big deal.

Peter Singfield / Belize

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

From: (Note -- the diagram is not included -- go WWW for that)

http://144.16.65.129/~cgplhome/cg_gl4.html

Reciprocating engine combustion

Issues

* To examine the issues involved in converting a diesel engine to
operate on 91high octane92 producer gas in a spark ignition mode.

* In doing so, to examine if the optimum output is related to
compression ratio not withstanding the ability for smooth
operation at high compression ratio of a diesel engine (17:1).

Experiments

A three cylinder diesel engine of 28 kW power level (delivers 22 Kw
at Bangalore) has been converted into a spark ignition engine by
incorporating the following modifications

* Insertion of spark plug in place of fuel injectors

* Adaptation of a CDI battery operated ignition system with a
provision to advance/retard of ignition timing.

* No attempts have been made to change the combustion chamber
design except that the cylinder head gasket has been varied to
accomplish different compression ratios of 16.8:1, 15.6:1
&14.4:1.

* Provision in one cylinder head to obtain the cylinder pressure

[IMAGE]

Results

* Engine run smooth without any audible knock at CR of 16.8 :1. No
Knock visible from Pressure 96crank angle diagrams.

* There is a clear indication of increased power output as the
compression ratio is reduced ~ in crease in power output by 15%
as the CR is reduced from 16.8:1 to 14.4:1.

* The cause for lower output at higher compression ratio could be
related to reduction of flame speed of the mixture due to
increase in cylinder operating pressures.
* A 1-D thermodynamic modeling is being attempted in order to get a
better understanding.

[IMAGE][1]

*** References from this document ***

[orig] http://144.16.65.129/~cgplhome/cg_gl4.html
[1] http://144.16.65.129/~cgplhome/cg_pl.html

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joacim at ymex.net Thu Dec 7 01:55:59 2000
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Why Gasification?
In-Reply-To: <9b.daaf19f.275e4ab4@cs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012070714530.28994-100000@localhost>

On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:

> Dear All:
>
> Why gasification indeed?
>snip<
> I prefer wood and biomass....

And wood as fuel may become even more available (or cheaper) than today,
even in the industrialised world.

We take not only timber from forests, we also take wood for paper mills. We
use a lot of paper in the industrialised world. Paper is, so far cheaper,
and better, for reading on, than computer screens. Computer screens, even
the best ones, are heavy, blurry and rather expensive. A book or a paper is
so much nicer for the eyes.

Some companies, IBM and Xerox for instance, have prototypes ready for
"electronic paper"; materials for paper-like screens. One of them, I forgot
which, plan to use it for price tags that can be updated centrally in a
supermarket or so, i.e. it'll be a cheap material, very cheap. A price tag
isn't allowed to cost much.

Imagine a thin sheet with as good contrast and resolution as piece of paper
from a laser printer, connected to a small computer and memory for
displaying text only. It doesn't take a powerful cpu to feed a static text
to a screen in the same slow pace most of us read. The screen is the
difficult, and today the expensive, part. (Most of the computing power
today in PC's are only useful for playing computer games. It really is
absurd. ;) It could be the size and shape of an ordinary book, but you
don't have to flip pages, and it's not just /one/ book, but a whole
library. People selling books in paper today, could sell books in the form
of plug-in memories instead.

As I said, there are prototypes already, but it will take many years before
printed books are out of fashion, but it's just a matter of time before
they are as out of fashion as vinyl music records. (And some conservative
book readers will cling on to their paper books, just like some of us cling
on to our old vinyl records. =)

When this happens, the forest industry have a little problem to face. If
they can't sell the wood from thinning outs, and other "scrap" wood not
good enough for timber, where shall they sell it? The first thining out in
the lifetime of a forest is a financial loss today, the second just about
breaks even: the money from the paper mills pays for the expensive
high-tech tree harvesters the lumberjacks must have these days to be fast
enough. (Incidently, I have one of these space ship-resembling things
working just outside my kitchen window as I'm writing this, thinning out
firs.) In order to produce timber for building material, the forest also
must produce scrap wood as well. There are other uses, or possible uses,
for fibre and cellulose than making paper from it, and fuel is just one.

...and why aren't they powering their forestry machines with wood, rather
than transporting diesel all the way out in the roadless terrain?
I guess for a harvester it doesn't matter what the fuel costs, the machine
itself is so expensive that fuel is a very small post in the calculation.
But there are other, cheaper, machines for other purposes where one could
save some costs on not buying and transporting diesel to it. If the second
thinning only breaks even, it must mean that the wood is more than
worthless out in the forest (it must be worth the cost to transport it to
the mill too). So at the same time they have free fuel all around the
machine, they buy expensive diesel far away and transport it to the forest
they're working on. It doesn't make sense. A mobile wood chipper should be
perfectly capable of producing its own fuel.

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com Thu Dec 7 02:04:30 2000
From: jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com (Jane Hughes Turnbull)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
In-Reply-To: <004e01c05fa2$8aace060$4765f0d1@default>
Message-ID: <B6548172.1810%jaturnbu@ix.netcom.com>

Jim,

I am not aware of the system operating in California. The whole-tire
combustion facility in Modesto is still operating, but not without
continuing environmental challenges. Where is this system located, etc.???

Jane Turnbull

> We have a system which does precisely that. It was developed by an Indian
> group, operating in the USA. They have numerous patents which pertain to a
> closed loop system which ensures greater carbon purity and oil products
> clean enough for direct fueling. Plants are operating in Asia, with a
> prototype in California.
>
> Vastly superior to ones we experimented with a decade ago.
> Let me know if you wish further info.
>
> Jim Dunham
> Environmental Engineering COrp.
> Kansas City, MO
> 816-452-6663
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pletka, Ryan J. <PletkaRJ@bv.com>
> To: 'gasification@crest.org' <gasification@crest.org>
> Date: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 11:35 AM
> Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
>
>
>>
>> I have a client in Eastern Europe who is interested in non-combustion
>> technologies (i.e., gasification and pyrolysis) to dispose of tires
>> (200,000+ annually). Has anyone been following developments in this field?
>> Are commercial technologies offered?
>>
>> Appreciate any responses.
>>
>> Ryan Pletka
>>
>> --
>> Black & Veatch Energy Services Group
>> 11401 Lamar / Overland Park, KS 66211 USA
>> 913-458-8222
>>
>> The Gasification List is sponsored by
>> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>>
>> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>>
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Dec 7 10:01:02 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Gasification Data Base (SARGOB)
Message-ID: <11.cb87117.2760fe43@cs.com>

Dear All:

Let me introduce the "State of the Art Review of Gasification of Biomass"
(SARGOB) database now being put on line by Prof. Parikh at the Indian
Institute of Technology in Bombay (Mumbai) IITB.

In the last few decades there have been very effective joint programs of U.S.
AID and other agencies with the major research institutes in India. I
remember in 1990 visiting Prof. Parikh's lab and being GREEN with envy at all
the nice equipment she had compared to what I could squeeze out of the US
Dept. of Energy for my gasification work at NREL.

Among other things she undertook a MASSIVE database on all aspects of biomass
relating to gasification. I have three volumes of these references and I also
have the database on my computers. Anytime I want a complete list of the
papers I published at that time, I go there - her records are much better
than mine. Anytime I want an extensive look at other work, I go there and
the keywords guide me. The alternative to good literature searching is
re-inventing the wheel and most of us don't want to waste our time on that.

Unfortunately about 1992 the project lost funding and Prof. Parikh has only
been making whatever entries she could on her own in her spare time, and she
has very little, being occupied with turning out excellent theses and
students. So, the SARGOB is a lot thinner in the last decade and many of you
won't find your name there.

~~~~~

Let me urge each of you to look in your own archives and send whatever
entries you wish preserved for posterity. If you know of other "seminal"
papers, please alert the authors to do likewise. I have half a dozen papers
that I will send her, adding key words as required.

Yours for not re-inventing the wheel.... TOM REED BEF CPC

In a message dated 12/6/00 12:18:29 AM Mountain Standard Time,
parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in writes:

<<
Dear ALL

We at IIT Bombay India have compiled a database on Gasification of
Biomass. This activity started in 1984. The database is know by the name
'SARGOB' [State of the Art Report on Gasification of Biomass]. The word
Gasification refers to Thermochemical Gasification and not Methanation
/Fermentation. In it's present form this database as on date contains 3620
records published in the period ranging from 1906 to 2000. The compilation
is quite exhaustive upto the year 1993 and not so exhaustive there-
after. In addition to the bibliographical information, the database also
contains the abstract of each paper. It is an interactive database in
which the records can be accessed / retreived on the basis of
keyword/sub-keyword OR country OR year of publication OR Author of the
record. Total number of keywords are 27 and sub-keywords are 437 and total
number of Authors/co-authors whose publications are part of this database
are 3767. The database is in the process of continuous up-dation where not
only new record are being added but also new keywords and sub-keywords
are being added. We now plan to put this database on our website of this
center [GARP_IITB] which is currently under construction. As per the plan
it will be an interactive database which will also be able to link to the
web-sites of the authors for complete papers.

Obviously we would like to make SARGOB as complete and up to date as
possible. It is in this context I request all the members of CREST mailing
list to kindly furnish information about their post-1994 publications in
the area of THERMOCHEMICAL GASIFICATION OF BIOMASS, PROCESSES, TECHNOLOGY
UTILISATION, PROGRAM IMPLEMTATION, MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND FIELD
EXPERIENCES.

Furnishing any further details on the EXISTING SARGOB will be our great
pleasure.

MRS PARIKH
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From costaeec at kcnet.com Thu Dec 7 10:16:38 2000
From: costaeec at kcnet.com (Jim Dunham)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
Message-ID: <001d01c0605f$17bb89e0$d465f0d1@default>

Jane & all,

The prototype plant is not open to the public. The owners will show it only
to serious buyers, who have proven 'intent' to enter the tire recycling
business and have proven their 'financial capability' to do so.

They have spent vast sums of time and money developing the technology and
plan to sell it, rather than share it. Can't say I blame them for that.

They will build and sell individual plants or sell the entire business,
including the patents. The word is out and several groups from all over the
world are looking into it.

I can arrange a visit for qualified parties.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Jane Hughes Turnbull <jaturnbu@ix.netcom.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Thursday, December 07, 2000 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis

>Jim,
>
>I am not aware of the system operating in California. The whole-tire
>combustion facility in Modesto is still operating, but not without
>continuing environmental challenges. Where is this system located, etc.???
>
>Jane Turnbull
>
>> We have a system which does precisely that. It was developed by an Indian
>> group, operating in the USA. They have numerous patents which pertain to
a
>> closed loop system which ensures greater carbon purity and oil products
>> clean enough for direct fueling. Plants are operating in Asia, with a
>> prototype in California.
>>
>> Vastly superior to ones we experimented with a decade ago.
>> Let me know if you wish further info.
>>
>> Jim Dunham
>> Environmental Engineering COrp.
>> Kansas City, MO
>> 816-452-6663
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pletka, Ryan J. <PletkaRJ@bv.com>
>> To: 'gasification@crest.org' <gasification@crest.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 11:35 AM
>> Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I have a client in Eastern Europe who is interested in non-combustion
>>> technologies (i.e., gasification and pyrolysis) to dispose of tires
>>> (200,000+ annually). Has anyone been following developments in this
field?
>>> Are commercial technologies offered?
>>>
>>> Appreciate any responses.
>>>
>>> Ryan Pletka
>>>
>>> --
>>> Black & Veatch Energy Services Group
>>> 11401 Lamar / Overland Park, KS 66211 USA
>>> 913-458-8222
>>>
>>> The Gasification List is sponsored by
>>> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>>> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>>>
>>> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>>> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>>> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>>>
>>
>> The Gasification List is sponsored by
>> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>>
>> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From poeschl at telfs.com Thu Dec 7 16:18:57 2000
From: poeschl at telfs.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Alois_P=F6schl?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Wood gasifier
Message-ID: <200012072118.QAA17170@crest.solarhost.com>

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 21:41:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CHEFJEBHJKKNEJGMBIOEAEAGCAAA.poeschl@telfs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400

Dear Crest organisation,

As we could read on your homepage you know about wood gasifiers.
We also try to build one to supply a 3 floor building with energy.
As we live in the alps exactly in Tyrol Austria we have enough wood and we
think
it would be a better way to produce energy for an over 500 year old farm
house. As fuel is very expensive in these days in Austria wood is a better
and cheaper way to do this. So it would only be for private use and not for
sale.

Also my father likes to try new things, he is a little inventor.

Now we are searching for a detailed construction plan for a Wood Gasifier.
We would also pay for it if its not to expensive. We already have a MAN with
145 hourse power turbo with 1500 turns.

I hope you can help us.

We are waiting expectationful for your Answer.

Best regards,

Maria Waldhart

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Fri Dec 8 09:41:01 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Gasification Data Base (SARGOB)
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001208082321.008db600@wgs1.btl.net>

All very interesting!!

How can one "connect" to this data base (SARGOB)??

I see no Urls mentioned.

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 09:52 AM 12/7/2000 EST, you wrote:
>Dear All:
>
>Let me introduce the "State of the Art Review of Gasification of Biomass"
>(SARGOB) database now being put on line by Prof. Parikh at the Indian
>Institute of Technology in Bombay (Mumbai) IITB.
>
******snipped*******
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From WCROREY at aol.com Sat Dec 9 20:31:40 2000
From: WCROREY at aol.com (WCROREY@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Request for proposals - gasifiers
Message-ID: <6b.d048d4d.276434f5@aol.com>

We are a small design and build mechanical contractor in Oregon USA. We have
two customers interested in using a wood fired gasifier to fuel a engine
generator set and supply supplimental fuel to their boilers.

We are looking for a supplier and pricing.

If interested please reply to:
William Crorey, P.E.
Crorey Mechanical
12720 S. Carus
Oregon City, OR. 97045

or Email at WCROREY@AOL.com

Phone: 503 266-9086
Fax: 503 266-9366

Thank You all
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Dec 11 18:39:19 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Gasification Data Base (SARGOB)
Message-ID: <47.49a9ec1.2766bd89@cs.com>

Dear Peter and All:

I believe that the new SARGOB database is being constructed even as we speak.
I'm sure Prof. Parikh will announce it when it is ready....

TOM REED

In a message dated 12/8/00 7:35:08 AM Mountain Standard Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

<< All very interesting!!

How can one "connect" to this data base (SARGOB)??

I see no Urls mentioned.

Peter Singfield / Belize

>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Tue Dec 12 01:36:17 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding butane as working fluid
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001212002500.008fe940@wgs1.btl.net>

Hello Everyone;

A while back we conversed regarding the use of butane as a working fluid in
thermodynamic conversion of heat to mechanical energy.

Someone mentioned a Geothermal power plant of quite respectable output, in
California, that was indeed using butane as the working fluid for turning
turbines.

Can anyone supply me info on this?

Peter Singfield

Belize / Central America

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Dec 12 08:26:19 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Survey of Biomass Gasification 2001
Message-ID: <3e.4ce7854.27677f56@cs.com>

Dear Running on Empty et al:

It has been just about a year since the Biomass Energy Foundation (BEF) and
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) published our book "Survey of
Biomass Gasification - 2000". I'm happy to say that the demand has far
outstripped our expectations - probably over 1000 books, which is a lot for
technical books. We have been surprised that so many requests came in from
the Netherlands and generally overseas, probably over half. (There is still
lots of cheap gasoline in the US compared to the rest of the world and we're
using it as fast as we can.)
~~~~~~
I have speculated that the rapid deployment of over a million wood gasifiers
during WWII to run cars, trucks and buses:

a) Saved millions of lives, since there was NO gasoline in the civilian
economy, and you can't run delivery trucks and fishing boats on air or water
(though some still try).

b) Prolonged the war by three years, since if the civilian economy collapsed
completely, so would the bureaucracy and manufacturing that supported the war
effort

(Choose one. It is interesting to replay history with variations, but
bootless. Now fast forward to 2001.)
~~~~~~~~
We maintain a list of 20 books relevant to gasifier history and technology
(attached), but the actual number of gasifiers being developed today is
miniscule compared to those in Europe in the 1930s.

There have been a number of technological developments that could make small
gasifiers more relevant, and a number of social developments that could make
them irrelevant.

We now have cheap microprocesser controls that can make instant adjustments
to changes in fuel, engine air fuel ratios etc. We have vastly better
manufacturing methods and materials. We have production of pellets and
briquettes from waste biomass that make a much superior fuel for gasifiers.

However, we now have a civilian population that doesn't know or care what
goes on under the hood of the car. We have a clean air philosophy that
demands zero emissions and never mind the energy cost.

The Community Power Corporation is developing a "Turnkey" 12 kW gasifier
system that uses closed loop control to minimize emissions from our gasifier
engine system and doesn't require a mechanic to keep going. But it is a long
way from being ready to retrofit the modern 100 kW car.
~~~~
The following snips describe other gasifier work going on around the world.

Hope the "end of cheap oil" comes with a whimper, not a crash....
~~~~~
The present foreshadows the future, but it's hard to predict which future
events to worry about and how hard to worry. Sigh!
~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Yours truly Tom Reed BEF CPC

In a message dated 12/11/00 1:31:49 PM Mountain Standard Time,
kssustain@provide.net writes:

This is the best posting I have seen on Running on Empty in a long
time. It went seemingly unnoticed except by me. My hat is off to Tom Reed
for building this device and working on this technology. The technology is
not new to me because in about 1946 I hitched a ride with a German salesman
and had to crouch in back beside the wood stove which powered the VW bug.
Germans used wood gas powered vehicles a lot during and after the war.
Power was low so on hills you had to push. The technology is probably well
known to many on bioenergy but I wish to spread this because there are many
others who also should be building, experimenting, and selling similar
equipment.
I would think that an immediate commercial application would be
as a cogenerator used in schools and apartments. The pollution aspects would
of course be complained about but as long as the numbers are small this
should not be a problem.
Tom Reed's wood powered tractor is at least a partial answer to the
dieoffers. There should be a program to run agriculture off of renewable or
coal energy. It also tells us that we need to get those trees into the
ground.

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Walter <fredw@mks.com>
To: RunningOnEmpty@egroups.com <RunningOnEmpty@egroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 11:09 AM
Subject: [RunningOnEmpty] ROE: beyond convince: 'wood gas'

>The article
>
>"Construction of a Simplified Wood Gas Generator for Fueling Internal
> Combustion Engines in a Petroleum emergency"
>
>can be found at
>
>http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/index.shtml
>
>Here is a quote from another mailing-list that I'm on:
>
>-----
>
>Received today the following info from the Biofuel newslist, lifted
>from one of the Homestead lists:
>
>There are innumerable gasifier designs and plans. What will be the
>best one (less than 100 ppm of tars) has not yet been released by Tom
>Reed. The gas is clean enough so you don't have to worry much about
>cleaning filters---except you will still need one in event of
>malfunction.
>When Mother Earth News published articles of real utility instead of
>fluff, some of the staff ran all over the country in a pickup truck
>with a gasifier in back, and one of the best mechanic/authors,
>Clarence Goosen set up a sawmill and genset, using a six cylinder
>Ford? engine. The most interesting of the little gems of information
>was detailed plans on making a dual-fuel carburetor. MEN also used
>to sell plans for the gasifier for about $15.
>
>A good solid, functional design---not as sophisticated as the
>upcoming Tom Reed version is this one which travelled across
>Australia. It uses a trailer, which is the only good alternative to
>mounting the gasifier in a pickup truck. There are sketches to
>follow, no plans, but most gasifiers in the past were of the try it
>and fly it variety, incorporating such features as the designer
>thought were good ideas---not a scientific evaluation of alternatives
>such as the Tom Reed work.
>http://members.tripod.com/~highforest/woodgas/woodfired.html
>
>I built one for a pickup during the Arab Oil Embargo---was really
>sorry to see the Embargo end for two reasons---dependency on
>capricious suppliers is hazardous and I would have made a lot of
>money manufacturing gasifiers had the embargo continued.
>
>Mine was the downdraft type. The fireface was at the top of an
>inclined tube and its position was controlled by two heat sensors
>which speeded up or slowed down the rotation of the chip feed auger
>whose bottom laid in a wood chip bin with an airtight loading door.
>The ashes from the fireface spilled over the edge of the inclined
>tube into an ashpit with an airtight cleanout door. The auger flights
>contained catalyst plugs that improved energy content of the gas a
>little, but probably not worth the added cost and bother. A water
>vapor injector also was included for the same reason and appeared to
>be more effective, following the lines of the old "water gas"
>principle, but again could have been dispensed with with small loss
>of efficiency. A woodgas storage tank and compressor enabled cold-
>starts and operation without a waiting period. But this would have
>been an option for people who would pay for the added convenience of
>turning on the ignition key and driving off---with more complication
>and cost I regard as better avoided---except in business you give
>people what they want, not what is best for them. It also had an
>onboard wood chipper driven by a single-cylinder aircooled engine of
>five to eight horsepower fed from the woodgas storage tank. This
>needed additional experimentation for optimum results as relates to
>chip size. The gases initially went down the auger tube to condense
>as much tar as possible on the surface of incoming woodchip fuel,
>thence through a centrifuge and into a cooler-filter. The latter
>used a collector tank below, and recirculated water through a screen
>filter to spray nozzles above. Recirculating oil would probably
>have been better, since the residue could have been burned rather
>than being a disposal problem, but my experiment ceased at that
>point, since I left Texas for Virginia and left the unit behind---
>along with a lot of other stuff I could not transport.
>
>There are two types of combustion in a woodgas generator, "producer
>gas" and "pyrolitic". All designs inadvertantly or by choice
>optimize for one or the other. Also you really want to burn the
>tars if you can, since they contain a lot of otherwise lost energy,
>and scrubbing them out is a really expensive drag best avoided if
>possible.
>
>Instead of or supplemental to a scrubber, cooling the woodgas does
>two highly desirable things---it increases gas density fed to the
>engine (and energy), and any time you cool down a gas, the soot and
>tars precipitate on bottom and walls of the cooling chamber. Many
>trucks and taxis of WWI and WWII used a filter cleaned daily and a
>large rubberized fabric bag for low pressure storage of the woodgas
>before it went to the engine. By the time the woodgas went through
>the filter and the gases cooled off in (and soot precipitated in)
>the gasbag, the woodgas was quite clean.
>
>This worked. As I said before, the energy contained in the soot and
>rars was lost, but it worked. The soon-to-be-released (I hope) Tom
>Reed design will exert close enough control over combustion to keep
>tars below 100 ppm and make life a lot simpler for people running
>engines on woodgas. Other gasifiers run 1000 ppm or above, so have
>to use centrifuges, scrubbers and filters to protect engine valves
>and rings.
>
>Currently the Costitch design appears to be one of the best. $70 is
>a cheap price to pay for actual plans instead of sketches from which
>you have to create blueprints and still have to do a lot of expensive
>trial and error work---and his consultation is added value.
>
>Here's some instructive Tom Reed commentary:
>
>
>
>"I am wrestling with these same questions and hope to bring out
>eventually a Volume II of "Survey of Biomass Gasificatin - 2000"
>(or 2001 or 2010, whenever I get it all sorted out). Meanwhile, I
>am writing subsections covering exactly what Vern has asked about.
>
>I have said that the superficial velocity (throughput = gas
>produced/area,in m/s, m3/m2-sec or hour or Btu or whatever) is
>critical in determining the output and behavior of any gasifier.
>Equally important is the air-fuel ratio for gasification. The ideal
>air/fuel is 1.5 kg air/kg biomass (dry basis)and this produces the
>lowest tar and charcoal, but the lowest (5 MJ/nm3) energy content in
>the gas. SV and AF vary together in ways that I am putting together
>now.
>
>PRODUCER GASIFICATION:
>At at high SV, temperatures in the flaming pyrolysis zone can exceed
>1000C and this can gasify the charcoal as it is produced. Any
>excess heat in the gas is immediately converted to gas by passing
>through whatever charcoal remains, and so can give a final char yield
>well bewlow 5%. I describe this operating point as the "sweet spot"
>of the gasifier. As one drops below this intensity you get more
>tars and char.
>
>PYROLYTIC GASIFICATION:
>At the other end of the SV and AF spectrum, (low SV, <0.05 and low
>A/F, <0.5) we enter what I would like to call "pyrolytic
>gasification" in which we produce lots of charcoal (10-25%) and tar
>(0.1-1%) and a rich gas (20 MJ/nm3?). The charcoal is valuable and
>the tar can be burned if you are only interested in heat
>applications, but for powering engines etc. the tar is a great
>nuisance.
>
>Since most people don't characterize their gasifiers in these terms,
>it is necessary to do some calculations to know where you are in this
>SV-AF spectrum.
>
>If this is less than crystal clear, my apologies. My understanding
>increases daily as I work with the thermodynamics, kinetics and the
>actual gasifiers we are building and testing."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
>eGroups eLerts
>It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/819633/_/976032568/
>---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
>
>- To unsubscribe, send an email of any kind to
>RunningOnEmpty-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>................................
>BEST WAYS TO GET PUBLISHED HERE:
>- Nice short paragraphs, brief messages. (Many of us are busy)
>- Trim text (especially previous message texts)
>- Don't bore us with preachy signatures
>- Show links and sources and information
>- Be civil (hundreds of people are listening to you)
>- Don't post "teasers" (that specify a book of a link without summarizing
the point/facts it gives)
>- Write your first name and last name at the end
>
>Anyone in the world can post a message by emailing to:
RunningOnEmpty@egroups.com
>
>.....................
>EASY PUBLICITY ACTION
>
>Refer journalists, VIPs, bosses, workmates, friends, family, to
www.RunningOnEmpty.org where the oil crash is explained quickly in simple
terms.
>
>You can also download the handy Convince Sheet (fits on a single sheet, 2
sides) from www.egroups.com/files/RunningOnEmpty to use as ideal "speaker
notes" or to give to any audience for discussion in groups followed by
review.
>
>Bruce Thomson
>Moderator

~~~~~
BOOKS FROM THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS
Classic Books on Biomass and Alternate Energy
Book Descriptions - Order Blank Follows

NEW OR REVISED:

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, a companion to GENGAS.
ISBN 1-890607-08-8 50 pp. $4

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

COPY THIS ORDER BLANK - Biomass Energy Books
(Nicknames in Bold, see book descriptions, p. 1 and 2)

1. A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: $25

2. BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: $25

3. CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $10

4. BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: $25

5. GENGAS: THE SWEDISH CLASSIC ON WOOD FUELED VEHICLES: $30

6. SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $30

7. PRODUCER-GAS: ANOTHER FUEL FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT: $10

8. FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED
DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER: $30

9. EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES
FOR THE TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - MSW $25

10. DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: $12

11. WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: $4

12. CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLIFIED WOOD GAS GENERATOR: $15

13. BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: $30

14. THE PEGASUS UNIT: THE LOST ART OF DRIVING WITHOUT GASOLINE: $20

15. GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: $30

16. TREES: $1

17. TREE CROPS FOR ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION ON FARMS: $30

18. FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP,
CLEAN FUEL FROM FREE VEGETABLE OIL: $25

19. MODERN GAS PRODUCERS by N. E. Rambush (1923) $30

20. FREE ENERGY OF BINARY COMPOUNDS $20

NAME:

SHIPPING ADDRESS:
THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION

LINKS

To find out more about us, visit our websites at www.woodgas.com and www.
webpan.com/bef. (We hope to update the former ASAP, butâ€¦.)

THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS
Classic books on Gasification, Pyrolysis and Combustion of Wood

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Tue Dec 12 11:29:53 2000
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding butane as working fluid
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20001212002500.008fe940@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <000f01c06458$2699fee0$e9f346cf@Hauserman>

Re. Butane as a working fluid.

Thursday

Good Morning Peter Singfield -

Some 20+ years ago, I was
peripherally involved in some discussion, with an office mate who was
evaluating the use of butane as a working fluid for geothermal energy
extraction. The key to the whole scheme was direct heat transfer: Liquid
butane could be injected directly into a subterranean environment of hot rock
and compressed hot water, and flashed off by appropriate pressure control, for
the power stroke through a turbine. I don't
recall the details. The theoretical cycle efficiency looked good, based on
thermodynamic properties of butane. There were two flaws in the scheme,
that turned off the interest of the fiscally cautious organization
that commissioned the evaluation. (1) Butane is not truly "insoluble" in
water, but merely has a very low solubility. The slight loss of butane,
gradually dissolved in the groundwater aquifer, and in the
steam/condensate that would accompany the vapor phase, worked out to be a
significant loss. (2) For the very large scale capacity system proposed, the
unavoidable slight losses, both to atmosphere or waste flare and into the
underground formation , represented another significant economic loss. Also, my
friend mentioned, the amount of propane for the single-site scale proposed
would strain the national supply, as of 197-whatever.
Now -- it seems to me -- if the
heat source it a porous or rubbleized dry hot rock formation, the propane
solubility problem might not be so significant. The problem there would
simply the heat available, due to slow conduction through dry rock, as opposed
to transport from the larger reservoir of a superheated aquifer. In this
paranoid age, I expect safety considerations would become a political issue. But
maybe it's worth a second look.
Good luck!

Bill Hauserman

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Singfield <<A
href="mailto:snkm@btl.net">snkm@btl.net>
To: <<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 12:25
AM
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding butane as working
fluid
> > Hello Everyone;>
> A while back we conversed regarding the use of butane as a working
fluid in> thermodynamic conversion of heat to mechanical energy.>
> Someone mentioned a Geothermal power plant of quite respectable output,
in> California, that was indeed using butane as the working fluid for
turning> turbines.> > Can anyone supply me info on
this?> > Peter Singfield> > Belize / Central
America> > > The Gasification List is sponsored by>
USDOE BioPower Program <A
href="http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/">http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/>
and PRM Energy Systems <A
href="http://www.prmenergy.com">http://www.prmenergy.com> >
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information> <A
href="http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm">http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm>
<A
href="http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive">http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive>
<A
href="http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml">http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml>
<A
href="http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/">http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/>
<A
href="http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml">http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml>

From snkm at btl.net Tue Dec 12 18:17:11 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding butane as working fluid
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001212170559.0090d5a0@wgs1.btl.net>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 5732 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20001212/d8aaeabc/attachment.bin
From snkm at btl.net Tue Dec 12 19:23:50 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding butane as working fluid
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001212180946.0090bb00@wgs1.btl.net>

Some interesting facts from DOE --

http://www.eren.doe.gov/state_energy/technology_overview.cfm?techid=5#23

The current production of geothermal energy from all uses places third
among renewables, following hydroelectricity and biomass, and ahead of
solar and wind. Yet this production has barely scratched the surface of the
enormous potential of geothermal energy. U.S. geothermal resources alone
are estimated at 70,000,000 quads, equivalent to a 750,000-year supply of
energy for the entire nation at current rates of consumption. The
geothermal energy potential in the uppermost 6 miles of the Earth's crust
amounts to 50,000 times the energy of all oil and gas resources in the world.

and --

Power generation:

Three technologies can be used to convert hydrothermal fluids to
electricity. The type of conversion used depends on the state of the fluid
(whether steam or water) and its temperature.

Steam: Conventional steam turbines are used with hydrothermal fluids that
are wholly or primarily steam. The steam is routed directly to the turbine,
which drives an electric generator, eliminating the need for the boilers
and fossil fuel of conventional power plants.

High-temperature water: For hydrothermal fluids above 400°F that are
primarily water, flash steam technology is usually employed. In these
systems, the fluid is sprayed into a tank held at a much lower pressure
than the fluid, causing some of the fluid to rapidly vaporize, or flash, to
steam. The steam is used to drive a turbine, which again drives a generator.

Moderate-temperature water: For water with temperatures less than 400°F,
binary cycle technology is generally most cost effective. In these systems,
the hot geothermal fluid vaporizes a secondary—or working—fluid, which then
drives a turbine and generator. Because lower temperature waters are much
more plentiful than high-temperature waters, binary cycle systems will be
the dominant geothermal power plants of the future.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Tue Dec 12 19:23:54 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding butane as working fluid
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001212173819.0090ec70@wgs1.btl.net>

For some interesting examples -- by just one "maker" -- of binary
isobutane power plnats:

http://ogdencorp.net/energy/oei/geo.htm

Or:

http://www.ormat.com/projects_geotherm.htm

Click on the place you wish to view on their map.

What can I say but WOW!!

Peter Singfield / Belize
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Tue Dec 12 22:43:55 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Geothermal -- the viable alternative
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001212190122.008fc100@wgs1.btl.net>

From:

http://www.eren.doe.gov/state_energy/technology_factsheet.cfm?techid=5

Geothermal-at-a-Glance

Nearly 2,800 megawatts (MW) of geothermal power, producing 14 to 17 billion
kilowatt-hours per year of electricity worth about $1 billion in annual
utility sales, are generated in the states of California, Hawaii, Nevada,
and Utah.
Geothermal energy is the United States' second largest grid-connected
renewable electricity source, after hydropower.

The Geysers geothermal field in northern California has been generating
electric power for about 40 years.

A recent study identified 271 communities in 10 western states that are
within 5 miles of geothermal resources having temperatures high enough to
provide space heating and cooling to these communities.

Electric power generation from geothermal resources is currently limited to
locations in the western United States; however, geothermal heat pump
technology can be utilized throughout the country.

Today, more than 500,000 geothermal heat pumps have been installed
nationwide with the largest markets being in the midwestern states of
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio.

Twenty-one countries generate 8000 MW of electricity from geothermal
resources, and 11,300 thermal MW are being used in more than 27 countries
for direct-use applications such as aquaculture and greenhouse operations,
and industrial processing.

U.S. geothermal companies have installed geothermal power plants overseas
that generate more than 1,500 MW of electricity and represent an investment
of more than $3 billion.

In 1996, U.S. companies signed new contracts valued at more than $0.5
billion to develop about 350 MW of geothermal power in Indonesia, in
addition to the previously reported contracts valued at more than $6
billion for geothermal development projects in Indonesia, the Philippines,
and Latin America.

There are nearly 80,000 MW of electrical power that could be brought
on-line in foreign countries in the next two or three decades using
geothermal resources.

Electricity produced from geothermal energy in the United States displaces
emissions to the atmosphere of 22 million tons of carbon dioxide, 200
thousand tons of sulfur dioxide, 80 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides, and
110 thousand tons of particulate matter every year, compared with
production of the same amount of electricity from an average U.S.
coal-fired plant.

Geothermal power can be generated from modular units ranging in size from a
few hundred kilowatts to more than 100 MW.

The U.S. government receives about $41 million annually in royalty and
lease payments from geothermal energy production on federal lands.

The cost of generating power from geothermal resources has decreased about
25% over the past two decades.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From PletkaRJ at bv.com Wed Dec 13 14:28:30 2000
From: PletkaRJ at bv.com (Pletka, Ryan J.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
Message-ID: <61BCB4275920D211AA5700A0C9DB18FB0A4492B1@BVMAIL02>

Dear Jim,

We have received your response and several others. We are in the process of
getting our study scope defined and contract signed. This is a USTDA study
in Hungary.

Once the study gets more underway, we'll contact you for more information.

Regards,
Ryan Pletka

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Dunham [SMTP:costaeec@kcnet.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:35 AM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
>
> We have a system which does precisely that. It was developed by an Indian
> group, operating in the USA. They have numerous patents which pertain to a
> closed loop system which ensures greater carbon purity and oil products
> clean enough for direct fueling. Plants are operating in Asia, with a
> prototype in California.
>
> Vastly superior to ones we experimented with a decade ago.
> Let me know if you wish further info.
>
> Jim Dunham
> Environmental Engineering COrp.
> Kansas City, MO
> 816-452-6663
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pletka, Ryan J. <PletkaRJ@bv.com>
> To: 'gasification@crest.org' <gasification@crest.org>
> Date: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 11:35 AM
> Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
>
>
> >
> >I have a client in Eastern Europe who is interested in non-combustion
> >technologies (i.e., gasification and pyrolysis) to dispose of tires
> >(200,000+ annually). Has anyone been following developments in this
> field?
> >Are commercial technologies offered?
> >
> >Appreciate any responses.
> >
> >Ryan Pletka
> >
> >--
> >Black & Veatch Energy Services Group
> >11401 Lamar / Overland Park, KS 66211 USA
> >913-458-8222
> >
> >The Gasification List is sponsored by
> >USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> >and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> >
> >Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> >http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> >http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> >
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Dec 14 09:49:40 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Possible conference.. "BFCS-2002" @ "Earth Summit 2002" ("Rio + 10") ?
Message-ID: <76.5e292ca.276a3587@cs.com>

Dear Stovers:

South Africa is a unique combination of a developed country combined with
developing country problems. I first began working on stoves on a visit to
South Africa in 1985, comparing the clean "white" cities with the smoky black
townships.

They also have interesting work going on in gasification.....

They are a good place to be solving alternate energy problems for everyone.
I'd consider going to this conference if possible.

In a message dated 12/14/00 6:38:44 AM Mountain Standard Time, larcon@sni.net
writes:

<<
Stovers:

1. After forwarding the recent messages from Zheng and Grant, it
occured to me that perhaps "Earth Summit 2002" is offering a new
opportunity - to relatively painlessly have a quick followup meeting
through a parallel "BFCS-2002" meeting also in Johannesburg. This is to
ask the opinions of others.

2. At BFCS-2000, I mentioned having been professionally involved
in a 1981 UN Renewables Conference in Nairobi (I think the UN's first).
The US plans for participating were started under President Carter, but
concluded under President Reagan. (The US was blasted by many - seen as
having been the cause for the final declaration having little impact on
anything renewable. The US position paper talked not at all about stoves.)
One of the major pluses for me was seeing a comparative testing of jikos
(charcoal-burners) and maybe other stoves in a parallel citizen's
conference. My point here is that it is not too early to start trying to
influence our government's positions on sustainability and the negative
influence of most existing stoves.

3. At BFCS-2000, I think I also mentioned stopping in briefly at
the 1992 Rio-conference for a few days (a low cost stop on my way to a
different already-scheduled meeting in Ethiopia). Here I had no part on
the official side (I volunteered a few days at the booth sponsored by the
International Solar Energy Society (ISES).)

As noted in the just-forwarded message from Grant:

">More than 15 000 NGOs were represented at the 1992 meeting."

Some small subset of these 15000 NGOs took upon themselves the
awesome task of arranging a parallel "Citizen's Summit" - which involved
even more people than those who attended the official conference. There
were many huge outdoor tents set up and many well-known (even world-famous)
experts gave talks on "Rio-type" subjects. There was also a separate
public area where a single organization could rent a space of about 3
meters by 3 meters. Tens or hundreds of thousands of people toured through
these displays. The official delegates probably came in part (but it was
impossible for those who were not official delegates to get anywhere close
to the official proceedings). My recollection is that we bought a
(relatively cheap) several day pass to the tent-lectures and the exhibits.
(Someone has to cover these costs, which I am sure were heavily subsidized
as well.)

The US was again heavily blasted (I saw several burning effigies of
Pres. Bush) at this conference, as we were the main world force holding
back action - the US calling for more study. As I write this, it appears
that our next President is also to be a Bush. I doubt anyone will think
that the US position at Earth Summit 2002 will not have been affected by
last night's US Supreme Court Decision.

We interested in stove progress will now have a harder time, but I
don't think it is hopeless. My second question is how to optimally get
national governments all over the world (the "stoves" list probably
represents more than 40 countries) to include an interest in stoves and GHG
- in the official part of the agenda.

I have tentatively decided to attend and am guessing that a good
many of our 200 members will also think about it seriously if there is a
good stoves focus (as there should be).

4. My last point is now probably obvious - whether we should start
trying to
get an official stoves "sub-conference" in place as a subset of the
citizen's meeting. The last message forwarded from Grant was on the
official side, but I think we can assume we will be hearing of a fully
parallel citizen's meeting taking place. Has any list member been part of
this parallel (totally a non-UN activity, I think) effort? Know anyone who
can make sure that stoves topics can get a special "tent" for two or three
days? I think we may have one South Africa list member, who I hope will
contact me.

If we are successful, I don't see much problem getting the actual
talks together. The problem will be in getting a local presence and a
presence amongst those developing the parallel citizen's meeting.

Last point is that Johannesburg is reported to be a very beautiful
and interesting city to visit (I've seen J'burg only from the airport so
far). Any comments on this aspect? Anyone able to identify a local
partner for arranging one or more stoves-oriented bus tours for instance?

Thoughts on any of the above?

Ron
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From claudio.dellarocca at tin.it Sat Dec 16 04:40:55 2000
From: claudio.dellarocca at tin.it (claudio della rocca)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: engine modifier
Message-ID: <001601c06743$67125ba0$f6baabd4@anaky>

Dears all

i'm searching for what are the mains modifiers of
convencional engine, for the syngas use, can you help me?

claudio della rocca

p.s. excuseme for my
english

From carlos.albero at wanadoo.es Sat Dec 16 14:42:42 2000
From: carlos.albero at wanadoo.es (Carlos)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Cow Digestion Products
Message-ID: <200012161942.OAA16747@crest.solarhost.com>

Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 13:22:13 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C06763.35D8D580"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C06763.35D8D580
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I=B4m designing a cogeneration plant for a cow farm in Spain. I would =
like to know something about the gas products that comes out of the =
digestor. My plan is to connect an engine that works with biogas, but i =
don=B4t know exactly what comes out of the digestor.
If someone could tell me, or tell me where to find the information =
please don=B4t doubt about it.=20

Thank you in anticipation.
Carlos Albero

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C06763.35D8D580
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

I=B4m designing a cogeneration = plant for a cow=20 farm in Spain. I would
like to know something about the gas products = that comes=20 out of the
digestor. My plan is to connect an engine that works with = biogas, but=20
i don=B4t know exactly what comes out of the digestor.
If someone could tell me, or tell me = where to find=20 the information
please don=B4t doubt about it.

Thank you in anticipation.
Carlos = Albero

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C06763.35D8D580--

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From renertech at xtra.co.nz Sat Dec 16 23:32:02 2000
From: renertech at xtra.co.nz (renertech)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Cow Digestion Products
In-Reply-To: <200012161942.OAA16747@crest.solarhost.com>
Message-ID: <001001c06891$afdcbe80$b4b71bca@renertech>

Carlos, Good Morning.
You ask some relatively simple
questions, but I am assuming that you do not have the resources to find the
information you need. So, I will give you some very simple answers, with
not too much detail. And then you can follow on that is, home in on the
areas that you want more detail on.
I am presuming that you want to treat cow manure?? That is relatively
simple, because the cows teeth are the best grinding equipment going for
breaking down cellulose material. If you want to use the waste from a barn
used for wintering cows??? Then that is a different story, because there
will be lots of hair, straw, waste feedstuff and fibrous materials in it,
which will rise to the surface of the digester and make a crust which can
give you a lot of problems.
I make this distinction because you ask what you will get out of the
digester? The first answer is that if it is only cow manure, you will not
get very much gas. Straight grass or even waste weeds, cut off you road
side will give you 5 times as much gas as will manure. The cow uses so
much for her own energy needs and the rest gets belched and farted out of
her digestive system. So, the first question is how much energy do you
want to retreive, or how much wastes do you want to clean up?
Once you get to the gas production stage, what comes out is around 60%
methane, 35% Carbon dioxide, a fraction of a percentage of Hydrogen
sulphide, which comes from the breakdown of the sulphur bearing amino acids,
and the balance is water vapour and perhaps some nitrogen from air which
has leaked into your system.
The major cleanup needed is the Hydrogen sulphide which will attach anything
copper and make acids in your co-generation plant. Then follows the CO2.
The easiest way to get rid of the Sulphide gas is to trickle the wet gas
straight out of the digester through a pair of large plastic or steel
drums, which are packed full of crushed and rusty tin cans. The sulphide
gas will be converted to ferrous sulphide in the wet anaerobic conditions.
While one drum is stripping the gas, the other one is being regenerated by
allowing air to slowly trickle through it.
In contact with oxygen, ferrous sulphide reverts to metalic iron and
elemental sulphur, with a lot of heat!!
If you choose plastic drums then you must regenerate very slowly, otherwise
the drums will melt.
If you choose to use steel, then don't worry about the heat, but your drums
will corrode very quickly. That is your choice.
Once the sulphide has been stripped out and any precipitated moisture
droplets have been filtered out with a crude cloth filter system then you
can use any kind of air compressor to compress the gas to around 10bar,
or 150 psi. At that pressure, the gas is pumped into the bottom of a tall
cylinder of water, 4- 5 metres tall. I can give further details if
required. The CO2 is disolved out in the water and the gas coming off
the top, now equivalent to CNG, can be stored or buffered in a commercial
LPG type gas cylinder at 10bar, before being fed straight into an internat
combustion engine, which has been converted to or designed to be run on
Natural gas. When you speak of co-generation, I presume that you intend
to use the heat from that engine to heat the digester?? That is a basic
outline of what i think you propose to do?? If you have further questions
you can contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Ken C Calvert.
Renertech.Coffee.
159 St.Andrew St.
Invercargill. New Zealand. 9501.
Phone +64 3217 7015
Fax. +64 3217 7032
Mobile. 025 54 74 38
E-Mail. renertech@xtra.co.nz

compress the

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos" <carlos.albero@wanadoo.es>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 11:42 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Cow Digestion Products

> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 13:22:13 +0100
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C06763.35D8D580"
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C06763.35D8D580
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>
> I=B4m designing a cogeneration plant for a cow farm in Spain. I would =
> like to know something about the gas products that comes out of the =
> digestor. My plan is to connect an engine that works with biogas, but i =
> don=B4t know exactly what comes out of the digestor.
> If someone could tell me, or tell me where to find the information =
> please don=B4t doubt about it.=20
>
> Thank you in anticipation.
> Carlos Albero
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C06763.35D8D580
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>
> I=B4m designing a cogeneration = plant for a cow=20 farm in Spain. I
would
> like to know something about the gas products = that comes=20 out of the
> digestor. My plan is to connect an engine that works with = biogas, but=20
> i don=B4t know exactly what comes out of the digestor.
> If someone could tell me, or tell me = where to find=20 the information
> please don=B4t doubt about it.
>
> Thank you in anticipation.
> Carlos = Albero
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C06763.35D8D580--
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Dec 17 10:00:54 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: engine modifier
Message-ID: <84.ecca475.276e2cd5@cs.com>

Dear Claudio:

I recommend our "Handbook .. Engine Systems" and others below...

Excuse my Italian too.

