February 2000 Gasification Archive

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Feb 2 08:00:03 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:20 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Air Activated charcoal
Message-ID: <6a.7ec844.25c9842d@cs.com>

Dear All:

Mike says he can't post copies of his activated charcoal papers on the web
(see below) but will be happy to mail or fax them to those who request.

Nice Guy!

TOM REED

In a message dated 1/31/00 9:15:54 PM Mountain Standard Time,
antal@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu writes:

<< Dear Tom: thanks for your kind words. I am happy to mail reprints of our
papers to anyone who is interested. Best regards, Michael. P.S. I often
receive requests to post such papers on the web. This is a very
complicated matter with serious copyright issues (that are well defined by
the ACS in the case of ACS publications). At least for the time being, I
will only supply hard copies by mail or fax.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:

> Stovers and Gasers:
>
> I would like to introduce my friend Dr. Mike Antal, Coral Professor of
> Biomass at the University of Hawaii. In my book, he knows more about the
> theoretical aspects of pyrolysis and charcoal than most of the rest of us.
> He has also developed a process for making charcoal that gives a yield of
> 40-45%, rather than the 15-25% that most processes give.
>
> He recently visited my home in Golden and we spent a pleasant evening
> discussing the subtleties of biomass pyrolysis. He has just sent me two
of
> his most recent papers that are MUST reading for anyone interested in
> activated charcoal (or clean water for developing countries).
>
> "Synthesis of a High-Yield Activated Carbon by Air Gasification of
Macadamia
> Nut Shell Charcoal", X. Dai and M. Antal Jr., Industrial &Engineering
> Chemistry Research, Vol 38, pp 3386-3395, 1999
>
> "Preparation of Activated Carbons from Macadamia Nut Shell and Coconut
Shell
> by Air Activation", M Tam and M. Antal, Jr., Ibid, Vol 38, pp 4268-4276,
1999.
>
> Mike is achieving surface areas (and iodine numbers) > 1000 m2/g, with
yields
> over 15%, using air activation.
>
> Charcoal activation is a pain in the butt. In principle, it should be
> possible to use air for activation and Mike has found out how to do it.
>
> The three greatest technical challenges for the next century are Clean
> Cooking, Clean Power and Clean Water for all of humanity. The solution
lies
> in our hands.
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED BEF >>

To: Reedtb2@cs.com
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Introducing Mike Antal - and Activated charcoal
From: Michael Antal <antal@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 20:01:02 -0800
cc: Stoves@crest.org, Gasification@crest.org
In-Reply-To: <6b.1437010.25c6faad@cs.com>
Reply-To: gasification@crest.net
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org

Dear Tom: thanks for your kind words. I am happy to mail reprints of our
papers to anyone who is interested. Best regards, Michael. P.S. I often
receive requests to post such papers on the web. This is a very
complicated matter with serious copyright issues (that are well defined by
the ACS in the case of ACS publications). At least for the time being, I
will only supply hard copies by mail or fax.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:

> Stovers and Gasers:
>
> I would like to introduce my friend Dr. Mike Antal, Coral Professor of
> Biomass at the University of Hawaii. In my book, he knows more about the
> theoretical aspects of pyrolysis and charcoal than most of the rest of us.
> He has also developed a process for making charcoal that gives a yield of
> 40-45%, rather than the 15-25% that most processes give.
>
> He recently visited my home in Golden and we spent a pleasant evening
> discussing the subtleties of biomass pyrolysis. He has just sent me two of
> his most recent papers that are MUST reading for anyone interested in
> activated charcoal (or clean water for developing countries).
>
> "Synthesis of a High-Yield Activated Carbon by Air Gasification of
Macadamia
> Nut Shell Charcoal", X. Dai and M. Antal Jr., Industrial &Engineering
> Chemistry Research, Vol 38, pp 3386-3395, 1999
>
> "Preparation of Activated Carbons from Macadamia Nut Shell and Coconut
Shell
> by Air Activation", M Tam and M. Antal, Jr., Ibid, Vol 38, pp 4268-4276,
1999.
>
> Mike is achieving surface areas (and iodine numbers) > 1000 m2/g, with
yields
> over 15%, using air activation.
>
> Charcoal activation is a pain in the butt. In principle, it should be
> possible to use air for activation and Mike has found out how to do it.
>
> The three greatest technical challenges for the next century are Clean
> Cooking, Clean Power and Clean Water for all of humanity. The solution
lies
> in our hands.
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED BEF
>
> Thomas B. Reed
> President - The Biomass Energy Foundation
> 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> Reedtb2@cs.com; 303 278 0558
> The Stoves List is Sponsored by
> Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
> Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>

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.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 rosilene at fem.unicamp.br Wed Feb 2 14:48:03 2000
From: rosilene at fem.unicamp.br (Rosilene Nascimento)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:20 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Conclusion: Bagasse apparent density
In-Reply-To: <4.3.0.25.20000120185925.01b25330@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <389888A0.7F3F2A59@fem.unicamp.br>

Dear list members,

I have investigated some information about sugar cane bagasse apparent density.
BOTH (around 100 and around 700kg/m3
to the same kind of sugar cane bagasse) ARE CORRECT!!!

