June 2000 Gasification Archive

From praman at teri.res.in Fri Jun 2 00:54:35 2000
From: praman at teri.res.in (P Raman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Converting diesel engine to run on 100% gas .
Message-ID: <s9378c0c.085@dakghar.teri.res.in>

Converting diesel engine to run on 100% gas -- Teri's experience

Steep hike in diesel price made the dual fuel mode power generation economically unattractive. Teri is working on developing 100% gas engine.

To start with a 5HP diesel engine is modified with necessary changes to run on hundred per cent gas. The gas is cooled and cleaned by a simple bubbling and evaporative cooling method. The clean gas is connected to the Engine through a floating dome, (made of HDPE) with gas holding capacity of 1m3. The floating dome helps to avoid delivery pressure variation and to run the engine at required rpm. The gas and air are mixed through a mixing device and given to the engine. A special spark plug is used to retrofit into the head of the diesel engine. The timer shaft of the engine is extended to activate the "Breaker point". An alternator is connected with the flywheel, to charge a battery (12V DC). Spark timing, air fuel ratio, and mixing are optimized to start the engine, only by using the gas. The engine is having smooth start with gas, by manual cranking. The engine performance is observed on different loads. It runs with out any problem. The engine is in operation since August-99. Work is in progress on connecting automatic gas control system for varying electrical load.

P Raman
BETA

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 vvnk at teri.res.in Fri Jun 2 01:28:00 2000
From: vvnk at teri.res.in (V V N Kishore)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Reports on biomass gasification
Message-ID: <s93793e4.038@dakghar.teri.res.in>

This is with reference to your e-mail on the above subject.

You can contact TERI library at the following address.

Mr. A.M. Siddiqui
Convenor
Library and Information Centre
Tata Energy Research Institute
Darbari Seth Block, Habitat Place
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003
Tel: 91-11-4622246, 4601550
Fax: 91-11-4621770, 4632609
email: ams@teri.res.in

With kind regards,

V.V.N. Kishore

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Fri Jun 2 09:15:08 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Converting diesel engine to run on 100% gas .
In-Reply-To: <s9378c0c.085@dakghar.teri.res.in>
Message-ID: <3937B350.EB5E89CF@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Mr. Raman

What are your reasons for using a Diesel Engine? There is a lot of
complex work designing and installing an ignition system. Why not simply
use a gasoline engine, with an ignition system already in place?

If it was simply a case of "we had a diesel engine", why not simply add
the gas fuel to the air supply to the diesel, and use a small amount of
diesel fuel as a "pilot ignition source?"

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

P Raman wrote:
>
> Converting diesel engine to run on 100% gas -- Teri's experience
>
> Steep hike in diesel price made the dual fuel mode power generation economically unattractive. Teri is working on developing 100% gas engine.
>
> To start with a 5HP diesel engine is modified with necessary changes to run on hundred per cent gas. The gas is cooled and cleaned by a simple bubbling and evaporative cooling method. The clean gas is connected to the Engine through a floating dome, (made of HDPE) with gas holding capacity of 1m3. The floating dome helps to avoid delivery pressure variation and to run the engine at required rpm. The gas and air are mixed through a mixing device and given to the engine. A special spark plug is used to retrofit into the head of the diesel engine. The timer shaft of the engine is extended to activate the "Breaker point". An alternator is connected with the flywheel, to charge a battery (12V DC). Spark timing, air fuel ratio, and mixing are optimized to start the engine, only by using the gas. The engine is having smooth start with gas, by manual cranking. The engine performance is observed on different loads. It runs with out any problem. The engine is in operation since August-9!
> 9. Work is in progress on connecting automatic gas control system for varying electrical load.
>
> P Raman
> BETA
>
> 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 rroberts at repp.org Sat Jun 3 23:39:10 2000
From: rroberts at repp.org (roby roberts)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <200006040339.UAA26187@secure.crest.net>

<tmiles@teleport.com>)
Subject: GAS-L: Bioenergy Lists are to be Solar Powered Starting July 1
Cc: gasification@crest.org, bioconversion@crest.org, stoves@crest.org,
digestion@crest.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org

Bioenergy List Participants:

As of July 1 the bioenergy lists at CREST (Center for Solar energy and
Sustainable Technology) will be solar powered. (See below)

Regards,

Tom Miles
Bioenergy Lists Administrator

June 01, 2000

FROM: Roby Roberts, REPP-CREST 202-686-2799 and Marc Overman, SolarHost
800-860-1265

SUBJECT: New Hosting Services

We are happy to announce an exciting partnership between REPP-CREST and
SolarHost. Beginning on July 1st, your website, and all the sites
supported by REPP-CREST will be hosted by SolarHost - the world's first
solar powered Internet company < http://www.solarhost.com >.

SolarHost and REPP-CREST have agreed to a long-term partnership.
Working together, we will upgrade your sites to our new,
state-of-the-art, solar powered web servers. Some of the benefits you
will receive include:
o Faster hardware,
o Greater choice of software options,
o Supporting reliable solar power,
o Improved security, and
o Expanded web site and database development options.