TOM REED BEF PRESS

BOOKS FROM THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS
Classic Books on Biomass and Alternate Energy
Book Descriptions - Order Blank Follows

NEW OR REVISED:

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, a companion to GENGAS.
ISBN 1-890607-08-8 50 pp. $4

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

COPY THIS ORDER BLANK - Delete unwanted books and Email your order to
reedtb2@cs.com
(Nicknames in Bold, see book descriptions, p. 1 and 2)

1. A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: $25

2. BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: $25

3. CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $10

4. BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: $25

5. GENGAS: THE SWEDISH CLASSIC ON WOOD FUELED VEHICLES: $30

6. SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $30

7. PRODUCER-GAS: ANOTHER FUEL FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT: $10

8. FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED
DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER: $30

9. EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES
FOR THE TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - MSW $25

10. DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: $12

11. WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: $4

12. CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLIFIED WOOD GAS GENERATOR: $15

13. BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: $30

14. THE PEGASUS UNIT: THE LOST ART OF DRIVING WITHOUT GASOLINE: $20

15. GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: $30

16. TREES: $1

17. TREE CROPS FOR ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION ON FARMS: $30

18. FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP,
CLEAN FUEL FROM FREE VEGETABLE OIL: $25

19. MODERN GAS PRODUCERS by N. E. Rambush (1923) $30

20. FREE ENERGY OF BINARY COMPOUNDS $20

NAME:

SHIPPING ADDRESS:
~~~~

THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION

The Biomass Energy Foundation operates a small press, archiving and printing
books useful in the field of biomass and the environment. We are able to
print, and attractively bind, out -of-print books in this field at reasonable
prices (i.e. far less than NTIS).

Tom is also currently working on woodgas stoves for developing countries and
"tarfree, Turnkey" power systems with the Community Power Corporation. Dr.
Reed continues his research in other
fields of biomass and gives lectures in these fields. He is available for
consulting in his fields of interest.

LINKS

To find out more about us, visit our websites at www.woodgas.com and www.
webpan.com/bef. (We hope to update the former ASAP, but...). To find out
about the Community Power Corporation, visit www.gocpc.com.

In a message dated 12/16/00 2:34:02 AM Mountain Standard Time,
claudio.dellarocca@tin.it writes:

<<
Dears all

i'm searching for what are the mains modifiers of convencional engine, for
the syngas use, can you help me?

claudio della rocca

p.s. excuseme for my english
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Sun Dec 17 18:17:55 2000
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Cow Digestion Products
In-Reply-To: <200012161942.OAA16747@crest.solarhost.com>
Message-ID: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDOEEGCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

Hi Carlos,

The simple answer is methane and carbon dioxide.

I don't recall the ratios but there was some good practical work done in
South Africa in the early 1970's on both batch and continuous digesters
using pig manure. The gas produced was used directly in a modified ford V8
driving a generator.

Plant design depends on farm operation and objectives (hygene, odour
control, effluent disposal, nutrient recycling, energy production).

If a dairy then there is a high dilution of the manure with wash water so a
settlement tank is required with surplus liquor siphoned off after 24 hrs
(usually pumped direct to irrigated pasture) and the concentrate pumped into
the digester (this is the safest way to exclude air).

If a feed lot then you will most likely have large quantities of grit and
solids and water may need to be added to get a suitable slurry. Although no
doubt there are other designs.

Remembering that digester gas is potentially explosive when mixed with air
so your digester and gas storage / transfer system must have no leaks !

The South African system used a inverted water tank inside a slightly larger
one for gas storage with the water providing the gas seal and the gas outlet
at the top of the inverted tank transferring the gas via plastic pipe direct
to the engine. They actually placed the engine a distance away to reduce
noise at the plant. During initial startup the gas was vented several times
to remove residual air from the system.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Peter Davies
OOPS
Owner Operated Power Systems.
Australia

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org
[mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Sunday, 17 December 2000 5:43 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Cow Digestion Products

Thank you in anticipation.
Carlos Albero

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From calsch at montana.com Sun Dec 17 19:50:27 2000
From: calsch at montana.com (Cal Schindel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: sewage digesters
Message-ID: <3A3D5D43.554FEE5F@montana.com>

This is in the "for what it's worth" department. I don't profess to
be an expert on digesters.

I have worked on city sewage disposal operations on construction and
repair or modification of existing facilities. This is simply a report
on what I have seen. The digesters tend to go acid and require massive
doses of alkali. Boise Idaho north facility was using bicarbonate of
soda which was setting there in paper bags (50#?) by the pallet. The
digesters were in a clump of three silos of about 24 foot diameter and
roughly that tall. One of the three had a floating metal lid which
maintained the collection and pressure. The three were significantly
buried in earth cover to maintain warmer temperature in winter. The gas
was being burned in large caterpillar V-8 engines. These engines were
about the size of engines found in large bulldozers. At Boise they were
running air compressors for the aeration basins. At Nampa there was an
electrical generator. The acidity of the process will eat holes in the
concrete until there is significant damage to the rebar reinforcement.

There is a way to line a concrete structure with glazed tile using an
epoxy type grout which is impervious to acid. This process is used in
the paper industry for pulp digester units.

The investment in plant and equipment is large and would probably only
apply to a large cattle feedlot operation. The effluent makes good
fertilizer. We pumped up to a dry field in California. First time I
ever saw oat plants five feet tall.

When working on such facilities know that the gas will pool in low
places. Men have died for lack of oxygen. The explosion hazard is well
known, but the possibility of passing out and dying is less known.
I believe the correct ratio of carbon to nitrogen to make for a good
process may be about 14 to one. Temperatures should be perhaps 90
degrees
Fahrenheit. That is about all I know about this stuff.

Cal
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From douglasmcc at cnl.com.au Mon Dec 18 06:21:24 2000
From: douglasmcc at cnl.com.au (Douglas Costello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: sewage digesters
In-Reply-To: <3A3D5D43.554FEE5F@montana.com>
Message-ID: <007d01c068e2$5b9a2460$4e1f38cb@douglasmcc>

Our local Water and Sewage authority has just expanded our sewage treatment
plant and to control odours the digestion ponds are cover with a vinyl
canvas impervious to gas. At present the gas is flared but the intention is
to us it to generate electricity to reduce sewage processing costs. While
we are a community of 3000, our plant has the capacity for a city of 250,000
due to the large food processing industries we have in the town.

Our plant is working well and as you drive along the roads near it you can
see the covers ballooned up over the ponds. Now they are working on the
other two large towns and upgrading their treatment plants for the same end
in mind.

Christchurch city in New Zealand, has for over 40 years put its sewage
through large digestors and used the resultant gas (cleaned) to provide the
energy requirements for a significant proportion of its vehicle fleet.

Douglas Costello

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cal Schindel" <calsch@montana.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Monday, 18 December 2000 11:41
Subject: GAS-L: sewage digesters

> This is in the "for what it's worth" department. I don't profess to
> be an expert on digesters.
>
> I have worked on city sewage disposal operations on construction and
> repair or modification of existing facilities. This is simply a report
> on what I have seen. The digesters tend to go acid and require massive
> doses of alkali. Boise Idaho north facility was using bicarbonate of
> soda which was setting there in paper bags (50#?) by the pallet. The
> digesters were in a clump of three silos of about 24 foot diameter and
> roughly that tall. One of the three had a floating metal lid which
> maintained the collection and pressure. The three were significantly
> buried in earth cover to maintain warmer temperature in winter. The gas
> was being burned in large caterpillar V-8 engines. These engines were
> about the size of engines found in large bulldozers. At Boise they were
> running air compressors for the aeration basins. At Nampa there was an
> electrical generator. The acidity of the process will eat holes in the
> concrete until there is significant damage to the rebar reinforcement.
>
> There is a way to line a concrete structure with glazed tile using an
> epoxy type grout which is impervious to acid. This process is used in
> the paper industry for pulp digester units.
>
> The investment in plant and equipment is large and would probably only
> apply to a large cattle feedlot operation. The effluent makes good
> fertilizer. We pumped up to a dry field in California. First time I
> ever saw oat plants five feet tall.
>
> When working on such facilities know that the gas will pool in low
> places. Men have died for lack of oxygen. The explosion hazard is well
> known, but the possibility of passing out and dying is less known.
> I believe the correct ratio of carbon to nitrogen to make for a good
> process may be about 14 to one. Temperatures should be perhaps 90
> degrees
> Fahrenheit. That is about all I know about this stuff.
>
> Cal
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From samuel.martin at epfl.ch Tue Dec 19 08:27:37 2000
From: samuel.martin at epfl.ch (samuel.martin@epfl.ch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: emissions
In-Reply-To: <3e.4ce7854.27677f56@cs.com>
Message-ID: <977231875.3a3f60038a68b@imap.epfl.ch>

Dear all,

does anybody have some data about the polluant emissions of the combustion of
producer gas in a burner ? Espacially particules and CO which are particularly
dangerous if you burn gas in a closed area (in a house to cook for example).

Thanks

Merry Christmas

Samuel Martin

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: imap.epfl.ch
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Dec 19 09:45:58 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: (no subject)
Message-ID: <a9.f361dfe.2770cc37@cs.com>

Dear Bioenergy/gasification/stovers:

(I am including stovers on this list, since in my opinion the only clean
stove is one that gasifies first.)

It has been just about a year since the Biomass Energy Foundation (BEF) and
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) published our book "Survey of
Biomass Gasification - 2000". I'm happy to say that the demand has far
outstripped our expectations - probably over 1000 books sold in 2000, which
is a lot for technical books. We have been surprised that so many requests
came in from the Netherlands and generally overseas, probably over half.
(There is still lots of cheap gasoline in the US compared to the rest of the
world and we're using it as fast as we can. We'll pay a LOT more attention
then.)

I have decided to bring out a New Edition, "Survey of Biomass Gasification -
2001". I have a stack of minor corrections and some additions for the
database. I reprint the books in lots of 50 every few months. It will be a
simple matter for me to bring the Chapter 2 data base up to date and insert a
new Chapter 2. For those of you who have the first edition (probably will be
a collectors treasure), you can go to my website www.woodgas.com and download
the new database early next year.

Before I go to press, I would like to invite those of you already in the
database to check the facts and make whatever corrections are necessary. If
you are NOT in the database, and think you should be, please fill in the
enclosed questionnaire and send back Eposthaste - unless you want to wait for
a possible 3rd edition, "... - 2002".

I'd like to work on this before the New Year, SO please have your additions
and corrections in by DEC. 27.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF PRESS

P.S. I have also attached our current book list.

QUESTIONNAIRE:

ORGANIZATION: (Official name of your organization)

CATEGORY: (Large gasifier systems >10MWe, (Chapter 3); Small scale
gasifiers (Chapter 4); research and support, (Chapter 5); Manufacturers and
Consultants.)

PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION: (Purpose of gasifier or business)

COUNTRY:

CONTACT: (Name of principal contact)

PHONE/FAX: (Phone No.; Fax in that order)

E-MAIL:

WEBPAGE: (If applicable)

ADDRESS: (Mailing address)

STATUS: (Just thinking, building, operating or in business a long time....)

FUELS: (Fuels tried or planned. People who claim "all fuels" are considered
naive in the art of gasification)

SIZES: (Sizes built or offered)

YEARS: (Years in business)

UNITS BUILT: (Number of units actually built or under construction)

COST: (Typical cost/kWth or kWe of system, preferably in 2001 dollars for
comparison)

COMMENTS: (Brag a little..)

~~~~~~~~

~~~~~
BOOKS FROM THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS
Classic Books on Biomass and Alternate Energy
Book Descriptions - Order Blank Follows

NEW OR REVISED:

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, a companion to GENGAS.
ISBN 1-890607-08-8 50 pp. $4

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

COPY THIS ORDER BLANK - Biomass Energy Books
(Nicknames in Bold, see book descriptions, p. 1 and 2)

1. A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: $25

2. BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: $25

3. CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $10

4. BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: $25

5. GENGAS: THE SWEDISH CLASSIC ON WOOD FUELED VEHICLES: $30

6. SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $30

7. PRODUCER-GAS: ANOTHER FUEL FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT: $10

8. FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED
DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER: $30

9. EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES
FOR THE TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - MSW $25

10. DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: $12

11. WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: $4

12. CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLIFIED WOOD GAS GENERATOR: $15

13. BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: $30

14. THE PEGASUS UNIT: THE LOST ART OF DRIVING WITHOUT GASOLINE: $20

15. GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: $30

16. TREES: $1

17. TREE CROPS FOR ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION ON FARMS: $30

18. FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP,
CLEAN FUEL FROM FREE VEGETABLE OIL: $25

19. MODERN GAS PRODUCERS by N. E. Rambush (1923) $30

20. FREE ENERGY OF BINARY COMPOUNDS $20

NAME:

SHIPPING ADDRESS:
THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION

LINKS

To find out more about us, visit our websites at www.woodgas.com and www.
webpan.com/bef. (We hope to update the former ASAP, butâ€¦.)

THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS
Classic books on Gasification, Pyrolysis and Combustion of Wood

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From delange at bioelettrica.it Tue Dec 19 11:14:33 2000
From: delange at bioelettrica.it (Henk de Lange)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification database
In-Reply-To: <a9.f361dfe.2770cc37@cs.com>
Message-ID: <001201c069d5$47956ee0$0c20a8c0@bioelettrica.it>

Dear Dr Reed,

I would like to inform that I am the contact for
the Bioelettrica S.p.A. THERMIE Energy Farm project,
instead of Mr Panzani mentioned in the database.
Contact details are as per below.
Thank you, best wishes for the coming new year and
good luck with your work.

Yours sincerely,

Henk de Lange

--------------------------------------------------
H.J. de Lange M.Sc.(M.Eng.)
Technical Manager
Bioelettrica S.p.A.
Via Cesare Battisti, 47
56125 PISA
ITALY
Tel. +39-050-535479
Fax +39-050-535477
e-mail: delange@bioelettrica.it

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From smonnot at stereau.fr Tue Dec 19 11:25:56 2000
From: smonnot at stereau.fr (MONNOT, Stephane)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Please unsubscribe me (holydays)
Message-ID: <320EB25168AAD4119F5000B0D0789FB40B16E2@ST01S001>

Thanks
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From hbrochmann at saltspring.com Tue Dec 19 12:42:26 2000
From: hbrochmann at saltspring.com (Harold Brochmann)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <l03130302b6653ad0811b@[204.244.138.163]>

I have just joined this list.

My interest lies in finding designs for gasification units or burner
designs for efficient and reduced smoke cord wood spaceheaters.

I burn 3- 4 cords of cordwood per winter to heat a large livingroom. Aside
from the efficiency and esthetic consideration, my chimney happens to be
level with a passing road which gets shrouded in nasty stuff. Not very
neighbourly.

Any suggestions appreciated.

Harold Brochmann
Saltspring Island, BC, Canada
http://www.saltspring.com/brochmann

MERCHANTAINMENT Please try not to wince. This appears to have been
invented by Dave Lauren, son of Ralph Lauren, while plugging his
new website. He defined it, obviously enough, as "a combination of
merchandising and entertainment". Smile while you spend?

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Dec 19 13:21:26 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:
In-Reply-To: <l03130302b6653ad0811b@[204.244.138.163]>
Message-ID: <3A3FA4B5.3EBA5737@c2i.net>

Harold Brochmann wrote:
>
> I have just joined this list.

..welcome onboard. Next time you post, feel free to add an hint of your
interest in your message "Subject:" line. Appears some of us may have
to fix our mail filters to land our gas-list mail into the right mail
box. ;-)

> My interest lies in finding designs for gasification units or burner
> designs for efficient and reduced smoke cord wood spaceheaters.
>
> I burn 3- 4 cords of cordwood per winter to heat a large livingroom. Aside
> from the efficiency and esthetic consideration, my chimney happens to be
> level with a passing road which gets shrouded in nasty stuff. Not very
> neighbourly.
>
> Any suggestions appreciated.

..gasifier + say, 5kWe + 15kWTh co-generation genset?
Heat air or water, then pipe it into the house. Allows
moving the plant a few pipelengths away from your house.

> Harold Brochmann
> Saltspring Island, BC, Canada
> http://www.saltspring.com/brochmann

..nice site.
I suggest you convert those wav files into mp3, and those graphics into
png, as both file formats are much more compact than their cometition.

> MERCHANTAINMENT Please try not to wince. This appears to have been
> invented by Dave Lauren, son of Ralph Lauren, while plugging his
> new website. He defined it, obviously enough, as "a combination of
> merchandising and entertainment". Smile while you spend?

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From si-gru at frisurf.no Tue Dec 19 22:06:48 2000
From: si-gru at frisurf.no (sigurd grung)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: thermatomic carbon in a pottery oven?
Message-ID: <018201c06a30$50c2ebe0$b3c54382@itstep>

I am looking for a nice way to insulate a producer
gas driven pottery oven, and wondered whether it would be possible to create
thermatomic carbon by spinning a steel drum containing wood while the wood
is burning.

Or indeed, do you have a better idea for cheap
insulation?

Thanks.

Sigurd Grung

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Dec 20 08:39:15 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO again...
Message-ID: <c3.c442dd0.27720e10@cs.com>

Dear Sam and all:

The combustion products of producer gas depend primarily on how well you burn
it, not on the gas itself. If you don't get complete combustion, you will
have some CO, as you will with methane or any other gas. If you do get
complete combustion (not too much excess air) CO will be VERY low.

As to particulates, they are supposed to be removed before you call your
product "producer gas".
~~~~
Yes CO is dangerous indoors. Two lungsfull of CO will put you under the sod,
and it was very handy for suicides. Nowadays if you stick your head in the
(natural) gas oven you are likely to blow up the house.

However, most towns over 10,000 used producer gas until 1940, so we could
learn to live with it again. Personally, I have been building gasifiers for
25 years and never had a headache - and I'm not ALL that cautious. My CO
meter goes off occasionally, but you can breathe 50 ppm CO all day. Smokers
enjoy 100-300 ppm. So let's not get TOO bent out of shape by CO - and let's
all be VERY careful.

Fortunately, CO meters have become very cheap - I believe Sears has one for
under $10. I hope that very soon every smoke detector will include a CO
alarm.

Yours truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 12/19/00 6:20:56 AM Mountain Standard Time,
samuel.martin@epfl.ch writes:

<< Dear all,

does anybody have some data about the polluant emissions of the combustion
of
producer gas in a burner ? Espacially particules and CO which are
particularly
dangerous if you burn gas in a closed area (in a house to cook for example).

Thanks

Merry Christmas

Samuel Martin
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Dec 20 08:39:18 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Elsen Karstad on chardust
Message-ID: <f.d7d25ba.27720e16@cs.com>

Dear all:

The following message contained nothing whatever on chardust. We
occasionally get careless about filing in a legitimate SUBJECT, but for those
of us buried in Email to the Eballs, it is convenient to have the Subject
match the subject, particularly for filing.

Hope we can do better in the next millenium that starts next week.

Tom Reed

In a message dated 12/18/00 4:33:26 PM Mountain Standard Time, larcon@sni.net
writes:

<<
Stovers (addressing this mainly to AD Karve, Ray Wijewardene, and Jon):

Jon Otto said in part:

<snip>

>Miscellaneous observation: I had the chance last week to inspect a
>fascinating program in western Kenya sponsored by the International Center
>of Research on Agroforestry (ICRAF) in which farmers were doubling up
>harvests of maize and fast-growing tree species, annually harvesting enough
>woody biomass on about one acre to supply a household with its cooking fuel,
>while increasing maize yields (not to mention other benefits on local and
>planetary levels). For deforestation doomsayers such as I, this is a truly
>exciting prospect. How to scale up or disseminate its application, and the
>development of modifications to work this system in lower rainfall areas,
>are great challenges; still, I strongly believe ICRAF is onto something big.

<snip>

AD - Could you please comment on the above from your background as a
botanist?

I am thinking of your demonstration during the field trip to
Phaltan - in which you were demonstrating the importance of windbreaks in
plant growth. Should that be the explanation for the importance of
interspaced trees to improve the corn productivity?

Could it be moisture conservation from shading?

Is this phenomenon already well written up in botany circles - and
if so it would seem to have huge importance (as Jon has suggested) for the
future of a ready source of wood for households (as Ray Wijewardene from
Sri Lanka was emphasizing for us also in the Pune meeting).

Anything you can add to encourage this practice worldwide
(essentially free firewood nearby). would be well received by our list at
this time.

When you showed Alex and I your bamboo grove outside Phaltan, there
was also some intercropping that you discussed nearby. Any similarlity?
Any data on increased income from certain tree species? Please remind us
what that situation was.

Ray - were you aware of this nice merging of interests? Have you also
seen literature of increased crop yield as being a major incentive for tree
planting?

Jon - Thanks for this interesting correspondence. You didn't mention
whether the trees were possibly being used for your interest in inedible
seed oils (for light and cooking purposes). Was that going on here or just
a later future possibility? Any new news on the seed oil front?
Anything more you can supply on tree species or details of
increased yields etc would be helpful.

Stovers - More background on the above three individuals:

AD. I had many more opportunities to talk with AD than most of the
conference delegates - it is clear that he has a huge knowledge of exactly
this topic - why plants behave and propagate in particular ways. This
question is being addressed to one of the world's experts on such topics.

Ray Wijewardene was the only person at the Stoves conference making
an impassioned plea for tree planting - with emphasis on coppicing or a
sustained yield. I don't know lots about Ray, but he is a retired business
man with many Sri Lankan honors - and a successful career throughout the
world in manufacturing and selling small hand steered two-wheel tractors.

Similarly, I have visited Jon and his wife Carrol in New York and
can attest that they are dedicated to rural third world development, with a
great deal of successful consulting going on in fields such as this he is
describing in Kenya. If Jon suggests the result is new, it probably is.
He almost made it to Pune and I'm sorry they were not there - but clearly
he has a good excuse if he was in Kenya shortly after.

Stovers - anyone else on this topic?

Ron

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

>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From si-gru at frisurf.no Wed Dec 20 11:58:25 2000
From: si-gru at frisurf.no (sigurd grung)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Not strictly to the subject
Message-ID: <004601c06aa4$7d5e80a0$0cc64382@itstep>

but do any of you know whether its possible to
remold car tyres into other shapes while keeping the nice rubbery
qualities?

Sigurd Grung

p.s.: I tried, but ended up with dry crumbs:-(

From Carl.Carley at eml.ericsson.se Wed Dec 20 12:04:57 2000
From: Carl.Carley at eml.ericsson.se (Carl Carley (EML))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Not strictly to the subject
Message-ID: <5F052F2A01FBD11184F00008C7A4A800048622D2@EUKBANT101>

don't know about remoulding, but you can buy pourus irrigation pipe made from recycled tyres

-----Original Message-----
From: sigurd grung [mailto:si-gru@frisurf.no]
Sent: 20 December 2000 16:47
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Not strictly to the subject

but do any of you know whether its possible to remold car tyres into other shapes while keeping the nice rubbery qualities?

Sigurd Grung

p.s.: I tried, but ended up with dry crumbs:-(

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Wed Dec 20 12:38:05 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Not strictly to the subject
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001220112511.008b92e0@wgs1.btl.net>

They make Cow Mats from them in Quebec Canada. Also soles for sandals in
many 3rd world countries.

The Cow Mats (for cows to lay on in their stalls) are made from powder
created by buffing the tires in a special machine. You have to much wire,
fiberglass, nylon cords -- etc -- to use the tire whole.

At 05:55 PM 12/20/2000 +0100, you wrote:
>don't know about remoulding, but you can buy pourus irrigation pipe made
from recycled tyres
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: sigurd grung [mailto:si-gru@frisurf.no]
>Sent: 20 December 2000 16:47
>To: gasification@crest.org
>Subject: GAS-L: Not strictly to the subject
>
>
>but do any of you know whether its possible to remold car tyres into other
shapes while keeping the nice rubbery qualities?
>
>Sigurd Grung
>
>p.s.: I tried, but ended up with dry crumbs:-(
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Wed Dec 20 12:43:03 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Not strictly to the subject
In-Reply-To: <004601c06aa4$7d5e80a0$0cc64382@itstep>
Message-ID: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEIEAFCDAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear
Sig

A very
interesting question!!! What did you have in mind for the remolded
shape?

Kevin
Chisholm



 -----Original Message-----From:
owner-gasification@crest.org [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf
Of sigurd grungSent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 12:47
PMTo: gasification@crest.orgSubject: GAS-L: Not strictly
to the subject
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
but do any of you know whether its possible to
remold car tyres into other shapes while keeping the nice rubbery
qualities?

Sigurd Grung

p.s.: I tried, but ended up with dry crumbs:-(

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Wed Dec 20 12:49:26 2000
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification in Steam Locomotives
Message-ID: <007e01c06aab$d2659b40$aad4ef9b@p>

Greetings to All,

As a new member , my interest in gasification of bio-mass lies in the steam
generation on a rail locomotive boiler. Trials using eng. Porta's GPCS ( Gas
Producer Combustion System ) concept have been conducted successfully using
coal in a miniature locomotive. As you have guessed my hobby is that of
building
miniature steam locomotives, and is heading in the direction of research and
development.

I am designing a new miniature prototype which will have the ability to burn
bio-mass, and would be interested in information as to what can be achieved
with this fuel. Wood chips would be the most likely fuel, but other types
are not ruled out. Enriching the fuel with a small percentage of used
lubricating or heavy fuel oil is also considered, as limited grate area
is available.

The main reason for gasification is to have a low air flow
through the firebed to prevent fuel entrainment in the gasses as the system
normally works under conditions of high draft. The other objective is to
achieve complete and clean combustion.

The system uses an upward gas flow through the fuel bed supported by a
grate, where limited primary air is admitted. Secondary air is admitted
above the firebed to burn the gas produced in a water-jacketed combustion
chamber where radiant heat generates most of the steam. The flue gasses
then pass through fire tubes in the same water enclosure generating more
steam, before passing through a steam superheater and water preheater.
Forced draft is created by an ejector using the exhaust steam from the
steam engine to suck the gasses through the system and eject them into
the chimney. This creates a draft and steam generation in proportion
to the steam consumption.

**************
With coal combustion the following occurs:

1. Primary air is limited to burn about 30 % of the fuel. This takes place
immediately above the grate producing CO2 and heat and a little CO.
with a temperature of 1200 deg. C being achieved. ( this temperature
would reach 1400 deg, but is lowered by the added steam, see item 3 )

2. The CO2 then reacts with the carbon above, using some of this heat to
produce CO.

3. A small volume of steam is admitted with the primary air which uses more
of the heat to cause a watergas reaction with unburned carbon in the bed to
produce H2 and CO.

4 During the reactions of 2 & 3 the bed cools down from 1200 TO 800 deg. C.

5 The hot gas now preheats the newest layer of fuel driving off the
volatiles thus enriching the gas further and leaving a carbon rich material
for the gas production stage.

6 The gas leaving the firebed is composed of the different gasses produced
and has a CO2 content of 4% and CO of 20% with the balance being Nitrogen,
Hydrogen, free carbon, and the volatile gasses from the fuel.

***************
Now I ask, can the same or similar reactions be achieved with Bio-mass ?
Your answers will help me to set up the correct conditions, when
the time comes for Trials.

I look forward to discussing this subject with you.
Thanking you and Seasons greetings,

John Davies,
Secunda,
South Africa.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From si-gru at frisurf.no Wed Dec 20 17:17:27 2000
From: si-gru at frisurf.no (sigurd grung)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Not strictly to the subject
In-Reply-To: <5F052F2A01FBD11184F00008C7A4A800048622D2@EUKBANT101>
Message-ID: <000901c06ad1$09bc0500$58c74382@itstep>

Do you know how they do this? have you actually seen the pipe, and is it
strong and what is it like?

I thought it would be interesting to use for a wind turbine (troposkein
VAWT) blade, with steel wire or plate core for longitudal tensile strenght.

Sigurd Grung

----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Carley (EML) <Carl.Carley@eml.ericsson.se>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 5:55 PM
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Not strictly to the subject

> don't know about remoulding, but you can buy pourus irrigation pipe made
from recycled tyres
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sigurd grung [mailto:si-gru@frisurf.no]
> Sent: 20 December 2000 16:47
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Not strictly to the subject
>
>
> but do any of you know whether its possible to remold car tyres into other
shapes while keeping the nice rubbery qualities?
>
> Sigurd Grung
>
> p.s.: I tried, but ended up with dry crumbs:-(
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From renertech at xtra.co.nz Wed Dec 20 20:38:12 2000
From: renertech at xtra.co.nz (renertech)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Not strictly to the subject
In-Reply-To: <004601c06aa4$7d5e80a0$0cc64382@itstep>
Message-ID: <000001c06b9d$fb1a0d80$12b31bca@renertech>

Sigurd, let the organic chemist in me answer your
question.
And the answer is No! The science
of plastics and polymers revolves around the cross linking
of chemical monomers. You start off with the raw material , a
monomer, which has 2 or more linking sites on it. A 2 linked
monomer gives you a chain. Three or more links and you end up with
a three dimentional solid like Bakelite or Rubber. However,
with a bit of chemical trickery you can use up one or two of those three links
and get all sorts of intermediate sets, like cold patch rubber and
vulcanising rubber . However, once all the linking sites have been used
up you have an inert solid and thats it finish. All that you can
do then is to grind up the solid and use it as an inert filler to bulk
out more fresh monomer with a new set of linking sites. Or, mix it with
bitumen and spray it on a road.
Bon Noel! Ken Calvert.