I have just discovered that apparent density has (at least) two different meanings,
depending on the use and on the methods. The first one is related
to the pile density, for example, 1m3 of this
kind of sugar cane bagasse weights 110kg. This is important in stocking or screw
feeding. The second (~700kg/m3) is related
to the particle apparent density, not considering the
particle pore. This last one is really important to analyze fluidization, for
example.

I am really thankful for Antonio Hilst, Tom Miles and Thomas Koch information from
this gasification list. I am also pleased for
Silvia Nebra and Jefferson Corrêa explanations,
at UNICAMP.

Kindly,
Rosilene Nascimento.

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Feb 3 07:48:04 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:20 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: The masked killer
Message-ID: <ba.12bf1a8.25cad2c0@cs.com>

But....

Photovoltaic typically costs $5,000/installed kW capacity (and only works ~12
hr/d).

Wood-gas generator systems cost $1,000-$2,000/kW capacity and work whenever
you want.

It's a lot easier to store a cord of wood then a cord of sunlight.

Onward...

TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 2/1/00 8:30:33 AM Mountain Standard Time,
denny@voyageronline.net writes:

<<
Mr. Doelle brings up many important points on the move toward biomass
energy production primacy as a "solution". In the US we are seeing an
inordinate emphasis on that BE primacy via subidies that might be better
spent on conservation, efficiency, PV and wind development. If you
doubt the possibility of forest killing potential, check out the "Forest
Residues" section of this site...
http://ermisweb.state.mi.us/biomass/publications/breakfast/#Forestry >>
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.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 graeme at powerlink.co.nz Fri Feb 4 14:48:17 2000
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:20 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Engines for Producer Gas
Message-ID: <007701bf6f47$96618d80$e10e37d2@graeme>

Dear Cordner

Engine manufacturers don't have much if any knowledge of producer gas, and
are unlikely to be able to offer you any advice regarding modification,
operation, or technical support.

Those that have supplied engines to gasified installations are well aware of
the damage caused by raw pyrolysis gas as opposed to clean producer gas.
Maybe you should first determine the gas quality that you have and its
suitability for engine application which means there can be no condensable
tar forming in the inlet manifold. I have no idea what non condensing tars
mean in mg/Nm3, but if you have that, then any natural gas engine will give
you sterling service. I am sure you realise that producer gas has only one
seventh the energy of natural gas and engine size must therefore be
correspondingly larger.

The standard components of these larger engines incorporate features which
overcome the rapid wear incurred in cheap aluminium engines and components,
so modifications are not required. Just keep in mind that no engine
ingesting contaminants through the intake manifold is going to last, and
there is no reason for a manufacturer to support your project if the gas you
produce isn't clean.

>From our own experience with engine manufacturers, or the people who work
for them, you cannot really expect any interest other than as a sale
prospect. All the details of interfacing the engine to the gasifier and how
the engine responds on gas can only be acquired from your own knowledge and
experience of gasifier and engines. The commercial risk is all yours, but
it helps tremendously if you can demonstrate the gas making expertise before
"trying" to fuel big engines on theoretical possibility.

Doug Williams.

> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 09:46:32 +0000
> From: "Dr. C. Peacocke" <cpeacocke@care.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: GAS-L: Engines for Producer Gas
>
> Dear Group,
>
> I am trying to find an engine manufacturer who has a sympathethic ear to
> the needs of companies and organisations who are looking to buy a few
> small-scale engines [up to 1MWe] to run on producer gas, but it appears to
> be very difficult, based on stories and comments that I have heard. My
own
> experience is that a company will happily sell you an engine and leave the
> rest to you if anything goes wrong.
>
> Interest by major companies, e.g Dale, Caterpillar etc., can be varied and
> I do not wish to go down paths many others have trodden.
>
> Can anyone recommend an engine manufacturer who will provide the required
> level of technical backup in the modification and operation of an engine?
> Does anyone have a detailed, requirement for the gas quality from an
> engine manufacturer? I have seen several ''theoretical'' or "postualted"
> values for tars and particulates in the gas for an engine, but has anyone
> assessed the exact requirements based on long term operational experience?
>
> I am aware of the limited range of interest on behalf of most engine
> manufacturers in Europe. Can anyone in North America or elsewhere assist
> in pointing me to a suitable company?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cordner

From eta-pet at eta-team.com Sun Feb 6 11:55:37 2000
From: eta-pet at eta-team.com (Kaupp)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:20 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bioenergy court case #2
In-Reply-To: <20000201045759.8249.qmail@web2001.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200002061655.IAA06766@secure.crest.net>

Dear Jean, I am back into number crunching and take up the issue as case #
2:

.
1. Let's take a reasonable example of a biomass yield of 1000 dry metric
tons per square kilometer and year. (of course there are super crops and
super climats and super conditions and super farmers who may get 2-3 times
as much). However lets talk about mainstream and average conditions.
2. Mother nature is very kind and always puts 50 % Carbon, 44 % oxygen
and 6% hydrogen in ANY PLANT BIOMASS such as leaves, stalks, trees etc on a
moisture and ash free basis. Therefore it does not matter much (+-3%) what
you plant, water lillies, grass, trees, husks, hulls shells, etc. (oils
are not included).
3. Depending on the ash and water content we may as a "model average
biomass" receive annually about 15,000 MJ per ton of biomass (would
fluctuate from 3,000 MJ to 18,000 MJ) or an annual average or 15 Million
MJ per square kilometer of plantations.
4. These energy conversion processes have the funny restriction that they
stick to the second law of thermodynamics meaning no matter what we do we
will have a system conversion efficiency between 1% (a small 1 kW steam
turbine ) and 85% (a 4x350 MW coal fired power plant generating power and
steam for district heating). I mention this bandwith of conversion
efficiencies, since there has been a lot of talk about decentralizing,
that means as well ,very small power outputs and a subsequent drop in
overall system efficiencies.
5. Let us assume a futuristic 50% conversion efficiency. Consequently, if
we take into account that 3600 MJ are 1 MWh, we need 7200 MJ to generate
one MWh electricty. Furthermore assume a decent plant load factor of 60%,
consequently 1 MW installed capacity will generate 5256 MWh a year from
37.84 Million MJ biomass energy. In other words we need 2.5 square
kilometer of land to support a plant capacity of 1 MW. To get the
envisoned efficiencies one would need minimum plant sizes of 10 MW, or 25
square kilometer of land to support the plant. Of course you may
decentralize even more everything and provide power at 1-6% system
efficiencies with a corresponding land use increase of 800% to 5000 %. I
would argue that this approach will come close to a negative energy balance
considering ALL inputs including human power. Anybody out there to present
good data for or against ist.????
6. That is the first problem.
7. Other problems are resource input (energy, water, labour) into
planting, growing, harvesting and transporting. The most novel idea, not to
say strange, was a strategic alliance between a swiss skilift manufacturer
and a firm in Africa (Ruwanda) that wanted to use papyrus grass (87%
moisture) to provide power and process heat to a brick manufacturer. I
never thought skilifts will be a good Swiss and Austrian export article to
Africa. The skilift worked, the rest not or badly, due to the usual real
life problemss such as drying and sizing of the biomass.
8. In summary, so far the field of biomass power generation has been MOSTLY
discussed based on BIOMASS WASTE or SURPLUS available, and there it makes
perfectly sense and his highly welcome in most cases.
9. Trying to discuss it in the context of an INDUSTRY WITH ENERGY
PLANTATIONS on a large scale, either centralized commercial ,or at town, or
village level is a totally different ball game and must be seen in the
context of COMPETITION for resource input.
10. The cases I know off are all SPONSORED cases, meaning they have not
proven their technical, commercial and financial viability, but rather
shown that if you throw enough money at an idea or problem it works for a
limited amount of time.
11. HORST: As a side line to the biogas scene in the Philippines and your
response. The so called ANNEXES and others there, have been promoting and
building biogas plants for 10 years.All plants are heavily subsidised. The
only larger commercial operation (100 kW) the Maya pig farm closed shop, I
believe. There is absolutely nothing to show in terms of commercialisation
or financial viability. It looks admittedly bleak. Failed attempts for the
last 20 years to spread the technology has only proven one point: It is
rarely the fault of a TECHNOLOGY, but rather a missjudgement to what
extend the technology is needed, in this place, at that time for the
purpose proposed. If technology demonstrations cannot spread within 20
years in one place and duplicate in reasonable numbers, say thousands, then
something is seriously wrong.

Regards Albrecht.

"Mr. Jean Seguro" wrote:

> Dear Kaupp,
>
> Interesting point... Let us hope that one day we will develop a very
> efficient energy conversion system (gasifier??) that will allow the use
> of any kind of agricultural waste, this waste will be used efficiently,
> and this will allow the rotation of crops... Imagine that one day we
> will be making JetFuel from biomass...
>
> Even though, this is not my field. I think that it can be possible to
> develop a sustainable biomass production for energy. It is a matter of
> getting the people on the different fields together and working on it!
>
> Easy, right!!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jean
>
> =====
> Mr. Jean V. Seguro
> Colorado State University
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
> PhD Candidate (Biomass/Wind Energy/Solar Water Pumping)
> e-mail:JSeguro@yahoo.com
> Fax:(970) 491-3827
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com

--
Albrecht Kaupp
Indo-German Energy Efficiency Project (IG-EEP)
Tate Energy Research Institute(TERI)
P.O.Box 154
560052 Bangalore, INDIA
Fax 0091-80-2255686
Tel 0091-80-2255686
Fax USA 001-801-340-7905
e-mail: eta-pet@eta-team.com

From jseguro at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 11:55:40 2000
From: jseguro at yahoo.com (Mr. Jean Seguro)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Bioenergy court case #2
Message-ID: <200002061655.IAA06784@secure.crest.net>

Dear Albrecht,

Greetings from Colorado. I agree with you that at the lower end of your
proposed efficiencies we will be close to a negative energy balance.
But I believe that that is not going to be the case, we will be at
higher efficiencies. Unfortunately I don't think that we will see this
developments happening until the oil prices skyrocket, consider that
even though the oil prices have increase recently, it is still cheap to
produce and refine, at least for the habitants of the develop world.