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
sigurd grung

To: <A title=gasification@crest.org
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 8:47
AM
Subject: GAS-L: Not strictly to the
subject

but do any of you know whether its possible to
remold car tyres into other shapes while keeping the nice rubbery
qualities?

Sigurd Grung

p.s.: I tried, but ended up with dry crumbs:-(

From Carl.Carley at eml.ericsson.se Thu Dec 21 04:00:29 2000
From: Carl.Carley at eml.ericsson.se (Carl Carley (EML))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Not strictly to the subject
Message-ID: <5F052F2A01FBD11184F00008C7A4A800048622D5@EUKBANT101>

I have some of this pipe, its about 1/2" diameter, quite strong and looks like its made from shredded pieces somehow bonded together. If you block one end and connect the other to a normal mains water supply the water oozes out very evenly.

-----Original Message-----
From: sigurd grung [mailto:si-gru@frisurf.no]
Sent: 20 December 2000 22:06
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Not strictly to the subject

Do you know how they do this? have you actually seen the pipe, and is it
strong and what is it like?

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Thu Dec 21 09:45:07 2000
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass energy Foundation Database
In-Reply-To: <a9.f361dfe.2770cc37@cs.com>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGEEIFCAAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

Dear Tom,
Here are my details.
Best regards
Gavin
P.S. I have also attached our current book list.

QUESTIONNAIRE:

ORGANIZATION: 3G Ltd.
CATEGORY: Small scale gasifiers, research and Consultant (maybe manufacturer)

PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION: Develop the British Biomass energy market. Research and development to achieve a gasifier heating system that provides the level of automation and reliability expected by the British public. Investigate and develop small scale Biomass fuelled chp using Steam or GT cycle plant for European or 3rd world use. Development of Biomass dryers.

COUNTRY:UK (Scotland)

CONTACT: Gavin Gulliver-Goodall

PHONE/FAX: +44 1835 824201 +44 870 831 4098

E-MAIL: Gasifers@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk

WEBPAGE: Not at present
ADDRESS: Allesudden, Charlesfield, St. Boswells, Melrose, Roxburghshire, Scotland TD6 0HH

STATUS: After 3 years employment in the biomass industry doing the above I am now starting my own consultancy and R&D venture.

FUELS: I have gasified a variety of UK hard and softwoods including Short Rotation coppice (willow) I have also gasified chicken litter and wheat "lights"

SIZES: Gasifier design is a fully automated 100-200 thermal output (2 sizes available) with full automation, load following and 4:1 turndown

YEARS: 3

UNITS BUILT: 4

COST: Gasifier cost $20K for 200kW thermal excluding Boiler, and fuel handling system which are site specific. Typical fully installed system $60K for 200kW thermal

COMMENTS: The 3G gasifier is an excellent and reliable replacement for a traditional UK spec "wet" heating system. It is possible to retrofit the gasifier to some traditional boilers.
3G has considerable expertise in the field of large-scale drying of Biomass utilising waste heat. Very low operating costs and high throughput are achievable. 3G are available to provide a consultancy or full design and build service for this equipment.
3G are able to provide Research and development services and facilities to manufacturers and developers in the Biomass sector. With over 3 years experience and available software, hardware and equipment they are in a position to dramatically reduce development costs and provide sensible successful solutions to your renewable energy development programme.

~~~~~~~~

~~~~~
BOOKS FROM THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS
Classic Books on Biomass and Alternate Energy
Book Descriptions - Order Blank Follows

NEW OR REVISED:

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, a companion to GENGAS.
ISBN 1-890607-08-8 50 pp. $4

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

COPY THIS ORDER BLANK - Biomass Energy Books
(Nicknames in Bold, see book descriptions, p. 1 and 2)

1. A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: $25

2. BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: $25

3. CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $10

4. BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: $25

5. GENGAS: THE SWEDISH CLASSIC ON WOOD FUELED VEHICLES: $30

6. SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $30

7. PRODUCER-GAS: ANOTHER FUEL FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT: $10

8. FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED
DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER: $30

9. EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES
FOR THE TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - MSW $25

10. DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: $12

11. WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: $4

12. CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLIFIED WOOD GAS GENERATOR: $15

13. BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: $30

14. THE PEGASUS UNIT: THE LOST ART OF DRIVING WITHOUT GASOLINE: $20

15. GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: $30

16. TREES: $1

17. TREE CROPS FOR ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION ON FARMS: $30

18. FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP,
CLEAN FUEL FROM FREE VEGETABLE OIL: $25

19. MODERN GAS PRODUCERS by N. E. Rambush (1923) $30

20. FREE ENERGY OF BINARY COMPOUNDS $20

NAME:

SHIPPING ADDRESS:
THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION

LINKS

To find out more about us, visit our websites at www.woodgas.com and www.
webpan.com/bef. (We hope to update the former ASAP, but....)

THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS
Classic books on Gasification, Pyrolysis and Combustion of Wood

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From tr at eeco.net Thu Dec 21 19:20:51 2000
From: tr at eeco.net (Tomek Rondio)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: In search of the best 3TPD gasifier
In-Reply-To: <320EB25168AAD4119F5000B0D0789FB40B16E2@ST01S001>
Message-ID: <200012220020.TAA09353@crest.solarhost.com>

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:04:23 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600

Hello Everyone,

Does anybody have a lead on an existing gasification technology capable of
effectively converting 3 to 4 Tons Per Day, @ 25 to 35% moisture, 1cm max,
animal wastes into heat (with the future possibility of using an IC
engine/generator)

We have an immediate need for 1,000 to 2,000+ units per year. We would like
to invest in or form a strategic alliance with a gasification company that
can provide a cost effective and environmentally responsible system. We
have no geographic constraints.

Thanks for the help everybody! . . . and HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

Tomek Rondio

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

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From IanWade at aol.com Fri Dec 22 07:14:51 2000
From: IanWade at aol.com (IanWade@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: In search of the best 3TPD gasifier
Message-ID: <e6.f24102a.27749d3b@aol.com>

Hi Tomek
The company you need is WVT in Germany
They make pyrolitic combusters.
I do not know if you can use them with animal wastes or not into an IC engine
But they will burn materials of up to 90% water
Jonathan
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From tk at tke.dk Fri Dec 22 08:50:16 2000
From: tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: Sv: GAS-L: In search of the best 3TPD gasifier
Message-ID: <006801c06c1d$b31c4680$048744c0@image.image.dk>

Dear Tomek

We produce a gasifier in the relevant size.

It can be produced in sizes from 100 kW and up to 2-5 MW electric.

It is a 2 stage gasifier with a dry gas cleaning system.
It produces about 15 mg tar pr m3 gas and has an efficiency of about 90 % biomass to gas and about 30-35 % biomass to electricity depending on the engine and moisture content of the fuel.

The price level for gasifier and engine for the smaller sizes is about 2500-3000 EURO pr kWel for the smaller sizes (300-500kWel) and about 2100 EURO pr kWel for a 4 MWel.

You can see the gasifier at our test facility in Denmark, if you wish.

best regards

Thomas Koch
TK Energi AS
Stationsvej 4
4621 Gadstrup
Denmark

Tel + 4546191554
Fax + 4546191538

Mail tk@tke.dk

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Tomek Rondio <tr@eeco.net>
Til: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Dato: 22. december 2000 01:12
Emne: GAS-L: In search of the best 3TPD gasifier

>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:04:23 -0800
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
>
>Hello Everyone,
>
>Does anybody have a lead on an existing gasification technology capable of
>effectively converting 3 to 4 Tons Per Day, @ 25 to 35% moisture, 1cm max,
>animal wastes into heat (with the future possibility of using an IC
>engine/generator)
>
>We have an immediate need for 1,000 to 2,000+ units per year. We would like
>to invest in or form a strategic alliance with a gasification company that
>can provide a cost effective and environmentally responsible system. We
>have no geographic constraints.
>
>Thanks for the help everybody! . . . and HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
>
>Tomek Rondio
>
>
>
>ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, (EEC)
>Renewable Energy Division http://www.eeco.net
>Pollution Control Division http://www.eeco.net/pollution
>E-mail eeco@eeco.net
>294 9th Avenue · San Francisco · California · 94118 ·
>USA
>TEL (415)386-6424 · FAX (415)386-6484
>
>EEC . . . for a cleaner and healthier natural environment through advanced,
>cost effective technologies.
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From tk at tke.dk Fri Dec 22 13:04:45 2000
From: tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: Sv: GAS-L: In search of the best 3TPD gasifier
Message-ID: <200012221804.NAA29006@crest.solarhost.com>

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:08:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01C06C0F.EAD65C40"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C06C0F.EAD65C40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Tomek

We produce a gasifier in the relevant size.

It can be produced in sizes from 100 kW and up to 2-5 MW electric.

I have attached at picture of our gasifier in our factory. It is about =
400kW thermal.

It is a 2 stage gasifier with a dry gas cleaning system.
It produces about 15 mg tar pr m3 gas and has an efficiency of about 90 =
% biomass to gas.

The price level for gasifier and engine for the smaller sizes is about =
2500-3000 EURO pr kWel for the smaller sizes (300-500kWel) and about =
2100 EURO pr kWel for a 4 MWel.=20

best regards

Thomas Koch
TK Energi AS
Stationsvej 4
4621 Gadstrup
Denmark

Tel + 4546191554
Fax + 4546191538

Mail tk@tke.dk

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Tomek Rondio <tr@eeco.net>
Til: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Dato: 22. december 2000 01:12
Emne: GAS-L: In search of the best 3TPD gasifier

>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:04:23 -0800
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
>
>Hello Everyone,
>
>Does anybody have a lead on an existing gasification technology capable =
of
>effectively converting 3 to 4 Tons Per Day, @ 25 to 35% moisture, 1cm =
max,
>animal wastes into heat (with the future possibility of using an IC
>engine/generator)
>
>We have an immediate need for 1,000 to 2,000+ units per year. We would =
like
>to invest in or form a strategic alliance with a gasification company =
that
>can provide a cost effective and environmentally responsible system. =
We
>have no geographic constraints.
>
>Thanks for the help everybody! . . . and HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
>
>Tomek Rondio
>
>
>
>ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, (EEC)
>Renewable Energy Division http://www.eeco.net
>Pollution Control Division http://www.eeco.net/pollution
>E-mail eeco@eeco.net
>294 9th Avenue =B7 San Francisco =B7 California =B7 =
94118 =B7
>USA
>TEL (415)386-6424 =B7 FAX (415)386-6484
>
>EEC . . . for a cleaner and healthier natural environment through =
advanced,
>cost effective technologies.
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Dec 22 17:57:21 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: New Edition: "Survey of Biomass Gasification - 2001"
Message-ID: <88.383fc9.277533c7@cs.com>

Dear Bioenergy/gasification/stovers:

(Apologies if you've seen this before - there was no subject on first
mailing. I am including stovers on this list, since in my opinion the only
clean stove is one that gasifies first.)

It has been just about a year since the Biomass Energy Foundation (BEF) and
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) published our book "Survey of
Biomass Gasification - 2000". I'm happy to say that the demand has far
outstripped our expectations - probably over 1000 books sold in 2000, which
is a lot for technical books. We have been surprised that so many requests
came in from the Netherlands and generally overseas, probably over half.
(This probably reflects local concern over fuel supplies. There is still
lots of cheap gasoline in the US compared to the rest of the world and we're
using it as fast as we can. We'll pay a LOT more attention when next time
the cost of oil doubles.)

I have decided to bring out a New Edition, "Survey of Biomass Gasification -
2001". I have a stack of minor corrections and some additions for the
database. I reprint the books in lots of 50 every few months. It will be a
simple matter for me to bring the Chapter 2 data base up to date and insert a
new Chapter 2. For those of you who have the first edition (probably will be
a collectors treasur), you can go to my website www.woodgas.com and download
the new database early next year and stick the new pages in place of the old
ones. .

Before I go to press, I would like to invite those of you already in the
database to check the facts and make whatever corrections are necessary. If
you are NOT in the database, and think you should be, please fill in the
enclosed questionnaire and send back E-posthaste - unless you want to wait
for
a possible 3rd edition, "... - 2002".

I have (again) run out of copies of "Survey .. 2000". I'd like to work on
this before the New Year, SO please have your additions and corrections in by
DEC. 27.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF PRESS

P.S. I have also attached our current book list.

QUESTIONNAIRE:

ORGANIZATION: (Official name of your organization)

CATEGORY: (Large gasifier systems >10MWe, (Chapter 3); Small scale
gasifiers (Chapter 4); research and support, (Chapter 5); Manufacturers and
Consultants.)

PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION: (Purpose of gasifier or business)

COUNTRY:

CONTACT: (Name of principal contact)

PHONE/FAX: (Phone No.; Fax in that order)

E-MAIL:

WEBPAGE: (If applicable)

ADDRESS: (Mailing address)

STATUS: (Just thinking, building, operating or in business a long time....)

FUELS: (Fuels tried or planned. People who claim "all fuels" are considered
naive in the art of gasification)

SIZES: (Sizes built or offered)

YEARS: (Years in business)

UNITS BUILT: (Number of units actually built or under construction)

COST: (Typical cost/kWth or kWe of system, preferably in 2001 dollars for
comparison)

COMMENTS: (Brag a little..)

~~~~~~~~

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Dec 22 17:57:48 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TOO DRY!?
Message-ID: <a8.ee30a0e.277533c9@cs.com>

Dear Alex and all:

In my naive youth I always presumed that since dry wood was better than wet,
REALLY dry wood would be best of all. Jay Shelton's tests dis-abused me of
that. It makes sense that if a piece of wood is very dry, the thermal
conductivity through it will make the whole piece emit pyrlolysis gases even
though only one end is heated. This then swamps the secondary (combustion)
air supply, resulting in higher emissions and reduced efficiency.

Later, with Alex, I tested our Turbo stove on wood chips with moisture
content of 0 to 30 % moisture. I was astounded to find that it worked
equally well on all levels - but that the charcoal production decreased from
25% to 5% as the wood got wetter. I presume that when the wood is wet it is
more difficult to ignite each succeeding layer and that therefore more of the
charcoal is burned to remove water. This is an auto-compensation effect that
I would not have expected.

It is generally accepted that wood for downdraft gasification must have less
than 20% moisture. However, one should question whether <5% would be good.
If one has a waste heat dryer one could easily dry to <1% MC, but it may not
be a good idea.

Onward... TOM REED

In a message dated 12/20/00 5:37:07 AM Mountain Standard Time,
english@adan.kingston.net writes:

<<
It is an interesting question. Early work on air tight stoves, late
1970's by Jay Shelton, Solid Fuels Encyclopedia, found that dry wood,
dryer than normal seasoned wood I think (no numbers in my head)
actually had higher emissions because the wood pyrolysed faster,
resulting in insufficient air, or fuel rich conditions. Even if
there were enough air this would have pushed flames up into the
cooler quenching regions of the stove or stove pipe.

Although this was described in the old airtight stoves, this fuel
rich condition can of course dramatically increase emissions from any
combustion device.

Let us know if you find the data.
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Dec 22 20:13:29 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification in Steam Locomotives
Message-ID: <fd.133a15.277553b4@cs.com>

Dear John Davies:

I need to know how big your model is and what kind of burner you have before
I can suggest a gasifier.

One thing for sure. Wood chips are nice for short runs, but wood pellets
have 2.5 times the density and are easy to feed and use. We buy them for
$2.50/40 lb bag here in the states.

I regularly gasify the pellets in a 3 inch diameter gasifier for cooking...

Yours truly TOM REED BEF

Have you read "Trustee from the Toolroom" (A model builder) by Nevil Shute?
You'd love it.

In a message dated 12/20/00 10:43:18 AM Mountain Standard Time,
jmdavies@xsinet.co.za writes:

<< Greetings to All,

As a new member , my interest in gasification of bio-mass lies in the steam
generation on a rail locomotive boiler. Trials using eng. Porta's GPCS ( Gas
Producer Combustion System ) concept have been conducted successfully using
coal in a miniature locomotive. As you have guessed my hobby is that of
building
miniature steam locomotives, and is heading in the direction of research and
development.

I am designing a new miniature prototype which will have the ability to burn
bio-mass, and would be interested in information as to what can be achieved
with this fuel. Wood chips would be the most likely fuel, but other types
are not ruled out. Enriching the fuel with a small percentage of used
lubricating or heavy fuel oil is also considered, as limited grate area
is available.

The main reason for gasification is to have a low air flow
through the firebed to prevent fuel entrainment in the gasses as the system
normally works under conditions of high draft. The other objective is to
achieve complete and clean combustion.

The system uses an upward gas flow through the fuel bed supported by a
grate, where limited primary air is admitted. Secondary air is admitted
above the firebed to burn the gas produced in a water-jacketed combustion
chamber where radiant heat generates most of the steam. The flue gasses
then pass through fire tubes in the same water enclosure generating more
steam, before passing through a steam superheater and water preheater.
Forced draft is created by an ejector using the exhaust steam from the
steam engine to suck the gasses through the system and eject them into
the chimney. This creates a draft and steam generation in proportion
to the steam consumption.

**************
With coal combustion the following occurs:

1. Primary air is limited to burn about 30 % of the fuel. This takes place
immediately above the grate producing CO2 and heat and a little CO.
with a temperature of 1200 deg. C being achieved. ( this temperature
would reach 1400 deg, but is lowered by the added steam, see item 3 )

2. The CO2 then reacts with the carbon above, using some of this heat to
produce CO.

3. A small volume of steam is admitted with the primary air which uses more
of the heat to cause a watergas reaction with unburned carbon in the bed to
produce H2 and CO.

4 During the reactions of 2 & 3 the bed cools down from 1200 TO 800 deg. C.

5 The hot gas now preheats the newest layer of fuel driving off the
volatiles thus enriching the gas further and leaving a carbon rich material
for the gas production stage.

6 The gas leaving the firebed is composed of the different gasses produced
and has a CO2 content of 4% and CO of 20% with the balance being Nitrogen,
Hydrogen, free carbon, and the volatile gasses from the fuel.

***************
Now I ask, can the same or similar reactions be achieved with Bio-mass ?
Your answers will help me to set up the correct conditions, when
the time comes for Trials.

I look forward to discussing this subject with you.
Thanking you and Seasons greetings,

John Davies,
Secunda,
South Africa.

>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Dec 22 20:14:11 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gasification of charcoal dust
Message-ID: <13.f1e88fd.277553a9@cs.com>

Dear ELK:

1) I believe the char-dust would have to be briquetted, at which point it is
an expensive commodity. (Sell it and buy gasoline?)

2) We ALWAYS start our gasifier on charcoal because it doesn't make any
tars. Once the gasifier is hot, we shift over to wood pellets, chips,
coconut shell or whatever.

3) At the beginning of World War II most gasifiers were charcoal, but making
charcoal wasted so much energy that they added appropriate cleanup and
switched to biomass.

As a result there isn't much written on charcoal - because it is so simple.
However, I do believe you would like to add SOME water to the air blast to
get CO and H2 and reduce the temperature of gasification or risk melting your
reactor.....

Good luck, TOM REED BEF/CPC

In a message dated 12/20/00 10:46:34 PM Mountain Standard Time,
elk@wananchi.com writes:

<<
Hi Tom;

I'm interested in following up on what Stassen of BTG mentioned- that a
diesel driven 40 KW generator could be powered by producer gas from 20
kg/hr. of charcoal.

Obviously I'm keen on using charcoal dust, or if necessary, by briquetted
charcoal dust.

Two things- 1): I should bone up on this- can you recommend one of your
books?

2) What comments do you have on this? Advice? Does this look do-able? Does
it look do-able by someone starting out cold with no knowledge of
gasification? Would a diesel engine have to be radically (expensively)
modified?

Thanks in advance;

elk
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Dec 23 09:51:57 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Energy Cost Calculator
Message-ID: <aa.edeb1c2.27761386@cs.com>

Dear Bioenergizers:

Fossil fuels have been our inheritance; now that they are well spent we need
to consider renewables. It has been a long dry period for those of us who
could see that fossil fuels would have a limited time on stage. In the last
few weeks

The cost of electricity in California has touched $0.50/kWh

The cost of natural gas has reached $10/MBtu or/GJ (~same thing).

How does this impact renewable fuels? It is difficult to make comparisons,
since each fuel has its own energy content and price structure. The
following table is meant to bring them all together in $/MBTU (for US) which
is approximately $ GJ for the rest of the world. (Note: The tables look
fine on my compuserve full screen display. If they don't look good in your
full page display I will download the Excel file on request.)

CONVENTIONAL COST 1990 1990 2000 2000
2000/ 1990
UNITS MULTIPLIER COST COST COST COST
MBtu/CU $/ $/Mbtu $/ $/Mbtu
Ratio
FOSSIL Comm ~GJ Comm ~GJ
Electricity $/kWh 293 $0.05 $14.65 $0.50
$146.50 10
Natural Gas $/MBtu ~ $GJ 1 $2.00 $2.00 $10.00
$10.00 5
Propane $/gal 8.1 $1.00 $8.10 $2.00 $16.20
2
Gasoline $/gal 8.1 $1.20 $9.72 $1.60
$12.96 1.3
Heating Oil $gal 7.3 $1.00 $7.30 $2.00
$14.60 2
Coal $/ton 0.035 $4.00 $0.14 $10.00
$0.35 2.5

RENEWABLE
Wood $/ton 0.063 $40.00 $2.50 $60.00
$3.75 1.5
Pellets $/bag 3.125 $4.00 $12.50 $3.00
$9.38 0.75
40 lb bag
Pellets $/ton 0.0625 $80.00 $5.00 $50.00
$3.13 0.63
(Wholesale)

The table uses a multiplying factor of MBtu/Commercial Units to convert
commercial costs into $/MBtu (or GJ). It includes reasonable values for 1990
and spot current 2000 (2001?) prices. It then ends with the ratio of year
2000 energy prices to 1990 prices, showing the current increase in energy
prices.

I have been interested in densified biomass fuels since 1977 and waiting for
them to become "commercial". I have been using bags of sawdust wood pellets,
surely the most expensive way to buy energy in my stoves and gasifiers. In
1990 the wood pellet stove began to appear in US markets. By 2000 they were
quite common, so the pellets are available in larger hardware stores at $2.50
to $3/bag. Pellets are the only fuels whose prices have decreased in the
decade. By the bag is still pricey compared to some coal, but better than all
other fossil fuels. Anyone using a lot of pellets will probably buy by the
ton.

One reason for the low increase in renewable fuels is that it probably
doesn't factor in the increase costs of producing them using fossil fuels -
yet. So wait a year and see what happens to them. Still, the trends favor
renewables.

Yours truly,

Tom Reed THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From boiler at execulink.com Sat Dec 23 10:32:11 2000
From: boiler at execulink.com (Rick Bell)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Energy Cost Calculator
In-Reply-To: <aa.edeb1c2.27761386@cs.com>
Message-ID: <000a01c06cf4$5b0a5e00$c109efd1@rickbell>

Please forward copy of excel file, merry xmas
----- Original Message -----
From: <Reedtb2@cs.com>
To: <GASIFICATION@crest.org>; <STOVES@CEST.org>; <BIOENERGY@crest.org>;
<ETHANOL@crest.org>; <BIOCONVERSION@crest.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 9:41 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Energy Cost Calculator

> Dear Bioenergizers:
>
> Fossil fuels have been our inheritance; now that they are well spent we
need
> to consider renewables. It has been a long dry period for those of us who
> could see that fossil fuels would have a limited time on stage. In the
last
> few weeks
>
> The cost of electricity in California has touched $0.50/kWh
>
> The cost of natural gas has reached $10/MBtu or/GJ (~same thing).
>
> How does this impact renewable fuels? It is difficult to make
comparisons,
> since each fuel has its own energy content and price structure. The
> following table is meant to bring them all together in $/MBTU (for US)
which
> is approximately $ GJ for the rest of the world. (Note: The tables look
> fine on my compuserve full screen display. If they don't look good in
your
> full page display I will download the Excel file on request.)
>
> CONVENTIONAL COST 1990 1990 2000 2000
> 2000/ 1990
> UNITS MULTIPLIER COST COST COST COST
> MBtu/CU $/ $/Mbtu $/ $/Mbtu
> Ratio
> FOSSIL Comm ~GJ Comm ~GJ
> Electricity $/kWh 293 $0.05 $14.65 $0.50
> $146.50 10
> Natural Gas $/MBtu ~ $GJ 1 $2.00 $2.00 $10.00
> $10.00 5
> Propane $/gal 8.1 $1.00 $8.10 $2.00
$16.20
> 2
> Gasoline $/gal 8.1 $1.20 $9.72 $1.60
> $12.96 1.3
> Heating Oil $gal 7.3 $1.00 $7.30 $2.00
> $14.60 2
> Coal $/ton 0.035 $4.00 $0.14 $10.00
> $0.35 2.5
>
> RENEWABLE
> Wood $/ton 0.063 $40.00 $2.50 $60.00
> $3.75 1.5
> Pellets $/bag 3.125 $4.00 $12.50 $3.00
> $9.38 0.75
> 40 lb bag
> Pellets $/ton 0.0625 $80.00 $5.00
$50.00
> $3.13 0.63
> (Wholesale)
>
> The table uses a multiplying factor of MBtu/Commercial Units to convert
> commercial costs into $/MBtu (or GJ). It includes reasonable values for
1990
> and spot current 2000 (2001?) prices. It then ends with the ratio of year
> 2000 energy prices to 1990 prices, showing the current increase in energy
> prices.
>
> I have been interested in densified biomass fuels since 1977 and waiting
for
> them to become "commercial". I have been using bags of sawdust wood
pellets,
> surely the most expensive way to buy energy in my stoves and gasifiers.
In
> 1990 the wood pellet stove began to appear in US markets. By 2000 they
were
> quite common, so the pellets are available in larger hardware stores at
$2.50
> to $3/bag. Pellets are the only fuels whose prices have decreased in the
> decade. By the bag is still pricey compared to some coal, but better than
all
> other fossil fuels. Anyone using a lot of pellets will probably buy by
the
> ton.
>
> One reason for the low increase in renewable fuels is that it probably
> doesn't factor in the increase costs of producing them using fossil
fuels -
> yet. So wait a year and see what happens to them. Still, the trends
favor
> renewables.
>
> Yours truly,
>
> Tom Reed THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sat Dec 23 15:17:59 2000
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Widening the discussion....
Message-ID: <000f01c06d1b$f9a5a160$559636d2@graeme>

Dear Bioenergy and Gasification Colleagues,

The recent discussion of global warming, carbon sinks, forestry fires,
insect infestations etc. Is only ongoing evidence that the planets' forest
ecology is changing. Of course there are many issues we could pick on to
prove this or that point, but that doesn't solve the need to restore the
forests with a more productive species.

Your concern is enough to create change if you don't mind extending yourself
and not expect others to pick up the work. Likewise the cost is also at
your expense for government driven policies are too slow and usually attract
the least appropriate co-ordinators. Here in New Zealand we have a forest
resource based on the Pinus Radiata, and the annual cut is increasing.
These forests are not only the old state plantations, but privately owned
far forests investment groups, and speciality hardwood plantations promoted
through the New Zealand Farm Forestry Association.

On a smaller scale again, we have our Small Landowners Association
throughout the country and a wide variety of trees are being planted on
areas hardly able to grow grass.

Having been part of this regeneration of non productive farm land, it is
possible to bring this experience to the present time and share it with you.
Just to show that nature is alive and well (despite our efforts) I have
taken a few photographs this week (19th December 2000) of trees we planted
and their growth in 23 years. You will find them on the Fluidyne Archive,
which I use to illustrate points of discussion for our gasification group.

http://members.nbci.com/whitools/

http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/whitools/forestry.htm

Don't despair at our environmental situation, initiate something personally.
The only ones "Running on Empty" are those just talking about it. My very
best wishes to you for the Festive Season.

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From LINVENT at aol.com Sat Dec 23 19:14:51 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Widening the discussion....
Message-ID: <23.5344936.2776976e@aol.com>

Dear gasification group,
What if the concerns about various "greenhouse gases" were wrong? What
if the sun was merely going through a cycle or two of higher or lower output?
What if the apparent climatic changes were merely natural effects? Remember,
there is coal in Antartica and other places where it would seem unusual.
I have seen the list of emission credits which range from
$7900-19,000/ton/year for NOx in various air quality districts. Various forms
of nitrogen cause significant plant growth and therefore would increase CO2
uptake. Sulfur is singularly a significant plant growth nutrient. SOx is
beneficial to plants after some conversion and some forms are directly usable
for significant plant use. CO2 is so highly soluble in water than rain will
wash it out very quickly. A slight increase in CO2 will dramatically increase
plant growth, therefore these two simple factors may very well be excellent
regulating mechanisms for atmospheric pollutants.
Global warming? If the globe heats up, there will be more cloud formation
from oceanic higher evaporation rate and the clouds will reflect the solar
input heat back into space, cooling the atmosphere. Man's polluting clouds
will reflect heat back into space also, perhaps not as much as they tend to
be darker, however, we in New Mexico see a white smog cloud from LA,
particularly if you watch it as you fly into LA. These all seem to be
regulating systems which balance out each other quite well and natural
systems.
The point of all of this is that man may be taking very disruptive and
highly uneconomic steps for unproven and limited benefits. Notwithstanding
the benefits of gasification to the role of reduced Carbon contribution to
the atmospheric equation, I cannot see taking irrational and unproven steps
to load the economy down at this point. Perhaps the most economic step would
be to put power plant outputs into greenhouses and use the valuable CO2
before it got diluted.
The present "crisis" in energy costs on the west coast is not caused by
deregulation as some would like to think, but by a series of events which
occurred some time ago such as increased regulatory controls on power plants,
restricted natural gas pipeline capacity due to NIMBY, and other factors, and
11,000 megawatts of plants being down due to retrofits and other reasons, all
at once. The pressure for returning to a regulated economy will not solve the
problem.
Right now, there are more gas turbines on order than there are pipe lines
and gas supply contracts to supply them. There is a huge and vast reserve and
supply of fossil fuel which will be developed when the regulatory and
economic conditions are right. This will still be a limited factor in the
alternative energy field, a sad but true situation. Unless the current blip
in prices is sustained, the financial world will not take notice and do
anything about it. They control the system. More sad and true.

Have a merry Christmas and a great New Year.

Tom Taylor
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Dec 23 19:27:20 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: SALT - Sloping- Agricultural- Land-Technology
Message-ID: <4c.e8a1d2c.27769a6b@cs.com>

Dear Ray:

I hope you don't mind my forwarding your letter with my blessings to our
readers at CREST.org. CREST is the Center for Renewable Energy and
Sustainable Technology, where gasification and stoves are extensively
discussed, but not much on enhanced PRODUCTION of biomass. Visit their site
at www.crest.org and join any of their groups that appeal to you.)

Dear all:

I met Ray Wijewardene at the STOVE conference in Pune last month. He is
multi-faceted (graduate of Cambridge - the one in England, not US). He is
particularly interested in increasing production of biomass as a fuel - a
subject all us consumers of biomass need to pay attention to and not get
ahead of.

Wish him well....

TOM REED BEF/CPC

In a message dated 12/23/00 1:42:47 AM Mountain Standard Time,
raywije@eureka.lk writes:

<<
Greetings Tom... and thank you for the greatly- appreciated opportunity to
meet you in Pune and learning from that excellent meeting of minds and
interests. By separate mail I am sending your organisation an order for more
books on biomass related subjects... and particularly on methanol over which
my interest was fired by Harry's demonstration. I've written promptly to
Hrry, for more information and recieved a brief response from a member of
his family to which I responded with much data from Sri Lanka... but then
heard nothing more!

I am glad you found your visit to ICRAF interesting ...also as an extension
of what I was saying at Pune. The technique of growing maize etc. between
avenues of (usually NF-nirogen-fixing)trees was termed 'avenue-cropping' and
was earlier known in Indonesia. It was 'researched' at IITA (the
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture... where I too served as
'principal scientist' - ag-engineer for nearly a decade in the '70s)
It spread throughout TROPICAL Africa (Kenya and ICRAF included) and Asia and
Central-America .. as a means for - more sustainably - growing rain-fed
(upland)crops (eg. maize and beans etc., by maximizing the coverage of the
soils with mulch left-over from the preceding crop and the mulch lopped from
NF trees grown in the hedgerows.

This mulch also minimised the loss of soil from erosion (one of the major
causes of diminishing and lost fertility on rain-fed lands)and greatly
helped add to its fertility.

In the Philippines the program of avenue cropping (AC) was extended as SALT
(Sloping Agricultural Land Technology)by the Mindano Baptist Mission and
taken again into Indonesia and Sri Lanka and Burma as a technology for the
restoration of eroded hill-sides which are encountered all over tropical
Asia (and also around Pune!!) We sent several teams there from S'Lanka and
have a very active program going with the tea plantations ... much of it
recorded on video, as also on 'papers'. The local subsidiary of BAT (British
America Tobacco) extended it very actively throughout thousands of acres of
eroded hillsides in the area west of Kandy in S'Lanka and it won them the
first prize in the internationally renowned World-Aware Contest in 1998.

I was greatly honoured to deliver a lecture on the subject at the renowned
lecture hall of the Royal Institution in London (where famous scientists
such as Sir Humphrey Davy, Sir James Dewar, Hermann von Helmoltz have
lectured... even Albert Einstein!) when the CTC Ceylon Tobacco Company (to
which I was honoraray consultant for the program) accepted their very
prestigious award.

But there was always 'something' missing in the SALT / AC
programme... there was apparently no use for the woody sticks and branches
and tree-trunks left in abundance
after the lopping, and the realisation then came that this 'waste' material
would be valuable if only we could find a MARKET for it... and its use - in
coppiced form - as fuel-wood for electricity generation came up.

At this stage, please re-read my paper on GROWING OUR OWN ENERGY which I
trust will be printed in the proceedings of our meeting. I shall be willing
to email a copy to anyone really interested.

The technique of 'high-level-coppicing' (or POLLARDING as it is known to
foresters) was the key to the sustain-ability of the process, as one only
commences to lop the branches when the tree reaches head-height and then
only the branches which have achieved a diameter of about 35mm (1-1/2 inches
to the uninitiated)which is ideally-sized for fuel-wood and yet ensures the
smaller branches are retained on the tree ... mebbe for a further 3 or 4
months. (Money being 'banked' on the trees).. As the trees are planted some
1 by 2 metres apart (about 7,500 trees per hectare)one can usually
anticipate a continuing (dry-weight-yield) of 25 to 30 tonnes per hectare
per year (under typically Pune agro-climatic conditions)with a continuing
cover of the soil with the smaller loppings for mulch or animal-feed. But
the system needs 'extending' by a 'dedicated' organisation (eg.ARTI) with a
clear and attainable commercial market (such as we are trying to develop
here for fuel-wood-generated energy with our national electricity board)
Farmers are unlikely (and, quite naturally) NOT keen on investing their time
in the growing of trees for 'invisible' (or even 'perceive-able') long-term'
benefits. Ray Wijewardene

>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Dec 23 19:27:37 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: New technologies in steam emerging
Message-ID: <b7.9f1ec29.27769a67@cs.com>

Dear Skip:

Nice to have a steam enthusiast on board. I've said some negative things
about steam engines (5% efficiency) here. However, the 19th century was "the
age of steam" followed by the 20 C age of (cheap, plentiful) oil. Now that
we must get serious about alternate energies, we need to re-examine all the
technologies of the 19th C, adding on the 20th C material advances to get the
best mix for the 21st C.

I am not sure I understand the "Cerablanket" (aka Kaowool) furnace. Does the
Cerablanket come in contact with the wood? Or does the firebrick take the
mechanical forces of the wood firing in which case it seems unlikely that the
Cerablanket plays a "catalytic" role? Whichever it is, it sounds like you
are preheating the combustion air with energy that would be lost through the
insulation, a technique that could be used in stoves and gasification as
well.

Do you use rigidizer on the blanket?

I have been touting the use of insulation blanket and riser sleeves here for
four years, but I think most hackers are "insulated" from hearing me. I see
very little stress on insulation here or development of alternate insulations
for developing countries, even though the smaller the device the more
important the insulation (surface to volume increases at small size).

Keep us informed.....

TOM REED BEF/CPC
In a message dated 12/23/00 3:05:46 AM Mountain Standard Time,
Sensiblesteam@aol.com writes:

<<

Two things that I see on the very near horizon that puts steam back on top
both efficiency and cost wise in bio fuels.
First is catalized refractory. For years, I have been getting a wonderful
catalytic reaction using 'cera-blanket' as a liner in my wood burning
fireboxes. Now, by layering a layer of perforated firebrick, behind that a
layer of cerablanket, behind that thin steel plate that is perforated and an
airgap behind that with casing on the other side. This allows air to be
pumped from the casing thru the blanket and then thru the perf brick. We
are
talking small amounts here of air, but enough to ignite and glow. It is
similar to indoor propane heaters used today(ventless).
With such a reaction between the esters and carbon monoxide burning in such
a way as to really put out the i.r. rays, The firebox is improved in many
ways. Including smaller amount of headroom from fuel pile to cieling. This
allows fuel pile to be surrounded by the high radiation/refraction
refractory. In doing so, the fuel pile distills quite easily, and requires
far less incoming air thru the grate which is a big source of nox. The
gasses driven off the fuel pile can now be reignited in a controlled
situation and where most beneficial.
Of even bigger benefit, is this kind of firebox can utilize wood 3' or
even
longer. This signifigantly reduces material handling energy and cost
(hogging). It also makes hand firing feasable. That means a lot in third
world countries.

The biggest news for steam is electric valves. Finally, they are
commercially available. Volvo will put them out in a year. Valve timing on
a piston type steam engine is everything. Without getting too fancy
already,
I manufacture engines that eat far less steam than a turbine up to about
500hp. The cost is less than half also.
If I can operate the valve via electric sylinoid instead of mechanical, I
have infinite adjustment on cutoff and expansion which allows for perfect
governing and a consumption rate of 10-15lbs per hp, vs 50-70 on a turbine.
Again, this is in the up to 500hp bracket, but in the real world, biomass
falls into this catagory. Only the big lumbermills do it larger and they
are
not everywhere. And....they are more user friendly and cheaper.
I am making the statement now that the catalytic refractories and the
electric valving will become the foundation for new technologies in the
combustion of bio fuels. If you do the math, you will see that the fuel
rates come close to diesel engines, but without all the hassles. Boilers
are
more versatile as diesel engines are limited to mainly motive powers and
electricity is the main one. While a boiler can give you the means of
production and manufacturing. This means a genuine return on investment.
...it could be that the grant process will become history. :)

Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam International
www.sensiblesteam.com
www.apin.com.pe
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Sat Dec 23 21:44:15 2000
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Widening the discussion....
In-Reply-To: <23.5344936.2776976e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDAEEOCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

Dear All,

There must be little doubt that the "Greenhouse" effect is real. After all
why would thousands of scientists, research institutions and corporates
around the world be receiving large sums of public monies to fund the
research to identify solutions ? Surely not job security for those
involved, or new policy generated economic growth ??

I must say I have yet to find any convincing evidence that any current
global climatic differences can be attributed to human actions, still the
precautionary principle should apply ...... (which states decision makers
must be at all times negative where they don't personally know the answers).

My own view is based simply on good resource management and environmental
care. Decision making based on all the values present in natural systems
and ensuring none are lost, recognising that we are part of these systems
(not outside it). For these reasons alone I would support bioenergy
research.

At the end of the day the "little people" will make the biggest difference,
they are the largest market and have the greatest need whilst also having
the committment to the land. A 100MW power plant is nice and efficient
(from the corporate profit view) but 200 small plants accessing the diffuse
biomass resource, putting out 500kW each achieves the same end in terms of
generating capacity, even if the profits are retained by the operators
through their labours (OOPS!).

Lots of challenges here including integrating these hundreds of "island"
generators into a national grid. The benefits though are far greater than
the sum of its parts, particularly any "greenhouse" considerations.

Cheers, into the true millenium

Peter
OOPS - Owner Operated Power Systems

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Sat Dec 23 23:46:04 2000
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification in Steam Locomotives
In-Reply-To: <fd.133a15.277553b4@cs.com>
Message-ID: <000801c06d63$44fd1340$7dd4ef9b@p>

Dear Tom and list members,

My answers below should clarify my needs.

> I need to know how big your model is and what kind of burner you have
before
> I can suggest a gasifier.

This is a steam, railroad locomotive boiler furnace. The locomotive is
expected to be about 5% heat efficient, ( about 1/3rd of that which can be
achieved with a full size locomotive) with a maximum output of 3 HP of
which means that the gasifier will have to produce about 60HP heat
equivalent.

The gasifier is already there in the form of the conventional firebox. i.e.
the firebed over a grate with a flame combustion area above it. Gasification
is achieved by limiting the air to the grate, and adding some steam to
effect a watergas reaction, to increase the heat value of the gas. The
burner is the fuel bed surface over which air is jetted to cause turbulent
mixing with the gasses and total combustion.
The equipment is not negotiable. It is a case of controlling air and steam
in the right quantities at the different stages. And driving the system at a
rate which produce the required heat. The thought is to replace coal
with an environmentally friendly bio-mass.

With coal as a fuel, the grate area will be about 80 square inches,
naturally this area will have to be increased by about 2 times for biomass,
the maximum area available. The available depth for the fuel bed is 8" with
fuel being added relative to the rate of consumption, which is very variable
and intermittent.

This is a multistage process taking place in a single enclosure.
If one starts at the top working downward against the flow the stages are as
follows:

1 Hot gasses of combustion enter firetubes to generate steam.

2. Gasses are combusted by mixing with hot air, radiant heat is absorbed by
a water jacket to produce steam.

3 Volatiles are driven off the newest fuel added, by the rising hot gasses
and radiant heat from the flame above, forming a carbon rich residue.

4 CO2 is converted to CO by the temperatures present, A water gas reaction
also takes place here, reducing the fuel to about 30% of the original mass.
This zone is about 3/4 of the bed depth.

5 the remaining carbonaceous mass is burned with air producing heat and CO2
which allows stages 3 & 4 to take place.

6 Limited, preheated air, and steam is admitted through the grate to allow
normal combustion of enough carbon to produce sufficient heat for the
producer gas and water gas reactions.

This is how it works with coal. Can it be made to work in the same way with
wood chips?

> One thing for sure. Wood chips are nice for short runs, but wood pellets
> have 2.5 times the density and are easy to feed and use. We buy them for
> $2.50/40 lb bag here in the states.

These are not available here, wood chips would be a more environmentally
friendly alternative to the cheap and plentiful coal available here.

> I regularly gasify the pellets in a 3 inch diameter gasifier for
cooking...

My need is to generate steam in large quantities for short periods of time,
I guess that this system would be equivalent to a gassifier with a cross
section of about 2 sq ft, being driven hard by a forced draft.

Wishing you a happy Christmas,

John Davies.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From tmiles at teleport.com Sun Dec 24 00:04:41 2000
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Happy Holidays
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20001223205147.00d29480@mail.teleport.com>

Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to ALL. Thank you all for your
participation and support of the Bioenergy Lists.

Tom Miles
Bioenergy Lists Administrator
Thomas R Miles tmiles@trmiles.com
Technical Consultants, Inc. 503-292-0107
1470 SW Woodward Way 503-292-2919(fax)
Portland, OR 97225 USA www.teleport.com/~tmiles

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Dec 24 09:04:27 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: GW revisited.
Message-ID: <11.d94b8cc.277759c7@cs.com>

Dear Tom Taylor and all:

Your main point on global warming, though not stated, is that there are so
many factors not taken into account by the acolytes. My point too, and here
are a few more ponderables..

1) The world was in good shape for LIFE and the living (except for
occasional great extinctions) for the last 200 Million years. That's when we
reduced the CO2 from a few % to 300 ppm. Unfortunately, Nature's recycling
scheme was only 99.9% perfect and she accidentally stored so much carbon in
the ground in the form of coal and oil that the CO2 in the air was an
insufficient blanket to keep us warm. The ice ages began to develop 4
million years ago and have blanketed the earth for 90% of the last 4 million
years, even though we are only dimly aware of it in this unprecedented
interglacial period of 12,000 years.

2) Fortunately, the glaciers stirred the life forms so much that they
produced ... HUMANS... with a meagre intelligence that could learn to extract
the buried carbon and return it to the atmosphere. We have digged and delved
with might and main to put it back and have only raised the level 3%, but we
are moving in the right direction and could just have averted or postponed
the next glacier.

3) The end of cheap oil is upon us, so no doubt we will be more diligent in
using the remaining fossil fuels more carefully and integrating them with
renewables where necessary.

So, enjoy the end of the short but happy fossil fuel era

and stop worrying about Global Warming and start having a

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, From the Biomass Energy
Foundation
and Tom Reed

In a message dated 12/23/00 5:05:36 PM Mountain Standard Time,
LINVENT@aol.com writes:

<<
Dear gasification group,
What if the concerns about various "greenhouse gases" were wrong? What
if the sun was merely going through a cycle or two of higher or lower
output?
What if the apparent climatic changes were merely natural effects? Remember,
there is coal in Antartica and other places where it would seem unusual.
I have seen the list of emission credits which range from
$7900-19,000/ton/year for NOx in various air quality districts. Various
forms
of nitrogen cause significant plant growth and therefore would increase CO2
uptake. Sulfur is singularly a significant plant growth nutrient. SOx is
beneficial to plants after some conversion and some forms are directly
usable
for significant plant use. CO2 is so highly soluble in water than rain will
wash it out very quickly. A slight increase in CO2 will dramatically
increase
plant growth, therefore these two simple factors may very well be excellent
regulating mechanisms for atmospheric pollutants.
Global warming? If the globe heats up, there will be more cloud
formation
from oceanic higher evaporation rate and the clouds will reflect the solar
input heat back into space, cooling the atmosphere. Man's polluting clouds
will reflect heat back into space also, perhaps not as much as they tend to
be darker, however, we in New Mexico see a white smog cloud from LA,
particularly if you watch it as you fly into LA. These all seem to be
regulating systems which balance out each other quite well and natural
systems.
The point of all of this is that man may be taking very disruptive and
highly uneconomic steps for unproven and limited benefits. Notwithstanding
the benefits of gasification to the role of reduced Carbon contribution to
the atmospheric equation, I cannot see taking irrational and unproven steps
to load the economy down at this point. Perhaps the most economic step would
be to put power plant outputs into greenhouses and use the valuable CO2
before it got diluted.
The present "crisis" in energy costs on the west coast is not caused by
deregulation as some would like to think, but by a series of events which
occurred some time ago such as increased regulatory controls on power
plants,
restricted natural gas pipeline capacity due to NIMBY, and other factors,
and
11,000 megawatts of plants being down due to retrofits and other reasons,
all
at once. The pressure for returning to a regulated economy will not solve
the
problem.
Right now, there are more gas turbines on order than there are pipe
lines
and gas supply contracts to supply them. There is a huge and vast reserve
and
supply of fossil fuel which will be developed when the regulatory and
economic conditions are right. This will still be a limited factor in the
alternative energy field, a sad but true situation. Unless the current blip
in prices is sustained, the financial world will not take notice and do
anything about it. They control the system. More sad and true.

Have a merry Christmas and a great New Year.

Tom Taylor >>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Dec 24 09:04:30 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Energy Cost Calculator
Message-ID: <ea.f211146.277759d5@cs.com>

Here it is...

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bin00019.bin
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 17408 bytes
Desc: "fuel costs.xls"
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20001224/e8dfb649/bin00019.bin
From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Dec 24 09:05:06 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Info Request...
Message-ID: <87.4b9871c.277759dc@cs.com>

Hello Everyone,

Does anybody have a lead on a great gasification technology capable of
effectively converting 3 to 4 Tons Per Day, @ 25 to 35% moisture, 1cm max,
animal wastes into heat (with the future possibility of using an IC
engine/generator)

We have an immediate need for 1,000 to 2,000+ units per year. We would like
to invest in or form a strategic alliance with a gasification company that
can provide a cost effective and environmentally responsible system. We
have no geographic constraints.

Thanks for the help everybody! . . . and HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

Tomek Rondio

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

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

>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in Mon Dec 25 01:59:02 2000
From: parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Happy Holidays
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001223205147.00d29480@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0012251212580.27920-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ernet.in>

Hearty Recipracations from this Indian Group at IIT Bombay
Mrs Parikh

On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Tom Miles wrote:

> Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to ALL. Thank you all for your
> participation and support of the Bioenergy Lists.
>
> Tom Miles
> Bioenergy Lists Administrator
> Thomas R Miles tmiles@trmiles.com
> Technical Consultants, Inc. 503-292-0107
> 1470 SW Woodward Way 503-292-2919(fax)
> Portland, OR 97225 USA www.teleport.com/~tmiles
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Dec 25 10:02:26 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Right actions, wrong reasons?
Message-ID: <9d.f10a0e6.2778b8e0@cs.com>

Dear Peter:

Let me paraphrase your first paragraph.... "There must be little doubt that
the "Greenhouse" effect is real. After all why would thousands of
scientists, research institutions and corporates around the world be
receiving large sums of public monies to fund the research to identify
solutions ? Surely not job security for those
involved, or new policy generated economic growth ??"

"Surely COLD FUSION must be real! After all, why would...... ETC" (I might
add that cold fusion was cooked up by an ex Aussie from Flinders U.)

I call it the Lemming effect. Most people don't have enough understanding of
the physical universe in their heads to evaluate the data turned out by other
people (who may not have enough....) who have been convinced by other people
()..... ETC.

There was a big flap with millions of dollars spent on a new form of water
invented by the Russians.

Caterpiller Tractor spent lots of money on "burning water" with Rudy
Gunnerman.