When will biomass technology take off?

I believe that it is very dependent on oil prices...

Where will it happen?

At the developed countries. Unfortunately new technology is expensive
and developing countries do not have the capital to finance this, and
and financial corporations are not to happy to lend money to these
countries... It is sad to see all the biomass available and the power
needs together in the developing world but the means for transforming
the biomass into energy is not affordable there...

What is going on?

Some companies are slowly developing their technologies to be ready
when the time comes. For example, I hope not to be wrong, Shell is
developing gasification technology in Chile, but do you see papers
reporting their progress? I would like to see their achievements.
Besides I am very happy that they are doing that and getting involve
heavily into the PV market, hope that they will do the same with
biomass.

New developments in fossil fuel technologies are still happening and
will prolong the use of this fuels. For example I recently read that a
new cycle for gas turbines was developed and increased the efficiency
about 20%, pushing the theoretical efficiency close to 60%!!!

What do we need?

More government and institutional support to the development and
application of this technology.

On the other hand, the sustainability of the project not only depends
on the technology and economics, but also on the local needs. As Horst
mentioned, many projects work while the consultants are there, but once
they are gone, it is all over. This makes sense when we insist to
impose needs to others without determining what they really need and
will care about.

As Kyriakos mentioned time of development is a big factor, not just
time of research, but the time that the technology has been in use,
this allows the development of improvements to increase the
profitability. This is what has motivated development...

As an anecdotic experience. When I first moved to the US an old man
told me "here no money, no honey". At the time it was clear to me, I
though "well at home it is the same way, if I don't have money I cannot
go to the grocery store and buy honey". Well later I learned that here
honey means LOVE...

Anyway, I believe that we will get there eventually, but unfortunately
the force to do this is the NEED, and it will be great when everybody
realize that we NEED to care about the environment, a good environment
has to be our profits...

Still waiting to see JetFuel made out of biomass...

Best regards,

Jean

=====
Mr. Jean V. Seguro
Colorado State University
Department of Mechanical Engineering
PhD Candidate (Biomass/Wind Energy/Solar Water Pumping)
e-mail:JSeguro@yahoo.com
Fax:(970) 491-3827

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Feb 8 18:05:10 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: The masked killer
Message-ID: <ea.1ac8dbb.25d1faff@cs.com>

Dear Denny et al:

There is some truth on all sides of this discussion, but obviously Denny is
new to sustainable forestry.

Bad (read NO) forestry practices can be very destructive. Good forestry
practices are good for the land, the flora and fauna -and humans.

Here in gasification we are not proposing to cut old trees for fuel...

1) We use existing residues which are usually a nuisance where they
accumulate

2) Someday we may also plant "energy crops", keeping food and energy
production in balance.

Biomass energy is one of the most sustainable renewable energy forms - if
properly practiced.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

There is

In a message dated 2/6/00 11:40:39 PM Mountain Standard Time,
jseguro@yahoo.com writes:

<<
--- Denny Haldeman <denny@voyageronline.net> wrote:
> Reed and all. PV works 24 hours a day when battery systems are
> adequate. And, wood boilers need stoking all day, provided of course,
> we
> don't overcut and have to start burning the house to stay in power.
> This
> issue is overcutting, non-sustainable soils abuse, and inordinate
> consumption levels. PV and wind, with storage systems, bring users
> closer to living within sustainability parameters on a local level
> while
> maintaining a high quality of life without destroying the forests and
>
> life sustaining soils for frivolous power needs. Denny
> >>
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.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 Ben.Evans at dyson.com Wed Feb 9 04:17:44 2000
From: Ben.Evans at dyson.com (Ben Evans)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: The masked killer
Message-ID: <A610668F1B80D211953800A0C943936201C8CE84@apollo.dyson.com>

Dear all,
the masked killers of ignorance and mis-information can be very
dangerous!!
were we the only ones taught the basics of sustainable agriculture at
school? this was from aged 13-14 I think in the english system.
Ben Evans
> ----------
>
> Dear Denny et al:
>
> There is some truth on all sides of this discussion, but obviously Denny
> is
> new to sustainable forestry.
>
> Bad (read NO) forestry practices can be very destructive. Good forestry
> practices are good for the land, the flora and fauna -and humans.
>
> Here in gasification we are not proposing to cut old trees for fuel...
>
> 1) We use existing residues which are usually a nuisance where they
> accumulate
>
> 2) Someday we may also plant "energy crops", keeping food and energy
> production in balance.
>
> Biomass energy is one of the most sustainable renewable energy forms - if
> properly practiced.
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED BEF
>
> There is
>
> In a message dated 2/6/00 11:40:39 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> jseguro@yahoo.com writes:
>
> <<
> --- Denny Haldeman <denny@voyageronline.net> wrote:
> > Reed and all. PV works 24 hours a day when battery systems are
> > adequate. And, wood boilers need stoking all day, provided of course,
> > we
> > don't overcut and have to start burning the house to stay in power.
> > This
> > issue is overcutting, non-sustainable soils abuse, and inordinate
> > consumption levels. PV and wind, with storage systems, bring users
> > closer to living within sustainability parameters on a local level
> > while
> > maintaining a high quality of life without destroying the forests and
> >
> > life sustaining soils for frivolous power needs. Denny
> > >>
> 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.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.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 Murat.Dogru at newcastle.ac.uk Wed Feb 9 06:55:48 2000
From: Murat.Dogru at newcastle.ac.uk (Murat DOGRU)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Steam and N2
Message-ID: <200002091155.LAA20329@cheviot1.ncl.ac.uk>