~~~~~

So, this world needs a few independent thinkers to comment that the King Has
No Clothes On!

Even if sometimes they aren't sure.

And, I agree that we should all be doing what the GW gand wants us to do for
the practical reasons that it will save money, save the environment and save
fuel for our posterity.

But I don't agree that we should be doing the right things for the wrong
reasons.

Best of the best...

TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 12/23/00 7:55:30 PM Mountain Standard Time,
p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au writes:

<<
Dear All,

I must say I have yet to find any convincing evidence that any current
global climatic differences can be attributed to human actions, still the
precautionary principle should apply ...... (which states decision makers
must be at all times negative where they don't personally know the answers).

My own view is based simply on good resource management and environmental
care. Decision making based on all the values present in natural systems
and ensuring none are lost, recognising that we are part of these systems
(not outside it). For these reasons alone I would support bioenergy
research.

At the end of the day the "little people" will make the biggest difference,
they are the largest market and have the greatest need whilst also having
the committment to the land. A 100MW power plant is nice and efficient
(from the corporate profit view) but 200 small plants accessing the diffuse
biomass resource, putting out 500kW each achieves the same end in terms of
generating capacity, even if the profits are retained by the operators
through their labours (OOPS!).

Lots of challenges here including integrating these hundreds of "island"
generators into a national grid. The benefits though are far greater than
the sum of its parts, particularly any "greenhouse" considerations.

Cheers, into the true millenium

Peter
OOPS - Owner Operated Power Systems
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Dec 25 10:02:35 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification in Steam Locomotives
Message-ID: <96.dea3ee3.2778b8df@cs.com>

Dear John:

A major difference in converting to wood is that you won't need as much
steam, since coal typically makes 80% coke when it pyrolyses and biomass
makes only 20% charcoal when it pyrolyses, releasing the balance as easily
burned volatiles.

The steam moderates the reaction

C + Air ==> CO + HEAT (1500C)

to include

C + Steam ==> CO + H2 - HEAT (+28 kCal/mole C, VERY endothermic)

~~~~~~~
Typicall downdraft gasifiers produce 200,000-600,000 Btu/ft2-hr, so your 2
ft2 grate area could generate 1 M Btu/hr.

Don't know enough about the rest to comment....

Yours truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 12/23/00 9:37:25 PM Mountain Standard Time,
jmdavies@xsinet.co.za writes:

<<
Dear Tom and list members,

My answers below should clarify my needs.

> I need to know how big your model is and what kind of burner you have
before
> I can suggest a gasifier.

This is a steam, railroad locomotive boiler furnace. The locomotive is
expected to be about 5% heat efficient, ( about 1/3rd of that which can be
achieved with a full size locomotive) with a maximum output of 3 HP of
which means that the gasifier will have to produce about 60HP heat
equivalent.

The gasifier is already there in the form of the conventional firebox. i.e.
the firebed over a grate with a flame combustion area above it. Gasification
is achieved by limiting the air to the grate, and adding some steam to
effect a watergas reaction, to increase the heat value of the gas. The
burner is the fuel bed surface over which air is jetted to cause turbulent
mixing with the gasses and total combustion.
The equipment is not negotiable. It is a case of controlling air and steam
in the right quantities at the different stages. And driving the system at a
rate which produce the required heat. The thought is to replace coal
with an environmentally friendly bio-mass.

With coal as a fuel, the grate area will be about 80 square inches,
naturally this area will have to be increased by about 2 times for biomass,
the maximum area available. The available depth for the fuel bed is 8" with
fuel being added relative to the rate of consumption, which is very variable
and intermittent.

This is a multistage process taking place in a single enclosure.
If one starts at the top working downward against the flow the stages are as
follows:

1 Hot gasses of combustion enter firetubes to generate steam.

2. Gasses are combusted by mixing with hot air, radiant heat is absorbed by
a water jacket to produce steam.

3 Volatiles are driven off the newest fuel added, by the rising hot gasses
and radiant heat from the flame above, forming a carbon rich residue.

4 CO2 is converted to CO by the temperatures present, A water gas reaction
also takes place here, reducing the fuel to about 30% of the original mass.
This zone is about 3/4 of the bed depth.

5 the remaining carbonaceous mass is burned with air producing heat and CO2
which allows stages 3 & 4 to take place.

6 Limited, preheated air, and steam is admitted through the grate to allow
normal combustion of enough carbon to produce sufficient heat for the
producer gas and water gas reactions.

This is how it works with coal. Can it be made to work in the same way with
wood chips?

> One thing for sure. Wood chips are nice for short runs, but wood pellets
> have 2.5 times the density and are easy to feed and use. We buy them for
> $2.50/40 lb bag here in the states.

These are not available here, wood chips would be a more environmentally
friendly alternative to the cheap and plentiful coal available here.

> I regularly gasify the pellets in a 3 inch diameter gasifier for
cooking...

My need is to generate steam in large quantities for short periods of time,
I guess that this system would be equivalent to a gassifier with a cross
section of about 2 sq ft, being driven hard by a forced draft.

Wishing you a happy Christmas,

John Davies.

>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Dec 25 12:03:00 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Right actions, wrong reasons?
Message-ID: <fb.f6ed4ec.2778d528@aol.com>

Dear Tom Reed.
I had an invitation to meet with a retired chemistry PhD from Los Alamos
who had set up his own cold fusion lab in his basement in his very high end
Santa Fe residence. He had seen it work at Los Alamos and couldn't convince
his superiors to spend funds on it, so he worked on it on the side and when
retirement came up, he began full time work on it at his house. There is
still "black cold fusion research" being done at Los Alamos, off- budget work
with spare time and facilities.
Basically, he explained in our several hours of meetings and dinners that
cold fusion works, but sporadically and the reasons for it working or not
working are a matter of materials science, structural defects, crystal
lattice structures-unknown what the real reasons are, in palladium
particularly. Out of 6 pieces of palladium from the same original source,
only 1 will produce more energy than used in electrolysis. They have done
x-ray crystallography and electron microscopy and other methods to determine
the structural difference between the working pieces and the unperforming
samples. He had a tray of 30 or so pieces and one generated up to 15% more
energy than what was put into it. His laboratory equipment was quite
accurate and fully computer controlled for accurate data acquisition.
The good Dr. said that he had also worked on the NERVA project and the
subsequent nuclear fueled propulsion systems and that it would be doubtful if
we could repeat the work with as good a result today as was done back then.
Thought you might find this interesting....
Tom Taylor
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Dec 25 12:18:22 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: GW revisited.
Message-ID: <fc.2afd00.2778d8c1@aol.com>

In a message dated 12/24/00 7:56:13 AM, Reedtb2@cs.com writes:

<< Dear Tom Taylor and all:

Your main point on global warming, though not stated, is that there are so
many factors not taken into account by the acolytes. My point too, and here
are a few more ponderables..

3) The end of cheap oil is upon us, so no doubt we will be more diligent in
using the remaining fossil fuels more carefully and integrating them with
renewables where necessary. AND CREATING THE MOST SENSIBLE REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK AND ECONOMIC (TAX) STRUCTURE TO ENCOURAGE THIS WISDOM. IF WE TAXED
IMPORTS, ALTERNATIVES WOULD SPRING FORWARD.

More cheers for the upcoming new year....Tom Taylor

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From calsch at montana.com Mon Dec 25 12:28:23 2000
From: calsch at montana.com (Cal Schindel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Water + fuel mixes
Message-ID: <3A478165.A730DA9E@montana.com>

Tom Reed said: "Caterpillar Tractor spent lots of money on "burning
water" with Rudy Gunnerman."

I am not completely knowledgeable about what was happening with the
Gunnerman water + fuel mix, but don't believe there was a lot of
deception going on. Any internal combustion engine wastes a lot of heat
which get blown out the tail pipe. The Gunnerman process was creating
an emulsion of water plus fuel. What happens is the heat previously
wasted is now utilized to create steam inside the cylinder making the
cycle more efficient.

Studebaker pickup trucks back about 1948-1950 had a water injection
option from the factory which would increase mileage to sometimes 25
miles per gallon (at least that is what my uncles truck got). Previous
to that in WWII water injection was used to give brief bursts of extra
power on takeoff from short runways with bombers.

If Caterpillar took Gunnerman's fuel and tried to make it work, I doubt
that anyone was thinking they were really "burning water." They were
just extending fuel by making the burning process more efficient. The
obvious problem is what happens to the emulsified mix when it freezes.

Anyway, that is my take on the Gunnerman process.

Cal
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joacim at ymex.net Tue Dec 26 10:50:48 2000
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A couple of old articles
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012261640060.28994-100000@localhost>

I've taken the liberty of translating a couple of more ww2-articles on wood
gas. Both are at http://www.hotel.ymex.net/~s-20222/gengas/, and the new
ones are: one article about experiments carried out in Germany, among other
things, recycling exhaust heat ("German ideas on..."), and one article by
Hubendick (one of the authors of Gengas) commenting the former and related
things ("Gasifier efficiency"). Both articles are in postscript only. (I'm
not sure the equations etc would come out right in HTML.)

The method used by Lutz (first article) for drying fuel, could be applied
to a stratified downdraft gasifier too I think. The net flow of gases
would, for moist fuel, be /out/ to the condenser (as steam condenses), i.e.
it wouldn't affect the flow of air down the fuel hopper in an SD-gasifier,
rather improve it, by removing excess steam. It also opens up for
stabilising fuel moisture, by varying the amount of condensed steam.(?)
I find the thoughts on recycling exhaust heat intriguing; assume you can
effectively recapture half the exhaust heat from an IC motor, and put it
back into the gasification process, how would that affect efficiency
numbers?

Lutz work is also briefly mentioned in the article about the "monorator"
gasifier. I've only read this article recently, although I've seen it
before. I didn't think an article about wood gas from /1941/ would be worth
reading. I guess I was wrong. ;)

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Tue Dec 26 11:10:55 2000
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Right actions, wrong reasons?
In-Reply-To: <9d.f10a0e6.2778b8e0@cs.com>
Message-ID: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDGEFACAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

Dear Tom,

I have been accused of having independent thought before.....

Not necessarily correct, just a different, and sometimes wrong, perspective
and I am never sure of what I know.

Still if the King has no clothes on I say let him, so long as the Queen has
equal privileges.

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is a part of nature. Elephants
knock down regrowth forests because they can and it is convenient food, a
consequence is the open woodland eco system is maintained. Take away the
elephants and the system alters radically with very detrimental consequences
for dozens of species.

We don't have understand the grand plan to play our part. Of course it is
nicer if we do, but if our decisions are all based on what we think the Plan
is when in fact our knowledge is incomplete then all we end up with is
legislation, which is a little like punishing elephants because they like to
knock down trees...

The funny part is we think we are outside the system, controlling it. If
nature could laugh...(or rather if we could here her !)

As for cold fusion the theory goes a Big Oil Company bought the patent and
shelved it .....

By the way we Aussie's have a history of inventions. I wonder if we can get
a study funded on disproportionate intellectual contributions.

Yeah I know, someone else would get the grant.

Cheers for the new year,
Peter

-------------------
<snip>

So, this world needs a few independent thinkers to comment that the King Has
No Clothes On!

Even if sometimes they aren't sure.

And, I agree that we should all be doing what the GW gand wants us to do for
the practical reasons that it will save money, save the environment and save
fuel for our posterity.

But I don't agree that we should be doing the right things for the wrong
reasons.

Best of the best...

TOM REED BEF

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Tue Dec 26 11:10:56 2000
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TOO DRY!?
In-Reply-To: <a8.ee30a0e.277533c9@cs.com>
Message-ID: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDIEFACAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

Dear All,

If really dry wood results in more rapid emmission of pyrolysis gases,
producing them faster than they can be efficiently combusted in a
conventional stove I can see where this would be a problem. However isn't it
the aim of a gasifier to convert solid fuels into a more convenient form.

Wouldn't that make very dry fuels more efficient for this purpose ?

Cheers
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org
[mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of Reedtb2@cs.com
Sent: Saturday, 23 December 2000 8:47 AM
To: english@adan.kingston.net; gasification@crest.org; stoves@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: TOO DRY!?

Dear Alex and all:

<snip>

Onward... TOM REED

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From english at adan.kingston.net Tue Dec 26 13:06:43 2000
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TOO DRY!?
In-Reply-To: <a8.ee30a0e.277533c9@cs.com>
Message-ID: <200012261757.MAA08406@adan.kingston.net>

Peter,
You wrote:
> Wouldn't that make very dry fuels more efficient for this purpose ?

Yes, if it is designed for. You can review my report on a simple
pyrolyser/combustor based on dry wood pellets at
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/paperhtml/Punepaper2b.htm
I am always looking for constructive criticism.

The these test models using natural draft don't work at all for
high moisture fuels.

A fellow who builds chip fired boiler systems told me that the "one"
unit he had built for dry chips gave him more trouble than all the
other green chip units combined. I don't have any specific examples.

Alex

> Dear All,
>
> If really dry wood results in more rapid emmission of pyrolysis gases,
> producing them faster than they can be efficiently combusted in a
> conventional stove I can see where this would be a problem. However isn't it
> the aim of a gasifier to convert solid fuels into a more convenient form.
>
> Wouldn't that make very dry fuels more efficient for this purpose ?
>
> Cheers
> Peter
>
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From woolsey at netins.net Tue Dec 26 15:24:47 2000
From: woolsey at netins.net (Edward Woolsey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Energy Cost Calculator
In-Reply-To: <aa.edeb1c2.27761386@cs.com>
Message-ID: <LPBBIJOLHNAMNECGNMPMOEFICKAA.woolsey@netins.net>

Mr. Reed
I'd like that excel file.
Thank You and Happy Holidays to you and yours.
Ed Woolsey

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org
[mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of Reedtb2@cs.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 8:41 AM
To: GASIFICATION@crest.org; STOVES@CEST.org; BIOENERGY@crest.org;
ETHANOL@crest.org; BIOCONVERSION@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Energy Cost Calculator

Dear Bioenergizers:

The cost of electricity in California has touched $0.50/kWh

The cost of natural gas has reached $10/MBtu or/GJ (~same thing).

RENEWABLE
Wood $/ton 0.063 $40.00 $2.50 $60.00
$3.75 1.5
Pellets $/bag 3.125 $4.00 $12.50 $3.00
$9.38 0.75
40 lb bag
Pellets $/ton 0.0625 $80.00 $5.00 $50.00
$3.13 0.63
(Wholesale)

The table uses a multiplying factor of MBtu/Commercial Units to convert
commercial costs into $/MBtu (or GJ). It includes reasonable values for
1990
and spot current 2000 (2001?) prices. It then ends with the ratio of year
2000 energy prices to 1990 prices, showing the current increase in energy
prices.

I have been interested in densified biomass fuels since 1977 and waiting for
them to become "commercial". I have been using bags of sawdust wood
pellets,
surely the most expensive way to buy energy in my stoves and gasifiers. In
1990 the wood pellet stove began to appear in US markets. By 2000 they were
quite common, so the pellets are available in larger hardware stores at
$2.50
to $3/bag. Pellets are the only fuels whose prices have decreased in the
decade. By the bag is still pricey compared to some coal, but better than
all
other fossil fuels. Anyone using a lot of pellets will probably buy by the
ton.

Yours truly,

Tom Reed THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Tue Dec 26 16:32:33 2000
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification in Steam Locomotives
In-Reply-To: <96.dea3ee3.2778b8df@cs.com>
Message-ID: <00d801c06f82$260d2080$c8d4ef9b@p>

Hello Tom,

Thanks for this information. I will keep tuned to the site. I am sure that I
can learn a great deal be just following the threads.

Thanks ,
John.

> A major difference in converting to wood is that you won't need as much
> steam, since coal typically makes 80% coke when it pyrolyses and biomass
> makes only 20% charcoal when it pyrolyses, releasing the balance as easily
> burned volatiles.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Dec 26 20:36:32 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TOO DRY!?
Message-ID: <52.51b699d.277a9ef6@cs.com>

Peter and all:

Yes, bone dry wood would be most efficient in a gasifier - provided that it
was capable of accepting the larger quantities of fuel gas provided.
However, since most gasifiers are designed for >5% MC, most couldn't handle
the extra business....... Too much of a good thing.

TOM REED

In a message dated 12/26/00 9:03:08 AM Mountain Standard Time,
p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au writes:

<<
Dear All,

If really dry wood results in more rapid emmission of pyrolysis gases,
producing them faster than they can be efficiently combusted in a
conventional stove I can see where this would be a problem. However isn't it
the aim of a gasifier to convert solid fuels into a more convenient form.

Wouldn't that make very dry fuels more efficient for this purpose ?

Cheers
Peter
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Dec 26 20:36:44 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Water + fuel mixes
Message-ID: <df.e36f1cd.277a9efc@cs.com>

Dear Cal and all:

There is no doubt that a small amount of water (or alcohol) can greatly aid
the combustion process.

However, Gunnerman was marketing a process burning 50% water and naphtha. I
believe Caterpiller backed out later.

TOM REED

In a message dated 12/25/00 10:19:13 AM Mountain Standard Time,
calsch@montana.com writes:

<<
Tom Reed said: "Caterpillar Tractor spent lots of money on "burning
water" with Rudy Gunnerman."

I am not completely knowledgeable about what was happening with the
Gunnerman water + fuel mix, but don't believe there was a lot of
deception going on. Any internal combustion engine wastes a lot of heat
which get blown out the tail pipe. The Gunnerman process was creating
an emulsion of water plus fuel. What happens is the heat previously
wasted is now utilized to create steam inside the cylinder making the
cycle more efficient.

Studebaker pickup trucks back about 1948-1950 had a water injection
option from the factory which would increase mileage to sometimes 25
miles per gallon (at least that is what my uncles truck got). Previous
to that in WWII water injection was used to give brief bursts of extra
power on takeoff from short runways with bombers.

If Caterpillar took Gunnerman's fuel and tried to make it work, I doubt
that anyone was thinking they were really "burning water." They were
just extending fuel by making the burning process more efficient. The
obvious problem is what happens to the emulsified mix when it freezes.

Anyway, that is my take on the Gunnerman process.

Cal
The Gasification List is sponsor >>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Dec 26 20:36:45 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A couple of old articles
Message-ID: <d6.3a2d55.277a9ef8@cs.com>

Dear Joacim, Hub Stassen and all:

Joacim, thanks so much for your wonderful translations of WWII science which
was much better than 2001 in some ways.

Hub Stassen: One of the VERY best papers ever on biomass gasification was

Schlapfer, P. and Tobler, J., "Theoretical and Preactical Studies of
Operation of Motorcare on Woodgas", originally published in 1937, translated
into English by Hub Stassen.

If you can find this English translation, I would greatly appreciate your
sending a copy to me and I will be sure that it gets posted or distributed.

Thanks so much.

TOM REE BEF PRESS

Joacim
-
main(){printf(&unix["\021%six\012\0"],(unix)["have"]+"fun"-0x60);}
-- David Korn
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Dec 26 21:58:17 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Water + fuel mixes
Message-ID: <40.54a58b8.277ab21a@aol.com>

Dear Gassers,
The Army developed a diesel fuel which had a suspended water mix in it
and if a tank of it was hit with a missile or tracer, it would not burn much
less explode. Apparently someone figured out how to get the water into a
suspended form which would not precipitate or coalesce. I am not sure if it
would survive freezing. I saw a promotional film on it some time ago, but it
apparently has not gotten into wide spread use. Diesel with water is tough on
injectors.
Tom Taylor
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Thu Dec 28 02:29:28 2000
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TOO DRY!?
In-Reply-To: <52.51b699d.277a9ef6@cs.com>
Message-ID: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDIEFDCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

Thanks Tom and Alex,

This raises some interesting questions on design and application of
gasifiers using refined biomass fuels (as opposed to the expensive redesign
required everytime the fuel source changes characteristics).

Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org
[mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of Reedtb2@cs.com
Sent: Wednesday, 27 December 2000 11:25 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: TOO DRY!?

Peter and all:

TOM REED

In a message dated 12/26/00 9:03:08 AM Mountain Standard Time,
p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au writes:

<<
Dear All,

If really dry wood results in more rapid emmission of pyrolysis gases,
producing them faster than they can be efficiently combusted in a
conventional stove I can see where this would be a problem. However isn't
it
the aim of a gasifier to convert solid fuels into a more convenient form.

Wouldn't that make very dry fuels more efficient for this purpose ?

Cheers
Peter
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Thu Dec 28 02:29:34 2000
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A couple of old articles
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012261640060.28994-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDKEFDCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

Some of my favorite references are from the 1930's. Just because they
didn't have the material science didn't mean they had not thought problems
through.

Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org
[mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of Joacim Persson
Sent: Wednesday, 27 December 2000 1:54 AM
To: Gasification list
Subject: GAS-L: A couple of old articles

Joacim
-

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From mike at envirofuel.co.uk Thu Dec 28 15:01:39 2000
From: mike at envirofuel.co.uk (mike jones)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: pyrolysis temps
Message-ID: <001a01c07106$4afe5be0$8d07dbc3@john>

Can any one help with the folowing,
I am going to construct an externally heated
tube sealed at entrance and exit with a rotary valve to ensure air tight seal
and inside which there is an agitator that vigouresly moves
material around inside the tube to give maximum exposure to the
heat.

I want to feed saw dust into the reactor to turn it
into charcoal as a continous process and use the pyrolysis gases in an external
combustion device, the saw dust will be pre dried first.

What temp would any one recomend i keep the inside
of the reactor to give shortest reaction time.

Thanks
Mike jones

From aewgassifier at usa.net Thu Dec 28 21:58:56 2000
From: aewgassifier at usa.net (rama kota)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: [Business tieup ]
Message-ID: <200012290258.VAA24435@crest.solarhost.com>

CC: Reedtb2@cs.com, gasification@crest.org, owner-gasification@crest.org
X-Mailer: USANET web-mailer (34FM.0700.4B.01)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by crest.solarhost.com
id QAA07680

Dear Arvind,

We are manufacturer of Renewable Energy products more particularly Biomass
gasifiers. We are offering Gasifiers working on both solid biomass like wood
chips, Coconut shells, Cashew nutshells, Corn Cobs etc., and loose Biomass
like Rice Husk, groundnut husk etc. The range of gasifiers is from 5 KVA to
500 KVA. We are making both Engine mode systems for power generation as well
as Thermal Mode systems for Heating applications. Basically our Gasifiers are
down draft design. In
the smaller range systems, we offer 5 KVA, 10 KVA & 20 KVA Electrical Mode
gasifiers which are Compactly assembled on a skid and does not require any
foundation. We are offering a special system to meet the small energy needs
of
remote villages. It is called Multipurpose facility gasifier which is a 10 HP
Dual fuel diesel engine running on a wood gasifier. The shaft output will be
used to run 4 varieties of gadgets like Paddy Dehusker, Flour Mill, 5 KVA
Generator, Water pump, Corn Mill, Groundnut decorticator, Pounding Mill etc.
Using the locally available Biomass, the facility will be running. We are
offering Rice Husk gasifiers, which are continuously fed having an output of
100 KW and above only.

The gas generated can be burnt in a specially supplied Burner. The exhaust
gases from this flame can be diluted with cold air and the generated Hot air
can be used for drying applications. In case,power generation is required,
this gas can be Cooled & Cleaned and can be fed
to Dual fuel Diesel Engine/Genset for saving 70% diesel oil. The tar and
particulate content will be reduced to less than 100 PPM in case of
Electrical
Mode application. A 100 KW gasifier needs around 200 kgs of loose Biomass per
Hour and suiting the power needs, higher systems can be installed.

In general, in Thermal gasifiers,washing of Hot gas with water is not done.
However, in some applications this may be needed. For the type of material
you
are looking for, standard gasifiers may not be available anywhere. Some type
of R&D in to be done for it.We are sure that with our years of experience in
this field, we will be able to achieve it.

It may not be out of context to mention that we received the
prestigious DSIR-1999 National Award from Govt. of India, Department of
Scientific and Industrial Research for our Innovative R&D efforts in
Renewable
Energy Sector.

We are currently looking for overseas business in terms of tieup/technology
transfer utilising technological expertise for mutual benefit. Looking
forward
for a positive reply...

Attaching product list for your information in following mails.

Yours Sincerely
K.R.Suryanarayana.
608-Water Side view Drive
Black Lick-Ohio-43004.
USA.
Phone Res: 614-322-2348

Works:
G.M.Satyanarayana M.D. - Contact Person
Associated Engineering Works,
Gamini Compound, Main Road,
TANUKU-534 211 (A.P.)
INDIA.
P H O N E S : (O) 91-8819-22950 & 23410
HOME PHONE : 91-8819-24572
F A X : 91-8819-24801
OUR e-mail Id: aewgamini@rediffmail.com

____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From sigma at ix.netcom.com Fri Dec 29 11:39:54 2000
From: sigma at ix.netcom.com (sigma)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Interest in a joint venture business opportunity
In-Reply-To: <200012290258.VAA24435@crest.solarhost.com>
Message-ID: <000101c071b4$673ee140$c6ccf7a5@ix.netcom.com>

Hello Rama Kota:

I will start with "Happy New Year" and the hope this is the start of a long
and mutually beneficial relationship.

I read with interest your message to Arvind. The apparent capabilities of
your gasifier are of great interest, if it can process horse manure and
chicken manure, both of which have a high bedding (straw or shavings/sawdust
to manure) ratio. If you are not familiar with the nature of horse manure,
as generated in recreational horse stables and race tracks, I suggest you
visit one of the horse stables in the Columbus area, for a first hand view.
Your visit will reveal the problem and the opportunity we are pursuing.

We are currently working with a very wealthy group of recreational horse
owners, with the land and the money and the interest, in converting horse
manure to energy. Our target population is about 400,000 horses, located in
one of the wealthiest areas in this country. The average stable holds 40-60
horses. We are interested in both on-site and central-site, heat and power
installations.

We have been exploring some German built equipment but your gasifier appears
to better suited, if it can handle horse and chicken manure. I will discuss
the chicken manure situation with you later.

We have been in business since January 1985. I will send you a profile in
the near future.

If I have sparked your interest, please respond, ASAP, with an expression of
interest, via E-mail and send me, via priority mail, three copies of your
"product list", descriptive literature and data. If a Trade Secret
Agreement will make you more comfortable, let me know and I will send ( FAX)
one we use -- I just need your job title and the job title of
G.M.Satyanarayana M.D, to make it complete. After I have had an opportunity
to study your information, I would like to call you for a personal
discussion.

Best regards, Len

Len Walde, P.E.
Sigma Energy Engineering, Inc
Recycling Problems into Opportunities
for Agriculture, Industry and Commerce
through "Symbiotic Recycling" tm

Contact:
140 Spring Road, Orinda, CA
94563-3311
Ph: 925-254-7633
Fax: 925-253-9108 (Call if busy)
E-mail: sigma@ix.netcom.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "rama kota" <aewgassifier@usa.net>
To: <mvaravind78@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 6:58 PM
Subject: GAS-L: [Business tieup ]

**********************SNIP******************

Dear Arvind,

We are manufacturer of Renewable Energy products more particularly Biomass
gasifiers. We are offering Gasifiers working on both solid biomass like wood
chips, Coconut shells, Cashew nutshells, Corn Cobs etc., and loose Biomass
like Rice Husk, groundnut husk etc. The range of gasifiers is from 5 KVA to
500 KVA. We are making both Engine mode systems for power generation as well
as Thermal Mode systems for Heating applications. Basically our Gasifiers
are down draft design. In the smaller range systems, we offer 5 KVA, 10 KVA
& 20 KVA Electrical Mode gasifiers which are Compactly assembled on a skid
and does not require any foundation. We are offering a special system to
meet the small energy needs of remote villages. It is called Multipurpose
facility gasifier which is a 10 HP Dual fuel diesel engine running on a wood
gasifier. The shaft output will be used to run 4 varieties of gadgets like
Paddy Dehusker, Flour Mill, 5 KVA Generator, Water pump, Corn Mill,
Groundnut decorticator, Pounding Mill etc.
Using the locally available Biomass, the facility will be running. We are
offering Rice Husk gasifiers, which are continuously fed having an output
of100 KW and above only.

The gas generated can be burnt in a specially supplied Burner. The exhaust
gases from this flame can be diluted with cold air and the generated Hot air
can be used for drying applications. In case,power generation is required,
this gas can be Cooled & Cleaned and can be fed to Dual fuel Diesel
Engine/Genset for saving 70% diesel oil. The tar and particulate content
will be reduced to less than 100 PPM in case of
Electrical Mode application. A 100 KW gasifier needs around 200 kgs of
loose Biomass per
Hour and suiting the power needs, higher systems can be installed.

In general, in Thermal gasifiers, washing of Hot gas with water is not
done. However, in some applications this may be needed. For the type of
material you are looking for, standard gasifiers may not be available
anywhere. Some type of R&D in to be done for it.We are sure that with our
years of experience in this field, we will be able to achieve it.

It may not be out of context to mention that we received the prestigious
DSIR-1999 National Award from Govt. of India, Department of Scientific and
Industrial Research for our Innovative R&D efforts in Renewable Energy
Sector.

We are currently looking for overseas business in terms of tieup/technology
transfer utilising technological expertise for mutual benefit. Looking
forward for a positive reply...

Attaching product list for your information in following mails.

Yours Sincerely
K.R.Suryanarayana.
608-Water Side view Drive
Black Lick-Ohio-43004.
USA.
Phone Res: 614-322-2348

> Works:
> G.M.Satyanarayana M.D. - Contact Person
> Associated Engineering Works,
> Gamini Compound, Main Road,
> TANUKU-534 211 (A.P.)
> INDIA.
> P H O N E S : (O) 91-8819-22950 & 23410
> HOME PHONE : 91-8819-24572
> F A X : 91-8819-24801
> OUR e-mail Id: aewgamini@rediffmail.com

***********************SNIP**********************

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joacim at ymex.net Fri Dec 29 16:37:50 2000
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough
In-Reply-To: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDIEFDCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012290914341.28994-100000@localhost>

On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Peter M. Davies wrote:

> Thanks Tom and Alex,
>
> This raises some interesting questions on design and application of
> gasifiers using refined biomass fuels (as opposed to the expensive redesign
> required everytime the fuel source changes characteristics).

...and for unrefined fuel as well.

I did the little piece-of-wood-in-the-microwave-experiment a while ago. I
was curious about how dry the fuel I had really was. So I put a slice of it
in the micro. (birch, about ..let's see - I have it on the desk - 4cm
thick, and about 8cm diameter)

[Actually, I hope to get my hands on a precision scales one day - weigh a
sample, dry it in the oven, weigh it again and calculate the moisture
content from that. I used to do that with grain when I worked in a silo in
the late summers/autumns when I was a student. We had an electric moist
measuring device that we used for fast tests, but used a precision scales
and oven (regular lab oven, not microwave) when we needed precision
measurements. Later on, we got an automatic precision moist measuring
device which heated the sample with halogene lights and calculated the
moist level automatically. Much faster, and very convenient.]

I took it out every once in a while, looked at it, smelled at it.

The first minute or couple of minutes, nothing happened except it went
warmer. Then the oven was suddenly filled with fog. No smell, just water
vapour. So that was water being boiled out from the sample.

After a while, the fog seized, but soon after it started stinking like
@%$#&*. It was like getting smoke in your eyes, only there was no smoke at
all. I always thought that it was smoke particles that hurt ones eyes when
one gets smoke in them, but apparently it is some other transparent vapour,
acetum perhaps, maybe methanol, ammonium...? A mix of all of it?

At that point I was ready to throw it out, but decided to stand it just a
little longer, to see what would happen... I noticed a dark spot forming
at one end of the sample, halfway from the centre to the edge, and opening
the oven (rubbing my eyes intensly ;) I noticed a similar dark spot on the
opposite side. Then there was smoke. So I turned off the oven. Still smoke.
More smoke. I took it out the door. Still smoking. I wet it slightly to
cool it off and put it on the cold ground, and after a few minutes the
smoke seized.

So that was carbonisation in action then. Although I'd rather take the
microwave oven outdoors next time, it was interesting to see it close and
"live". It's rather impractical to take out fuel samples from a red hot
gasifier. ;)

After the sample had cooled down, I split it in half, and noticed a
carbonised cavity had formed within the sample. Now, since the piece of
wood wasn't completely dry to begin with, and an amount of water had left
it as steam, I assume there were no air-oxygen left in the wood. So this
little experiment illustrated self-carbonisation very well. All that was
added was heat, but only to the point of smoke coming from the sample.

What surprised me was the large amounts of smoke I got. Smoke consists of,
I suppose, what we call tars or tar fumes. So this is where the tar comes
from then. Nothing new of course. It just confirms theory.

It's obvious that this process can only be stopped by cooling the fuel down
(which isn't possible in a gasifier); it doesn't need air oxygen, and it's
an exothermical process (or it couldn't keep on vaporising all that tar,
for minutes after I took it out the microwave oven).

This phenomenon however has implications for the dynamic behaviour of a
gasifier. On heavy load, the gasifier produces heat, which dries and heats
the fuel to the point of self-carbonisation, but once the fuel has been
heated enough, /it won't stop producing tar fumes/. The flow of tar fumes
will then prevent the gasifier from sucking in air to either combust the
tar fumes, or keep the hearth temperature high enough to, if this is a
reality at all, crack the tars.

One perhaps somewhat paradoxal effect could be that a gasifier with
significant heat losses may have better dynamic behaviour than an "ideal"
gasifier. If the gasifier is so well insulated it simply cannot cool down
the carbonising fuel, the carbonisation process can't be stopped. If the
fuel is completely dry, there is also no water cooling the process, and
theoretically, it will go on until all available fuel is carbonised; like
dynamite in slow motion. ;) The wood will "explode" into smoke and charcoal,
so to speak. If there is moist in the fuel, the gasifier will instead turn
more (but not completely) into a water gas reactor when the load is stepped
down. This will cool down the hearth instead. (so will tar, I suppose.
Besides, carbonisation produces som 24 weight-percent of water, according
to a table in Hubendicks article:

1kg _dry_ wood heated to 400°C produces:
Charcoal: 0.38 kg with 81% carbon
Water: 0.24 kg
Tar: 0.16 kg
CO2: 0.09 kg
CO: 0.04 kg
H2: 0.04 kg
Acetum: 0.05 kg
Methanol: 0.01 kg

I think the solution must be to only heat "enough" of the fuel, not all of
it.

"Enough" should then be no more than such that the gasifier still can/will
suck in enough air and oxygen to keep the hearth temperature at an
acceptable level, i.e. producing significantly less "smoke" than the amount
of gases sucked away by the (idling) motor. If no air at all goes into the
process, the resulting gas will be the vapours in the table, i.e. 240g
steam, 160g tar, 90g CO2 etc... for each kg dry weight of fuel. The tar
leves will be tremendous. Without air going in, it won't be a producer gas
gasifier, rather a wood distillery, or (with plenty of water diluting the
other vapours) for a limited time, a water gas reactor.

So how can we heat just "enough" fuel at the time? "Enough" will vary
(lineary) with the load. At all loads, ideally, the gasifier should
carbonise fuel in the same pace it gasifies carbon. If self-carbonisation
only can be controlled by controlling temperature, temperature is what
needs to be controlled. (hmm. tautology of the day)

This is were Lutz' experiments come in handy, or rather the heat losses
from the, for our purposes luckily, hopelessly inefficient internal
combustion motor, come in handy:

Lutz circulated gases from and back to the fuel vessel. He cooled the
fumes, condensed steam, then heated them with exhaust gases to recapture
exhaust heat. So there we have a way of heating or cooling fuel at will.

Let's say we apply Lutz' devices to only a small portion of the fuel,
somewhere fairly close to the hearth. Lutz took out the gases at the lower
part of the fuel container, and put the dried & heated gases in at the top.
If both inlet and outlet are placed on the same level, close to the hearth,
we can heat and dry, or cool, a smaller portion of the fuel, and thus make
it easier to control the temperature of the fuel just before it enters the
hearth.

If we can control the temperature of that portion of the fuel, we can
control the carbonisation process, and by that, the amount of steam and
tar fumes generated from it. If the fuel is a bit too wet and cold, we can
dry it and heat it. If it is a bit too dry and hot and begin to
over-carbonise, i.e. "explode", we can cool it down.

We have three parameters to play with for actuators: Cooling, heating, and
flow. The minimum temperature is the outer temperature, and the maximum is
the exhaust gas temperature. We can cool the fuel all the way down
(theoretically) to the outer temperature, or heat it to the exhaust heat
temperature (again, theoretically). The former should be more than enough
to shut down carbonisation, and the latter (a few hundered °C) enough to
dry fuel and heat it to carbonisation temperature if necessary. We also
have a more or less constant heat flow from the hearth, assuming the hearth
has constant temperature, which is what is preferred.(?)

Lutz mentioned that he didn't get any improvement above a certain level of
gas flow though the condenser/heater (60 m³/h), but rather a degradation.
It seems to me he increased the flow to a point where the temperature was
about the same throughout the condenser/heater/fuel container system, and
"gained" only heat losses. He didn't mention dynamics. But then, process
control theory wasn't developed in 1941.

So, we can alter the temperature and moist level of the fuel, and we can add
temperature sensors at the outlet and inlet, to keep track of heat removed
and/or added. Maybe, if necessary, moist level of the fuel (at least a mean
value for all the fuel present above the hot zones), could be measured by
looking at the electrical properties of the fuel. The rest is algorithms
implemented in software on any plain cheap micro controller, plus some
valves with servos. (I don't know; maybe I ought to draw a simple outline
of how I picture it?)

What's missing, however, is data. For instance:

How, and how fast, does heat travel through the fuel from the hearth?
How, and how fast, is heat transferred to and from the fuel in a
condenser/heater system like Lutz used?
At what rate are tar fumes produced during carbonisation? How much, and at
what rate is heat generated during self-carbonisation?
How will the flow of tar fumes and steam affect reactions in the hearth?
All this data could be determined by experiments.

I believe it should be possible to build a fairly accurate model of the
dynamics in a gasifier. It doesn't have to be exceedingly precise; having
transfer functions of the correct order and time scale for the sub systems
and what parameters they depend upon would be coming a long way; find which
parameters are integrating, which are dervates, which are linear... It's
necessary to have some sort of primitive model to design an adequate
control system for it.

PS.
Speaking of control theory: I discovered today that T. Källe (inventor of
the Källe-gasifier), whom expressed an interest in dynamics in his article,
indeed was the founder, by a donation, of the professorship in control
theory at Chalmers Institute of Technology, Gothenburg, in 1956. That's
how new control theory is as a field of engineering science. They lacked
the tools in the first half of the previous century. Heaviside, Nyquist
et.al. was working with the mathematics for it in the 1930's, it made its
way into electrical engineering fairly fast, but took a couple of decades
to be embraced by other fields, and the final touch in transform theory
wasn't due until the 1970's or so. We have a pretty good mathematical
toolbox nowadays, and cheap "slaves" for doing the hard labour of tedious
numerical calculations; fast, in real-time.

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Fri Dec 29 19:11:38 2000
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012290914341.28994-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDCEFHCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

Dear All,

Microwave drying of wood has been developed by the CSIRO over here. No
doubt by others in the field as well. Ultimately the aim is to be able to