Dear Dr. Reed and list

Separating Nitrogen from producer gas will obviously increase the
quality of the product gas by around 50%.
There are some other methods for instants; oxygen gasification
compare to air gasification will also increase quality of the product
gas.
My question is which one do you think is more feasible: Oxygen
gasification or Nitrogen separation from the product gas?
Do you know any method or any research paper for Nitrogen
separation from the gas mixture.

I have some clinker formation problem around the throat of
downdraft gasifier because sewage sludge has about 25% ash by
weight. Temperature around the throat is constant and uniform at
1200 C. If I inject some steam with air: Is this going to decrease
the temperature and then prevent clinker formation? I believe, H2
level in gas increases as well because of water gas shift reaction
as a result product gas quality increases!

Look forward to the comments

Cheers

Murat
Newcastle, UK
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.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 heermann at juniper.co.uk Fri Feb 11 11:35:59 2000
From: heermann at juniper.co.uk (Claudia Heermann)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: New Gasification Report
Message-ID: <200002111635.IAA12046@secure.crest.net>

There is a new Worldwide = Report from Juniper :

"Pyrolysis & Gasification of Waste" containing a worldwide market report and technical reviews of over 60 pyrolysis and gasification
processes, = please visit www.juniper.co.uk/gasification or contact Claudia Heermann(heermann@juniper.co.uk)
for = more information.

C. Heermann
Market Analyst

Juniper Consultancy = Services Ltd.
Sheppards Mill, Uley,
Gloucestershire GL11 5SP
England
Tel.: 0044 1453 860 750
Fax.: 0044 1453 860 882
Website: www.juniper.co.uk

From jiachun at hawaii.edu Fri Feb 11 15:40:54 2000
From: jiachun at hawaii.edu (Jiachun Zhou)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Please remove my address from your mailing list
In-Reply-To: <200002111635.IAA12046@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10002111039290.8463-100000@uhunix1>

Dear net manager,

My email address is: jiachun@hawaii.edu.
Please remove it from your mailing list. Thanks.

Best Wishes to Gasification Group.

J.Z.

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Feb 12 08:50:04 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Separating N2 from producer gas two ways
Message-ID: <94.9e2ebf.25d6bee7@cs.com>

Dear Murat et al:

In a message dated 2/9/00 5:09:31 AM Mountain Standard Time,
Murat.Dogru@newcastle.ac.uk writes:

<<
Separating Nitrogen from producer gas will obviously increase the
quality of the product gas by around 50%.
There are some other methods for instants; oxygen gasification
compare to air gasification will also increase quality of the product
gas.

My question is which one do you think is more feasible: Oxygen
gasification or Nitrogen separation from the product gas?
Do you know any method or any research paper for Nitrogen
separation from the gas mixture.

It is MUCH easier to separate 20% oxygen from air than 50% N2 from producer
gas. And, you can buy it in trucks for $40-80/ton. We have spent a century
learning various ways to make oxygen.

I have some clinker formation problem around the throat of
downdraft gasifier because sewage sludge has about 25% ash by
weight. Temperature around the throat is constant and uniform at
1200 C. If I inject some steam with air: Is this going to decrease
the temperature and then prevent clinker formation? I believe, H2
level in gas increases as well because of water gas shift reaction
as a result product gas quality increases!

Oxygen downdraft gasification is relatively easy and if you keep the
superficial velocity below 0.1 you should not form clinkers, even with
oxygen. Adding steam will also work.

Look forward to the comments

Cheers

Murat
Newcastle, UK >>

Cheers to you, too..... 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
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
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 146942 at email.msn.com Sun Feb 13 20:10:35 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: what is the amount of btu's required for gassification?
Message-ID: <002b01bf7688$5d313900$7a3d1b3f@oemcomputer>

What is the amount of btu's required to evaporate/distill one pound of
softwood? hardwood? cellulose?

I have a supply of superheated steam and wish to degrade wood chips

Thanx
Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam
www.sensiblesteam.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Feb 14 11:30:33 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Hand firing vs. automated ???
Message-ID: <84.16ec955.25d9877f@cs.com>

Dear Skip and all:

Small steam engines and turbines are notoriously inefficient. Small power
particularly needs gasification, which is why we have this site at CREST.

If we lift your 1,000 lb to a height of 6 feet it will require 6,000 ft lb of
energy, and can be accomplished by a 0.03 hp motor. And you want to use a
Human Being to accomplish this! Shame on you. There is a dignity to labor,
but not wasted labor.

Sounds to me like you are learning some valuable lessons about steam vs
producer gas.

Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF

If you are serious about generating power,

In a message dated 2/13/00 6:13:07 PM Mountain Standard Time,
146942@email.msn.com writes:

<<
By all my research, and experience, one man can move 1000 lbs of wood an
hour comfortably. I can produce 50kw with this and double that with a very
efficient engine.
What I dont understand is why people will spend upwards of 250 grand for the
material handling of the same amount of wood when 20 to 30 grand in salary
does the same thing, not to mention it is politically correct.

To further make my point, I have the opportunity to salvage three different
systems of this size that someone took the time and expense to build and
operate, only to find that it was not cost effective and returned to natural
gas. To further 'twist the knife', these white elephants not only cant be
sold, but the cost of removal exceeds their actual value.

It seems to me that hand fired, package sized boilers preferrably mounted on
trailers and enclosed in simple polebarns are the only cost effective way to
do biomass in the under 2000lbs/hr size.

Anyone else traveled down this road?

Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam
www.sensiblesteam.com
>>
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.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 146942 at email.msn.com Mon Feb 14 14:47:52 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Hand firing vs. automated ???
Message-ID: <004801bf7724$71f876e0$e93d1b3f@oemcomputer>

Dear Skip and all:

1) Your 50 kWh has an energy content of 180E6 Joules. The 1000 lb (454 kg)
of 10% MC wood (18 MJ/kg) has an energy content of 8.2E9 Joules. So, 50 kW
from 1000 lb of wood is an efficiency of 2.2%. Your better engine is still
less than 5%. A gasifier can achieve 20% efficiency using easily available
engines.
>>>>>
2% is all I ever wanted. In my book, practicality always takes a back seat
to practicality. While i.c. engines are way more efficient (if you can find
a cheap one that will last), steam offers a dual usage. doing something
with the exhaust heat is where the payoff comes, not from making
electricity. Providing heat without the presence of oxygen is why steam is
used in the real world. The motive power is just a nice benefit.

2) I don't know where you got $250,000 for a device to lift 1,000 lb per
hour. Farmers have wonderful bucket elevators etc. for this costing
<$10,000. I hope Tom Miles will get us into the right ballpark on this.
>>>>>
In all three salvages, the cost of building a building, lots of concrete
banks for bulk storage, and a 50-100 cubic yard silo/steel bin tower provide
the majority of the initial cost. Then, a maint. man to make it keep
working reliably. This was my point anyways.....if you already have a
fireman, he can keep on top of things and do two jobs at once.
>>>>>>
If we lift your 1,000 lb to a height of 6 feet it will require 6,000 ft lb
of
energy, and can be accomplished by a 0.03 hp motor. And you want to use a
Human Being to accomplish this! Shame on you. There is a dignity to labor,
but not wasted labor.
>>>>
In one case- a greenhouse in Ca. that uses pistachio hulls in a 100hp boiler
figured that over the three years he had it, including salvage losses, he is
out $350,000. and all he was doing was heating large greenhouses.
After lengthy discussion, he agrees that hand firing (he had olive and
orange waste wood available) would have been the answer but right now,
nothing beats natural gas and I have to agree.

There are those who have to make a living and those who live off the grant
system.

I am not saying hand firing with large pieces should replace automated (and
dont forget the energy required to hog that wood, Tom), but I think that it
has some applications. If I remember correctly,. there is a powerplant in
Sweeden that burns entire trees. It might be worth a study.
Skip

From hunolds6 at interl.net Fri Feb 18 12:09:54 2000
From: hunolds6 at interl.net (Hunolds6)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L:
Message-ID: <200002181709.JAA32255@secure.crest.net>

Hi my name is Wes Hunold. I am a student from Central Lee High school in Donnellson, Iowa. At our school we have a very ellite science club.
This = year I am working with burning different renewable energy
sources. The samples = that I am burning are: cow, pig, and horse
manure, I am also burning corn as a = resource too. I have found out
that these renewable resources will burn. The only = problem with this
is that it takes a while for the samples to stay ignited. Is = there a
way fixing this problem? This will be my second year with working with these kinds of renewable sources. Last year I worked with taking the
methane = off of bio-solids, and then turning around and burning the
methane. The only = problem with burning types of renewable sources is
that it will take it a little = while for it to ignite. Do you have any
information that would be useful for = my line of this project. It would
be ever so helpfull if you could help in any = way. Even just a little
letter back.

Thank you so much,

Wes Hunold

From A.Weststeijn at EPZ.NL Wed Feb 23 06:58:26 2000
From: A.Weststeijn at EPZ.NL (A. Weststeijn)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L:
Message-ID: <00Feb23.125727gmt+0100.131808@epzfw01.epz.nl>

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Thu Feb 24 05:14:31 2000
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (A. Weststeijn)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L:
Message-ID: <00Feb24.111328gmt+0100.131808@epzfw01.epz.nl>

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Feb 26 19:14:25 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Tar Measuring Methods
Message-ID: <63.243b1fd.25e9c61b@cs.com>

Dear Prof. Parikh and all concerned about "Tars" in Gasifiers:

I believe thie question of the nature of "tars" is partly semantic in nature.
Maybe National origin in nature. Remember that pyrolysis below 500C
produces the monomers, oligomers and fragments of the "wood plastics",
(cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin). Above 800C these molecules lose
various side chains and hydroxyls and convert to a higher molecular weight
tar composed of naphthalene, anthracene, ..... and all the other compounds
known in coal and cracking tars for 100 years.
~~~~~
When I was young "tar" for the road came in barrels and was melted and
applied to the road. (I also chewed it, probably not the best practice).
Our society still has "coal tars", cracking tars from ethylene plants etc.
These are all high molecular weight, low volatility materials.

At a meeting (Banff?) Hub Stassen got up and opined that if "tars" were below
100 ppm, an engine would run indefinitely. I got up and said that World War
II experience and our experience etc. all specified < 20 ppm "tar".

We went out in the lobby to discuss our differences and I found that his
"tars" were what I would call "condensibles" and that he collected them at or
below 0C. Our tars are those (acetone-methanol) soluble materials that
condense on a <0.1 micron Gelman filter above 90C. I have no doubt that the
condensible "tars" content is approximately proportional to the "tar"
content, and could be 5 times as large.

Stassen's method (and Hassler, EEC etc.) requires, as you say, a great deal
of expensive equipment, chemicals etc and takes a long time.

Our method (developed by Agua Das) takes 10 minutes to collect a weighable
sample from 0.03 m3 of gas (1 ft3). A weight gain of 1 mg corresponds to
about 30 ppm. We then wash the filter to remove tars and reweigh to get just
the particulate and the weight loss is tar. The equipment costs less than
$200. (We have made many dozen measurements last summer and currently on our
new 12 kW "tarfree" 9or at least < 50 ppm) gasifier.

I have been rather surprised to find that Stassen's definition is prevailing
in the European energy circles. I think they have too much money and too
little focus on solving the practical problems of providing working gasifiers
at a reasonable cost. The more money the solution costs, the longer they
will be employed and the more papers they can publish. . but the fewer
gasifiers they will build and test.

By all means, condense at 0 C occasionally to find out what is in the gas if
you aren't satisfied with the thousands of compounds already identified.
(See our book list below, eg 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.).

However, if you are interested in running an engine (or other device) for
1000 hours without tarring up the valves and intakes, or having particulate
problems, follow our prescription in "CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE
SYSTEMS: A. Das (TIPI 1999). Test that gas for tar condensing at ~ 90C!
Long engine life and reliable operation requires a gas with less than 20 mg
of tar and particulates per cubic meter (20 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".)

We collected 15 samples in our run last week and are very satisfied with the
results. We'll let you know how much tar results when we complete our 1000
hour test.

Remember that the World War II gasifiers (over a million built and used
extensively) never condensed volatiles at 0C to speculate on what might
occur. No doubt some of the gasifiers had tar problems, but with that many
users they fixed them pretty quick. The prescriptions for the Imbert
gasifier dimensions are quite specific in matching engine HP to nozzle and
throat size and that is what kept tars low enough for their purposes,
probably 1,000 ppm in the raw gas. This is brought to 20 ppm by filtering.
We expect to go much lower here at CPC.

I hope this ignites a lively discussion here at the world center of
gasification research. Give my best to Pravin. What are you doing these
days and are you coming to the U.S. (and CPC) this Spring?

Your pal, TOM REED CPC/BEF

In a message dated 2/25/00 6:34:40 AM Mountain Standard Time,
parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in writes:

<<
Dear Dr Reed

Hope this mail finds you in best health and mood. I am seeking your
openion and advice on the following:
There is a major debate here about the method of measurement of TAR in
producer-gas. As you know we have been using the THT apparatus which at
one time was considred acceptable and was widely used under world bank
programmes. Hub Stassen of Twente University had assembled one unit and sold
to us way back in 1986. We had later replicated such units with certain
improvisations like using thimble filter instead of plane paper filter and
also having the first particulate collection at comparatively higher
temperature. For field measurements we have been using your apparatus
which also was replicated with local improvisations and was immaculately
calibrated. The group at IISC Bangalore is using a method based upon
ANAZOLE absorption devised by Philipp Hasler of Verenum Research, Zurich.
It is claimed to be a more accurate method measuring higher values of TAR.
I feel the definition of TAR gets changed with the method of measurement.
I also feel all volatiles need not be called as TAR and only those which
are not easily consumed by engine need to be measured and worried about.
In Hasler's method as adopted by IISC group the sampling needs to be
continuousely done for 8 hours under isokinetic conditions. Please write
your openion about the comparative merits of the two methods. Do you have
the email address of Dr Philipp? If yes, please let us have it. May be he
may have some openion on it.
Regards to Vivian and you,
By the way I missed your communication on this Valentine's day?
Mrs Parikh
>>
ORDER LIST - Biomass Energy Books
(Nicknames in Bold, book descriptions follow)

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: $20

ORDER BLANK
-10% if 3 or more books ordered or to booksellers + $3 handling
+ (US & Shipping, US and Canada $1.50 (bookrate, or request air, $3) or
(other foreign, $8/book air)
TOTAL ORDER ___________
E-mail order to reedtb2@CS.com or Mail orders to The Biomass Energy
Foundation Press (BEFP), 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401; FAX 303-278 0560;
call 303 278 0558. We'll send invoice with books. Pay by postal order or
check on US Banks, or electronic deposit to Bank No. 10 20000 76, Acct. No.
300800 2911. (No foreign checks - can cost $25 to clear!)

BOOKS FROM THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS

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

Biomass Energy Books - Description and Order Blank

NEW: A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: T. Reed and S. Gaur have
surveyed the biomass gasification scene for the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and the Biomass Energy Foundation. 180 pages of large gasifiers
systems, small gasifiers and gasifier research institutions with descriptions
of the major types of gasifiers and a list of most world gasifiers. 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. Tickell has done an excellent job of collecting both theory
and praxis on producing Biodiesel fuel from vegetable oils, particularly used
oil. Nice instructions for kitchen or large scale. ISBN 0-9664616-0-6
90 pp $20 __________

NEW/OLD: DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: Tom Reed and Becky
Bryant, A "State of the Art evaluation of densified biomass fuels" with
documentation of processes, energy balance, economics and applications.
First published in 1978, & still good. ISBN 1-890607-16-9 35 pp
$12 __________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.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 146942 at email.msn.com Sat Feb 26 21:01:49 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Tar measure
Message-ID: <000701bf80c6$cff23460$3f3d1b3f@oemcomputer>

Tom,
In my Audel's books from WW2, the gassifiers-including the units of 500hp
used on the Great Lakes ships all passed steam thru the coals which made
conversions and also apparantly reduced tars as compounds were turned into
something else before it became a tar. Would the displacement of the O2 or
nitrogen have anything to do with this?
Those hundreds of engines used on the Great Lakes coal ships put in a lot of
reliable sea time.
I think that the 'cracked steam' allows it to hydrogenate carbon chains
creating other esters and less tar. Also, I understand that high
compression two stroke engines did not have a condensation problem as there
was no exhaust valve.
what about a ceramic valve? It would be hard to condense anything on
something that was maybe 700+ degrees and it might even catalize what ever
it came in contact with anyways? Also, I have seen some pistons with a
ceramic top.....probably for all the above reasons.

skip
sensible steam
www.sensiblesteam.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sun Feb 27 00:11:11 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Evaporative Cooling for Biomass Drying?
Message-ID: <50.2116396.25ea0bc9@aol.com>

While perusing the web site for Fox Valve (venturi ejectors, etc.) I happened
across a page regarding evaporative cooling used in freeze drying. The page
states that "evaporative cooling is accomplished by pulling a vacuum on
moisture-enriched products within a vessel. An increase in vacuum results in
a lowering of the boiling point of the moisture, causing rapid evaporation.
During evaporation, the latent heat is given up - thereby reducing the
temperature of the product." The page further states that "a typical
multi-stage eductor unit can cool from 200°F to 35°F in 15 - 20 min."

Does anyone know whether 1) the material must first be heated for the process
to be efficient, and 2) once cool, is the material also mostly dry? If
vacuum cooling/drying is practical in the food processing industry, I'm
wondering if it could also be practical for use in biomass drying? Does
anyone have knowledge or experience with the use of vacuum drying of biomass?

This particular Fox Valve web page address is:
http://www.foxvalve.com/frameset-steam.html

Any feedback would be appreciated!

Regards,

Vernon Harris
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.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 MIHWP at TTACS.TTU.EDU Sun Feb 27 11:53:33 2000
From: MIHWP at TTACS.TTU.EDU (Harry W. Parker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Evaporative Cooling for Biomass Drying?
In-Reply-To: <50.2116396.25ea0bc9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <38B91FCD.5994262C@ttacs.ttu.edu>

The energy cost to produce the vacuum to dry the biomass for fuel would
be excessive. In addition, you still have to supply about 1000 BTU/lb
water evaporated. Yes the biomass would have to be heated.

Warm vegetables fresh from the fields, such as lettuce, have been
chilled before shipping by pulling a vacuum on them to evaporate a small
amount of water.

<><><><><>

ANOTHER TOPIC -- Our Texas Tech ChE dept policies/goals have changed
and so I am probably not going to have summer salary this summer. For
that reason, I would be pleased to consider professional engineering
consulting activities for some of you all this summer. Please contact
me directly at H.Parker@ttu.edu.

HWP

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

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

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

From eromero at posta.unizar.es Mon Feb 28 17:51:01 2000
From: eromero at posta.unizar.es (eromero@posta.unizar.es)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: water-gas shift reaction
Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20000228210300.00797570@posta.unizar.es>

MAA32186
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification

Hi
I´m interested in water gas shift reaction, but specially in the
thermodinamics. Data of equilibrium constant, etc. If anybody knows
something about it, please let me know.
Thanks a lot.

Enrique Romero
Dpt. of Chemical & Environmental Engineering
University of Zaragoza
Zaragoza
Spain

****************************************
Maria Pilar Bernal Paredes
Department of Chemical Engineering
Faculty of Science, Pedro Cerbuna 12
50009 ZARAGOZA, SPAIN
Ph:+34 976 761000 Ext.3515
Fax:+34976762142
****************************************

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

February 2000 Gasification Archive