precisely dry individual boards coming out of a sawmill. It could of course
be applied to sawdust or other cellulose fuels as well.

On refined wood fuels see Jim Arcates website www.techtp.com

>From a copy of an FAO paper on this site:

DEVELOPMENTS ON TORREFIED WOOD
AN ALTERNATIVE TO CHARCOAL FOR REDUCING DEFORESTATION

P Girard & N Shah
Centre Technique Forestier Tropical
Department of Cirad
45 Bis, Avenue de la Belle Gabrielle
94736 Nogent Sur Marne cedex
FRANCE

(extract)

5.2 Gasifier Fuel

Long-term gasification trials (4) have been carried out with a fixed bed
countercurrent gasifier. The producer gas generated fed a PERKINS motor
coupled to a 24 kW electrical generator. measurements were made
continuously, comparing equal loads of 77 kg wood and torrefied wood.
Results are summarized in Table 5

Torrefied wood as compared to wood gave the following results:

* A much higher furnace temperature (over 1300 C) that increases carbon
monoxide production but will entail the development of an appropriate
firebox.
* Much greater regularity in the composition of gases during functioning.
* Very clean and high quality gas.
* Greater autonomy for the same load (over 30%).

Thanks to a high degree of reproducibility and standardization, torrefied
wood facilitates the operation, regulation and optimization of gasifiers.
Although it has less energy value than charcoal, it has the advantage of
being more convenient to use. Its superior mechanical properties make it
less friable, which improves gas transfer and avoids dust formation that
clogs up filters. However, contrary to expectations, the acetic acid content
in condensates is similar whether wood or Torrefied wood is used for
gasification, which means that the problem of corrosion remains.

(end extract)

>From the table mentioned above 77kg of TW yielded 245m3 of gas compared to
192m3 of gas from a @19% moisture content unrefined sample of the same
weight.

I call that an improvement !

Cheers,
Peter

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From mike at envirofuel.co.uk Sat Dec 30 10:14:08 2000
From: mike at envirofuel.co.uk (mike jones)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012290914341.28994-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <001c01c07270$7457f940$7b07dbc3@john>

I am a bit confused,
Are you saying that once the wood has reached carbonising temp the wood will
continue to carbonise without any external heat source even if the wood is
inside an airtight vessel.
Mike Jones

----- Original Message -----
From: Joacim Persson <joacim@ymex.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 9:40 PM
Subject: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough

> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Peter M. Davies wrote:
>
> > Thanks Tom and Alex,
> >
> > This raises some interesting questions on design and application of
> > gasifiers using refined biomass fuels (as opposed to the expensive
redesign
> > required everytime the fuel source changes characteristics).
>
> ...and for unrefined fuel as well.
>
> I did the little piece-of-wood-in-the-microwave-experiment a while ago. I
> was curious about how dry the fuel I had really was. So I put a slice of
it
> in the micro. (birch, about ..let's see - I have it on the desk - 4cm
> thick, and about 8cm diameter)
>
> [Actually, I hope to get my hands on a precision scales one day - weigh a
> sample, dry it in the oven, weigh it again and calculate the moisture
> content from that. I used to do that with grain when I worked in a silo in
> the late summers/autumns when I was a student. We had an electric moist
> measuring device that we used for fast tests, but used a precision scales
> and oven (regular lab oven, not microwave) when we needed precision
> measurements. Later on, we got an automatic precision moist measuring
> device which heated the sample with halogene lights and calculated the
> moist level automatically. Much faster, and very convenient.]
>
> I took it out every once in a while, looked at it, smelled at it.
>
> The first minute or couple of minutes, nothing happened except it went
> warmer. Then the oven was suddenly filled with fog. No smell, just water
> vapour. So that was water being boiled out from the sample.
>
> After a while, the fog seized, but soon after it started stinking like
> @%$#&*. It was like getting smoke in your eyes, only there was no smoke at
> all. I always thought that it was smoke particles that hurt ones eyes when
> one gets smoke in them, but apparently it is some other transparent
vapour,
> acetum perhaps, maybe methanol, ammonium...? A mix of all of it?
>
> At that point I was ready to throw it out, but decided to stand it just a
> little longer, to see what would happen... I noticed a dark spot forming
> at one end of the sample, halfway from the centre to the edge, and opening
> the oven (rubbing my eyes intensly ;) I noticed a similar dark spot on the
> opposite side. Then there was smoke. So I turned off the oven. Still
smoke.
> More smoke. I took it out the door. Still smoking. I wet it slightly to
> cool it off and put it on the cold ground, and after a few minutes the
> smoke seized.
>
> So that was carbonisation in action then. Although I'd rather take the
> microwave oven outdoors next time, it was interesting to see it close and
> "live". It's rather impractical to take out fuel samples from a red hot
> gasifier. ;)
>
> After the sample had cooled down, I split it in half, and noticed a
> carbonised cavity had formed within the sample. Now, since the piece of
> wood wasn't completely dry to begin with, and an amount of water had left
> it as steam, I assume there were no air-oxygen left in the wood. So this
> little experiment illustrated self-carbonisation very well. All that was
> added was heat, but only to the point of smoke coming from the sample.
>
> What surprised me was the large amounts of smoke I got. Smoke consists of,
> I suppose, what we call tars or tar fumes. So this is where the tar comes
> from then. Nothing new of course. It just confirms theory.
>
> It's obvious that this process can only be stopped by cooling the fuel
down
> (which isn't possible in a gasifier); it doesn't need air oxygen, and it's
> an exothermical process (or it couldn't keep on vaporising all that tar,
> for minutes after I took it out the microwave oven).
>
> This phenomenon however has implications for the dynamic behaviour of a
> gasifier. On heavy load, the gasifier produces heat, which dries and heats
> the fuel to the point of self-carbonisation, but once the fuel has been
> heated enough, /it won't stop producing tar fumes/. The flow of tar fumes
> will then prevent the gasifier from sucking in air to either combust the
> tar fumes, or keep the hearth temperature high enough to, if this is a
> reality at all, crack the tars.
>
> One perhaps somewhat paradoxal effect could be that a gasifier with
> significant heat losses may have better dynamic behaviour than an "ideal"
> gasifier. If the gasifier is so well insulated it simply cannot cool down
> the carbonising fuel, the carbonisation process can't be stopped. If the
> fuel is completely dry, there is also no water cooling the process, and
> theoretically, it will go on until all available fuel is carbonised; like
> dynamite in slow motion. ;) The wood will "explode" into smoke and
charcoal,
> so to speak. If there is moist in the fuel, the gasifier will instead
turn
> more (but not completely) into a water gas reactor when the load is
stepped
> down. This will cool down the hearth instead. (so will tar, I suppose.
> Besides, carbonisation produces som 24 weight-percent of water, according
> to a table in Hubendicks article:
>
> 1kg _dry_ wood heated to 400°C produces:
> Charcoal: 0.38 kg with 81% carbon
> Water: 0.24 kg
> Tar: 0.16 kg
> CO2: 0.09 kg
> CO: 0.04 kg
> H2: 0.04 kg
> Acetum: 0.05 kg
> Methanol: 0.01 kg
>
> I think the solution must be to only heat "enough" of the fuel, not all of
> it.
>
> "Enough" should then be no more than such that the gasifier still can/will
> suck in enough air and oxygen to keep the hearth temperature at an
> acceptable level, i.e. producing significantly less "smoke" than the
amount
> of gases sucked away by the (idling) motor. If no air at all goes into the
> process, the resulting gas will be the vapours in the table, i.e. 240g
> steam, 160g tar, 90g CO2 etc... for each kg dry weight of fuel. The tar
> leves will be tremendous. Without air going in, it won't be a producer gas
> gasifier, rather a wood distillery, or (with plenty of water diluting the
> other vapours) for a limited time, a water gas reactor.
>
> So how can we heat just "enough" fuel at the time? "Enough" will vary
> (lineary) with the load. At all loads, ideally, the gasifier should
> carbonise fuel in the same pace it gasifies carbon. If self-carbonisation
> only can be controlled by controlling temperature, temperature is what
> needs to be controlled. (hmm. tautology of the day)
>
> This is were Lutz' experiments come in handy, or rather the heat losses
> from the, for our purposes luckily, hopelessly inefficient internal
> combustion motor, come in handy:
>
> Lutz circulated gases from and back to the fuel vessel. He cooled the
> fumes, condensed steam, then heated them with exhaust gases to recapture
> exhaust heat. So there we have a way of heating or cooling fuel at will.
>
> Let's say we apply Lutz' devices to only a small portion of the fuel,
> somewhere fairly close to the hearth. Lutz took out the gases at the lower
> part of the fuel container, and put the dried & heated gases in at the
top.
> If both inlet and outlet are placed on the same level, close to the
hearth,
> we can heat and dry, or cool, a smaller portion of the fuel, and thus make
> it easier to control the temperature of the fuel just before it enters the
> hearth.
>
> If we can control the temperature of that portion of the fuel, we can
> control the carbonisation process, and by that, the amount of steam and
> tar fumes generated from it. If the fuel is a bit too wet and cold, we can
> dry it and heat it. If it is a bit too dry and hot and begin to
> over-carbonise, i.e. "explode", we can cool it down.
>
> We have three parameters to play with for actuators: Cooling, heating, and
> flow. The minimum temperature is the outer temperature, and the maximum
is
> the exhaust gas temperature. We can cool the fuel all the way down
> (theoretically) to the outer temperature, or heat it to the exhaust heat
> temperature (again, theoretically). The former should be more than enough
> to shut down carbonisation, and the latter (a few hundered °C) enough to
> dry fuel and heat it to carbonisation temperature if necessary. We also
> have a more or less constant heat flow from the hearth, assuming the
hearth
> has constant temperature, which is what is preferred.(?)
>
> Lutz mentioned that he didn't get any improvement above a certain level of
> gas flow though the condenser/heater (60 m³/h), but rather a degradation.
> It seems to me he increased the flow to a point where the temperature was
> about the same throughout the condenser/heater/fuel container system, and
> "gained" only heat losses. He didn't mention dynamics. But then, process
> control theory wasn't developed in 1941.
>
> So, we can alter the temperature and moist level of the fuel, and we can
add
> temperature sensors at the outlet and inlet, to keep track of heat removed
> and/or added. Maybe, if necessary, moist level of the fuel (at least a
mean
> value for all the fuel present above the hot zones), could be measured by
> looking at the electrical properties of the fuel. The rest is algorithms
> implemented in software on any plain cheap micro controller, plus some
> valves with servos. (I don't know; maybe I ought to draw a simple outline
> of how I picture it?)
>
> What's missing, however, is data. For instance:
>
> How, and how fast, does heat travel through the fuel from the hearth?
> How, and how fast, is heat transferred to and from the fuel in a
> condenser/heater system like Lutz used?
> At what rate are tar fumes produced during carbonisation? How much, and at
> what rate is heat generated during self-carbonisation?
> How will the flow of tar fumes and steam affect reactions in the hearth?
> All this data could be determined by experiments.
>
> I believe it should be possible to build a fairly accurate model of the
> dynamics in a gasifier. It doesn't have to be exceedingly precise; having
> transfer functions of the correct order and time scale for the sub systems
> and what parameters they depend upon would be coming a long way; find
which
> parameters are integrating, which are dervates, which are linear... It's
> necessary to have some sort of primitive model to design an adequate
> control system for it.
>
>
> PS.
> Speaking of control theory: I discovered today that T. Källe (inventor of
> the Källe-gasifier), whom expressed an interest in dynamics in his
article,
> indeed was the founder, by a donation, of the professorship in control
> theory at Chalmers Institute of Technology, Gothenburg, in 1956. That's
> how new control theory is as a field of engineering science. They lacked
> the tools in the first half of the previous century. Heaviside, Nyquist
> et.al. was working with the mathematics for it in the 1930's, it made its
> way into electrical engineering fairly fast, but took a couple of decades
> to be embraced by other fields, and the final touch in transform theory
> wasn't due until the 1970's or so. We have a pretty good mathematical
> toolbox nowadays, and cheap "slaves" for doing the hard labour of tedious
> numerical calculations; fast, in real-time.
>
> Joacim
> -
> main(){printf(&unix["\021%six\012\0"],(unix)["have"]+"fun"-0x60);}
> -- David Korn
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joacim at ymex.net Sat Dec 30 11:21:49 2000
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough
In-Reply-To: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDCEFHCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012301416520.591-100000@localhost>

On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Peter M. Davies wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Microwave drying of wood has been developed by the CSIRO over here. No
> doubt by others in the field as well. Ultimately the aim is to be able to
> precisely dry individual boards coming out of a sawmill. It could of course
> be applied to sawdust or other cellulose fuels as well.

...boiling water with electricity? ?:-P

I can understand it makes sense to use electricity for drying wood for
building materials, or for lab tests, where energy efficiency isn't as
important as economical efficiency with process speed, precision etc in
consideration -- but drying biomass /fuel/ with electricity?
Electricity is one of the highest qualities of energy, heat is one of the
lowest qualities. Producing heat from electricity is like using diamonds for
road filling or for mixing concrete.

If we assume that all heat motors have losses in the form of heat, and the
objective is to produce high-quality mechanincal/electrical power with this
heat motor, then why use the high-quality mechanical power to produce heat?
We have plenty of heat available in temperatures high enough for drying
fuel.

For a plain IC motor, the exhaust heat only, is about as much, or more,
power as produced on the crank shaft. That's *a lot* of heat.

Let's say we want 20kW on the crank shaft, and have 33% efficiency with 33%
losses in the form of exhaust heat. (unreal numbers really, in reality we
have less crank shaft power and more exhaust heat)
Let's say then we have 20kW of exhaust heat, 20kW coolant heat, 20kW shaft
power, and a gasifier with 80% efficiency. 60kW gas power then, with 80%
efficiency we need 75kW worth of fuel. Let's say we can recapture only half
the exhaust heat effectively for boiling out water from the fuel with, i.e.
we have 10kW drying power.

How much water can we boil with 10kW?

Vaporisation heat for water is 2.26 MJ/kg
(10*10^3)/(2.26*10^6) ~= 0.0044 kg/s or 4.4 g/s

What is the fuel consumption in kg then? We burn wood at a rate worth 75kW.
Gravimetric heating value of (dry) wood is 18 MJ/kg
75kW of wood of 18MJ/kg is (75*10^3)/(18*10^6) ~= 0.0042 kg/s, or 4.2 g/s

4.4/4.2 ~= 1.05, or 105% moisture (of dry weight)

So with 80% gasifier efficiency, 33% exhaust heat and 50% efficient heat
recapturing we can dry wood of with 105% moisture (compared to fuel dry
weight), with the exhaust heat losses from an IC motor. 105% moisture is
soaking wet wood. Density for wood is about 0.6-0.7 kg/dm³. If we fill all
the pores in the wood with water, we still wouldn't reach 105% water. We
would need to shovel a bit of snow in there as well, and still feed
completely dry fuel to the gasifier, using half the exhaust heat in this
example.

We could recapture coolant heat as well. When using water for coolant, and
no pressure we only get a bit less than 100°C, but one could put the motor
cooling system under pressure or switch to a coolant with a higher boiling
temperature and get coolant heat with a temperature above boiling
temperature for water.

Of course, all this is possible only because IC motors are so *bad*. If we
had heat motors of 99% efficiency, we would have plenty of shaft power
instead. Then it would make sense to dry fuel with shaft power, i.e.
electricity, i.e. microwaves. But instead, we have ~70--90 % heat losses
from the motor, available.

The nice thing about gasifier powered motors is that if we compare with a
diesel or petrol motor, in the latter we'd have precious little use for
exhaust (or coolant) heat. We don't need 10ths of kW's to keep the driver
warm, and it's rather pointless (and dangerous) to boil and superheat the
fuel or whatever one could use it for. But in a combustion process, as in
a gasifier, a little extra heat may be useful here and there; for drying,
or for preheating fuel or air.

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joacim at ymex.net Sat Dec 30 11:26:41 2000
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough
In-Reply-To: <001c01c07270$7457f940$7b07dbc3@john>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012301732390.591-100000@localhost>

On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, mike jones wrote:

> I am a bit confused,
> Are you saying that once the wood has reached carbonising temp the wood will
> continue to carbonise without any external heat source even if the wood is
> inside an airtight vessel.

Yes, exactly. The process is exothermic, and needs no external oxygen. Wood
is an explosive material. ;)
This is nothing new of course. That's how charcoal making has been carried
out for thousands of years. It was just interesting to see it in action.

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Dec 31 08:55:22 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough
Message-ID: <74.6725d93.278091f7@cs.com>

Dear Peter:

Shah said that they used a fixed bed, countercurrent gasifier for their
torrefied wood tests. Was this really an "updraft" gasifier? I didn't think
anyone still used them with wood, since they generate typically 10-20% tar.

I should think the torrefied wood would generate even a higher percentage of
tar in this gasifier. It would be interesting to see the comparable results
for a conventional or stratefied downdraft gasifier. I would expect less
than 0.1% tar.

Please pass these comments on to Shah if possible....

Your truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 12/29/00 5:02:04 PM Mountain Standard Time,
p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au writes:

<<
Dear All,

Microwave drying of wood has been developed by the CSIRO over here. No
doubt by others in the field as well. Ultimately the aim is to be able to
precisely dry individual boards coming out of a sawmill. It could of course
be applied to sawdust or other cellulose fuels as well.

On refined wood fuels see Jim Arcates website www.techtp.com

From a copy of an FAO paper on this site:

DEVELOPMENTS ON TORREFIED WOOD
AN ALTERNATIVE TO CHARCOAL FOR REDUCING DEFORESTATION

by

P Girard & N Shah
Centre Technique Forestier Tropical
Department of Cirad
45 Bis, Avenue de la Belle Gabrielle
94736 Nogent Sur Marne cedex
FRANCE

(extract)

5.2 Gasifier Fuel

Long-term gasification trials (4) have been carried out with a fixed bed
countercurrent gasifier. The producer gas generated fed a PERKINS motor
coupled to a 24 kW electrical generator. measurements were made
continuously, comparing equal loads of 77 kg wood and torrefied wood.
Results are summarized in Table 5

Torrefied wood as compared to wood gave the following results:

* A much higher furnace temperature (over 1300 C) that increases carbon
monoxide production but will entail the development of an appropriate
firebox.
* Much greater regularity in the composition of gases during functioning.
* Very clean and high quality gas.
* Greater autonomy for the same load (over 30%).

Thanks to a high degree of reproducibility and standardization, torrefied
wood facilitates the operation, regulation and optimization of gasifiers.
Although it has less energy value than charcoal, it has the advantage of
being more convenient to use. Its superior mechanical properties make it
less friable, which improves gas transfer and avoids dust formation that
clogs up filters. However, contrary to expectations, the acetic acid content
in condensates is similar whether wood or Torrefied wood is used for
gasification, which means that the problem of corrosion remains.

(end extract)

From the table mentioned above 77kg of TW yielded 245m3 of gas compared to
192m3 of gas from a @19% moisture content unrefined sample of the same
weight.

I call that an improvement !

Cheers,
Peter
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Sun Dec 31 10:57:38 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Global Warming
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001231094207.0098f2b0@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Folks;

I just posted this message to another mail list but believe it goes in line
with the Global Warming discussions on this present list.

I am sure that many will find errors of judgement in the body of this
message -- but stand on the bottom line still being valid.

By the way -- where can we find average global ocean temperature numbers?
Is it increasing -- by how much -- and by what order of progression -- if so?

No matter who you blame -- we certainly are in for some very interesting
climatic changes. The big question -- is how long to the conclusion? Some
are saying 30 years!

Note -- the following was written to a non-technically oriented mail list.

Peter Singfield - Belize

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

As the planet earth's climate "revs" up -- we will experience greater delta
T's -- or the difference between high and low temperatures.

Revving up is due to increased absorption of heat by our atmosphere. It
means that there is a lot more energy available for stirring up weather.
Ergo -- more hurricanes, blizzards and what have you. This also creates
extremes in climate -- such as some areas getting far to much rains and
flooding while other areas get almost non and suffer major droughts.

It is a cascading event that often leads to an ice age.

Let's model around 3 gasses that are the major players. Water Vapor, Carbon
Dioxide and Methane.

An increase in any one leads to an increase in the others. All have the
capability of absorbing "extra" heat into our global environment.

In this case we "suspect" CO2 as the "initiating" culprit. More CO2 -- more
absorption of heat -- more evaporation of water -- more rotting of biomass
(methane).

Then we have a couple of major jokers in the pack. The gradual warming of
the seas is deadly! Why? for three reasons.

The warmer the water the less CO2 it can dissolve.

Warm water evaporates more than cold water.

But the real surprise is methane ice.

Methane ice exists in huge quantities at great depths in our oceans. It is
delicately "stabilized" by a combination of pressure and temperature. Start
raising ocean temperatures and watch out!! It "boils" out of the seas!!
Greatly increasing the amount of methane in our atmsophere in a very short
period.

So to track global warming one needs only check out the "average yearly"
ocean water temperature at the equator. This gives a true reading of this
trend.

So three gasses become unbalanced. And at a progressively increasing rate!
At some point the methane ice reverts to gas -- and that will really
increase gas heat absorption. What happens then?

Well, we can imagine a situation where global weather becomes so fierce
that even the earths crust begins shaking. (Just read the book "The perfect
Storm" where they describe the great seismic disturbances due to heavy wave
action.)

This destabilizes volcanoes -- starts earth tremors -- and much more. A
series of volcanic eruptions makes all our polluting of the past 100 years
look like kid's stuff.

OK -- maybe we can expect more storms and more earth tremors -- what else?

Well, as old Don points out -- the most interesting gas is water vapor. As
temperatures increase (global average) more water gets into our atmosphere.
But of the three gasses, only water vapor forms into clouds -- that is can
condense in our atmosphere.

This is the balancing factor.

We will hit one extremely hot summer. Extraordinary amounts of water vapor
will be put into the global atmosphere. We will them swing to an
extraordinary cold winter -- the water vapor will condense as clouds but in
such great amounts as to cover the entire planet. The globe will become
shielded from solar energy as the clouds reflect almost all of it back into
space. The planet earth will become a truly bright spot in the skies and
out astronomical neighbors may well wonder what is going down.

This causes an almost immediate global cooling of an incredible order.
Temperatures will fall below minus 140 F in 72 hours.

The water vapor will come down as snow in blizzards never witnessed before.
This snow will be deposited to great depths. Compacting to ice -- glaciers.
These glaciers -- in our present temperate zones -- will be miles thick.
The clouds will eventually dissipate. Now sunlight is reflected due to a
global snow white.

It takes thousands of years to come back to "normal".

Easy to make an ice age -- hard to get out of one.

We do not know what triggers this event -- not for sure. Some believe -- in
this present case -- it is over consumption of fossil fuels releasing CO2
that created this little bit of extra solar absorption. We are always in a
very delicate balance -- does not take much to trigger an ice age.

In the past -- such events could have been triggered by a single, massive,
volcanic event.

In the end -- does it matter why or how??

Keep your eye on increasing ocean temperature. That is the one and only
true indicator of how this event is progressing.

My belief is that absolutely nothing can be done by man to stop this event
-- any more than we can stop -- or even turn -- a hurricane or blizzard.

Get use to the idea that nature -- not man -- is the real boss here.

As the Mexican's put it -- got some good news and some bad news.

Good news:

Nature (God) lives

Bad News:

The world is coming to an end

Peter
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From LINVENT at aol.com Sun Dec 31 12:29:23 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Global Warming
Message-ID: <f8.629012a.2780c41d@aol.com>

Dear Peter,
I believe that several months ago in response to global warming fears, I
wrote some thing which indicated that the increased convection will lead to
more fierce weather on the earth and other items which lead to the ice age.
There is a group called "The Coming Ice Age" which we have been involved with
for years which believes that remineralizing the earth to support stronger
plant growth and absorption of CO2 is the best way to go. All of the logical
paths which you have indicated are part of their hypothesis. The global
warmers are on the wrong track.
El Nino and La Nina occurrence prediction was based upon ocean
temperature off the coast of Baja, California, you are right in this respect.

Tom Taylor
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From manbiona at hotmail.com Sun Dec 31 12:40:28 2000
From: manbiona at hotmail.com (J.B.Manuel Biona)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: pyrolysis heat of formation of rice hulls
Message-ID: <200012311740.MAA04647@crest.solarhost.com>

Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 11:28:30
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F1357yQU5y50xgy9NYb00001099@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Dec 2000 11:28:30.0527 (UTC)
FILETIME=[CD322CF0:01C0731C]

Dear Sir,

I am an MSc. in Mechanical Engineering Student of De La Salle University,
Manila, Philippines.I am currently doing my thesis research on the design
and fabrication of energy and carbonized rice hull co-production system. I
intend to come with an externally heated continuous bed pyrolyser with the
part of the volatile gases produced to be burned to supply the required
heat for the process while the rest will be used as a heating source for
some other applications. A screw conveyor will be moving the rice hull
through the screw reactor while it is being pyrolyzed. Currently, I am
having problems looking for some combustion data of rice hulls more
specifically for the heat of formation to pyrolyze them. Does these heat
changes with the pyrolizing temperature? If yes, in are there existing
studies correlating the two?

I hope that these inquiry will merit your attention and support.

Sincerely,

J.B.Manuel M. Biona
Email Address : manbiona@hotmail.com
#13 M.Gonzaga St., Mandaluyong City
Philippines

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From calsch at montana.com Sun Dec 31 13:10:09 2000
From: calsch at montana.com (Cal Schindel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biodiesel question
Message-ID: <3A4F73F6.7A7E6F0@montana.com>

I know Tom Reed has done some research into biodiesel. So this question
is mainly for him.

>From an engineering perspective and considering btus input into the
cycle and btus available as product, is biodiesel a viable option?

I know that with alcohol, it is easy to burn more btus preparing the
soil, growing the crop, harvesting and hauling, cooking down etc than
the final output in btus. I suspect that biodiesel is better in terms
of efficiency but is it capable of three or four times more output than
input?

And if so, what are the better crops?

Thanks, Cal
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From LINVENT at aol.com Sun Dec 31 13:29:23 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biodiesel question
Message-ID: <8e.f2dc592.2780d225@aol.com>

More biodiesel (to use Tom Reed's initial nomenclature: McDiesel), questions;
a rose by any other name is still thorny...
Many types of biodiesel...should we change names or modify to make
differentiation?
biodiesel from waste cooking oils
biodiesel from algae.. refined lipids
biodiesel from biomass..catalytically formed diesel fuel from gasification,
synthetic fuels but from biomass not coals.

TomTaylor
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Sun Dec 31 16:13:44 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Global Warming
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20001231145741.009a1970@wgs1.btl.net>

At 12:17 PM 12/31/2000 EST, you wrote:
>Dear Peter,
> I believe that several months ago in response to global warming fears, I
>wrote some thing which indicated that the increased convection will lead to
>more fierce weather on the earth and other items which lead to the ice age.
>There is a group called "The Coming Ice Age" which we have been involved
with
>for years which believes that remineralizing the earth to support stronger
>plant growth and absorption of CO2 is the best way to go. All of the logical
>paths which you have indicated are part of their hypothesis. The global
>warmers are on the wrong track.
> El Nino and La Nina occurrence prediction was based upon ocean
>temperature off the coast of Baja, California, you are right in this
respect.
>
>Tom Taylor

Hi Tom;

I found one sensible presentation -- with links -- over at:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home.html

And true -- there exists no scientific validation connecting global warming
to a rapid triggering of an ice age.

I reached those conclusions on an independent level -- not realizing a cult
has already started up promoting these same "far-out" theories.

Other "possible" triggering events include a major meteorite hit. Severe
drought followed by burning of large amounts of the total global forests --
etc. etc.

Guess we will just have to wait and watch to know what is what.

The Mayan Calendar "ends" in the year 2012 and many have now grasped that
date as the end of the world. another cult starting -- I guess.

I respect sun spots as an influence in global climate trends -- and often
wonder if certain alignments of planets may not be triggering such events.

There may be a lag between the alignment and the resulting sun spots.

When is the major alignment of the planets due?

The Mayan Calendar is quite regulated by astronomy. The main purpose was to
predict droughts. At that -- history tells -- us they were very successful.

Droughts and sun spot cycles have already demonstrated relationship through
hard science.

When Maya talk "end" -- they mean climatically -- not as in kaboom -- one
instant.

And the Mexican "joke" I referred to came from an FM station I receive well
here in Northern Belize. That being just North -- in the Mexican Yucatan --
which is Maya -- yes -- even today.

I am sure you have seen the study stating we can avoid global warming by
planting a zillion or so acres of forests -- tree farming -- and then using
that for fuel to generate electrical power. The growth cycle being 6 or 7
years in the tropics -- and a continual amount of carbon being locked in
root systems each growth cycle more or less permanently. The purpose was to
stop fossil fuel use for power -- and lock carbon at the same time. They
went on to show how much forest -- and where it could be done. This in the
early 90's by the US - DOE.

This would be a dream come true for the gasifier list. But API has another
trip in mind. Starting with:

There is no global warming

And if there is -- certainly not due to fossil fuel emissions.

And in any case -- the US economy is holy! Following something such as the
Kyoto Protocol would doom this great economy!! And we simply can't have
that! Better we take the rest of the globe down with us first!!

To Quote:

We need to know more.
=====================

Climate scientists have gathered a great deal of information about
how Earth's climate works, especially in relation to rising surface
temperatures. But, the science is incomplete and the experts do not
agree on the key issues that will help us decide how to respond if
our planet is warming.

Until the science is more certain and the scientists are in closer
agreement, we can take some cautious steps that will allow
appropriate technological change without crippling economic effects.
Government should invest in climate change science to expand our
knowledge about the phenomena and the technologies for managing the
associated risks of climate change.

==========================================

And:

At its core, the debate
is about whether enough is known about climate change to warrant the
lost jobs, higher consumer prices and a weakened U.S. economy that
would come with implementing the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement which
at best would make only slight progress toward solving climate
change.

===========================================

So we bend over and kiss our respective *sses good bye as we all know how
this "argument" will be resolved -- in favor of US big business! And the
biggest is the fossil fuel supply sector!!

Anyone that will insist on claiming any different -- such as the burning of
fossil fuels "may" be contributing to global warming which "may" be
contributing to severe climatic conditions -- well -- they are obviously
"Communists" and certainly there are ways to put those in their respective
places -- say 6 feet or so under!

Oh -- what the ding-dong -- I'll append the some more of the text in
question. If you want to see for yourself -- goto:

http://www.api.org/globalclimate/bigpicture.htm

http://www.api.org/globalclimate/index.htm

You'll soon see which way the winds of "popular" opinion are blowing --

What America has to learn is that nature does not act according to public
opinion polls.

I can never see the US turning down the fossil fuel faucet -- for them it
is always full speed ahead -- *amn the torpedoes -- and *amn the rest of
the globe as well!

And yes -- I realize it is not scientifically proven to the legal
requirements required according to the USA. But still --

Peter Singfield / Belize

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

What is the Kyoto Protocol?
===============================

The Kyoto Protocol, adopted by negotiators representing 160
nations meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, marked the culmination of a
five-year United Nations campaign to persuade the nations of the
world to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If ratified
by enough countries, the treaty would commit the developed countries,
including the United States, to reduce their emissions of six
greenhouse gases an average of five percent below 1990 levels during
a five-year period beginning 2008. The U.S. share would be seven
percent below 1990 levels. That would mean 30 percent below currently
projected emissions for the U.S. in 2010. While Americans would be
asked to make that sacrifice, however, more than 130 developing
nations, including China and India, have refused to become part of
the treaty and are therefore exempt from its requirements. As those
nations develop economically over the next few decades, they will
become major contributors of greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, the
legislatures of the developed world have moved slowly to accept
Kyoto. Before the treaty takes hold, legislatures in 55 countries
accounting for more than half of carbon dioxide emissions must ratify
the agreement.

Even before the Kyoto Protocol was agreed to in December 1997, the
U.S. adopted by a 95-0 vote Senate Resolution 98, which says
there will be no American ratification until there is participation
by the developing nations and evidence is presented that the Protocol
will not harm the U.S. economy.

Everyone agrees that climate change is a legitimate concern for
policymakers, scientists and consumers. But there are also heartfelt
disagreements about whether the Kyoto Protocol is the right solution.
Many renowned experts have questioned the scientific basis for the
aggressive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions called for by the treaty.
They suggest that nations should learn more about the broader causes
of climate change before asking families in the U.S. and other
nations to sacrifice and accept harsh cuts in energy use and
accompanying job losses and increased cost of living.

There are also important concerns about the Protocol's exemptions of
developing nations like China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil. Some of
them are already major producers of greenhouse gases. If those
nations are not in the game, scientists like Tom Wigley of National
Center for Atmospheric Research say the treaty's objective simply
will not be achieved, even if all the industrialized nations meet or
exceed the emissions targets set for them in the treaty. There is,
for example, credible research showing that the Kyoto targets would
lower temperatures by just 1/20th of a degree Centigrade by the year
2050. All this means that it is already too late for this treaty to
make much of a dent in the anticipated buildup of carbon dioxide in
coming decades.

Other Kyoto skeptics have also raised red flags about the Protocol's
economic impacts on countries like the United States that rely so
heavily on fossil fuels to fuel their economies. In this country,
they would force planning for substantial cuts in greenhouse gas
emissions at a time when our economy is thriving and many American
are enjoying prosperous times. Some prominent members of Congress
have questioned whether it makes sense to require Americans to bear
the expensive burden of implementing a treaty that may do little or
nothing to reduce global greenhouse emissions.

The Kyoto pact also left several important decisions for later
discussion. For one thing, the treaty would permit wealthier
countries, like the U.S., to partially meet their own obligations for
lower emissions by helping poorer nations obtain the technology
needed to make their cuts in greenhouse gases. Similarly, the U.S.
could also lower its own requirements for lower emissions by
purchasing unused emission credits from nations like Russia and the
Ukraine. That would be possible because in the post-communist world,
those countries have generated far lower emissions than had been
expected. But the rules of the road for using such international
mechanisms have not been settled by the Kyoto participants, making it
impossible to measure the broader costs and benefits of the treaty.
Also missing are rules on how Kyoto would be enforced. What happens
if the U.S. makes the sacrifices needed to comply with Kyoto but
other participating nations do not?

In the meantime, however, oil and natural gas producers and other
industries have joined with some members of Congress to encourage
voluntary methods for voluntarily limiting emissions by
introducing new technologies. Those industries believe voluntary
actions are far more effective and lasting than mandated
government reductions in emissions.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From arnt at c2i.net Sun Dec 31 21:00:07 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Global Warming
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20001231094207.0098f2b0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3A4FE1E2.1FC0E49@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
[...]
> This causes an almost immediate global cooling of an incredible order.
> Temperatures will fall below minus 140 F in 72 hours.

..quite a bit quickly, considering the heat capasities
of the athmosphaere and the oceans?

..have another Happy New Year!

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From onar at netpower.no Sun Dec 31 21:08:42 2000
From: onar at netpower.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Onar_=C5m?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Global Warming
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20001231145741.009a1970@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <001b01c07395$0631eb30$0e8221d4@cinderella>

Peter et al,

the driving force behind global warming and cooling has for most of Earth's
history been the sun, not CO2. See e.g.:

http://zeus.nascom.nasa.gov/~pbrekke/klima/marsh_nature.html

There is much reason to believe that the sun plays a major role in the most
recent global warming too. This can readily be
seen from one of the longest temperature records in the world, the 200+ year
old record in Armagh, Northern Ireland.
See:

http://www.arm.ac.uk/press/200years-on-the-Net.html

Sure, human CO2 does impact the climate, but likely much less than some of
the scariest stories report in the media. We should
instead focus on much neglected side of increasing CO2, namely the fact that
plants, especially trees, love it and grow much faster.
Our "pollution" is currently greening the planet at a rate only equalled by
the termination of an ice age. This greening of the planet
means more trees, and more trees means that biomass is becoming more readily
available as a source of energy.

Onar.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

December 2000 Gasification Archive