We view the partnership between REPP-CREST and SolarHost as an upgrade
of your services. We also hope to announce exciting improvements to our
solstice sustainable energy portal. Over the next few months, our
staffs will be working to assure a seamless transfer of web services.

Through the end of the calendar year, all paying hosting customers will
receive the same level of service you have come to expect from
REPP-CREST. Between now and the end of the calendar year, SolarHost
will be contacting you to establish new contracts for calendar year 2001
services at rates competitive with what you are paying today.

Your happiness and satisfaction are our primary concerns. You will be
receiving weekly updates as we go through this process. If you have any
comments or suggestions, please feel free to contact Marc or Roby.

--
Roby Roberts
Renewable Energy Policy Project
Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology
1612 K Street, NW, Suite 202
Washington, DC 20006
202-293-2898 (f) 202-293-5857
<www.repp.org> <www.crest.org>

Thomas R Miles tmiles@teleport.com
T R Miles, TCI Tel 503-292-0107
1470 SW Woodward Way Fax 503-292-2919
Portland, OR 97225 USA

From jim at egi.kth.se Sun Jun 4 00:28:22 2000
From: jim at egi.kth.se (James Manson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: biogas
Message-ID: <3933E161.18889.1E156569@localhost>

GAA00328
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org

Hello, I have very much enjoyed the information and
analyses on this mailing list. I am about to start a
research project (master's thesis) on large scale biogas
utilization from manure from intensive livestock
operations in Canada. Large scale is 20,000+ head of
cattle (feedlot) and 2000+ sows (pigs). As part of my
literature search I was hoping I could "hear" from some
of the experiences throughout the world. I am interested
in actual operating experience of successful biogas
plants (economic, technical) and also failures. Thankyou
for your consideration.

Jim Manson

********************
Jim Manson, P. Eng
Department of Energy Technology
Kungl Tekniska Högskolan (Royal Institute of Technology)
Stockholm, Sweden
jim@egi.kth.se (until July 2000)
jim949700@yahoo.ca

From pctel at gesell.com.ar Sun Jun 4 00:46:17 2000
From: pctel at gesell.com.ar (Pctel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: plant start-up
Message-ID: <200006040446.VAA28353@secure.crest.net>

Jose Luis,
Echa un vistazo a:
http://mitglied.tripod.de/cturare/bio.htm

es un buen site para empezar y encontraras muchas referencias.
Suerte,

Alberto Vazquez
Argentina

-----Original Message-----
From: posta <jlsance@posta.unizar.es>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Viernes 26 de Mayo de 2000 4:18 AM
Subject: GAS-L: plant start-up

> Dear gasification friends:
>
> I am a student, and I am developing a graduation project on gasification.
>I would like to get information about different ways of heating a
>gasification reactor (my project is about fluid bed reactors, but any other
>information is welcome) to start the reaction.
>
> Any reference or idea will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jose Luis
>
>email: jlsance@posta.unizar.es
>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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Jun 4 05:55:32 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tree fertilizing...
Message-ID: <42.6544711.266b8168@cs.com>

Dear KS et al:

I was interested in your comments on deep rooted plants. Living in New
England and walking in her forests, I often come opon "root holes" left by
trees blown down in the 1939 hurricane. These trees must put roots in to
previously unrooted soils, so must be able to "extracT" potassium phosphorus
and other minerals that shallow rooted plants need but don't make from
complex clays. Clays are a rich source of potassium, but it is very
difficult to remove.

I have wondered whether treest therefore do in fact extract minerals that
shallow rooted plants need but can't generate.

I hope some botanist/biologist will know some facts in this area. Meanwhile,
plant more trees.....

Yours truly, TOM REED
BEF

In a message dated 5/31/00 11:26:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
kssustain@provide.net writes:

<<
To Denny Haldeman I think it is crucial to stop forest fires and
start burning wood because wood and other deep rooted plants may be the only
way we can retrieve potassium and phosphorus fertilizers from the soil. I am
hoping that ultimately scientists may be able to figure out how to get these
chemicals from sea water. In a time of desperation, people will burn forests
in wood stoves and fireplaces anyhow. By burning wood in Cogeneration and
Comanufacturing facilities, only in Winter, the efficiency of wood burning
can probably be improved by a factor of three over a woodstove and the
pollution can be greatly improved. Environmentalists have made a negative
contribution to Sustainability by emphasizing pollution control so much that
consumption and carbon dioxide have been ignored. It is crucial that we plant
billions of trees right now. It is also important to start burning waste
materials.
>>

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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Jun 4 05:55:39 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied Wood (TW)
Message-ID: <e8.5400d0f.266b8176@cs.com>

Dear Jim:

Good question. I believe that you will release at 270 C about 5-10%
volatiles and that you should plan to burn them for energy and not let them
condense.

However, I am sure that there are sojme real experts out there if you can
find them.

Good luck, TOM REED

In a message dated 5/29/00 2:35:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, arcate@MSN.com
writes:

<<
Tom Reed you indicated interest in Torrefied Wood, perhaps you and others
can help me with this:

If we torrefy wood at ~ 270 degrees C. (by Airless Drying using superheated
steam at atmospheric pressure) typically, what volatile compounds will be
released, over what temperature ranges; in particular combustible gases that
could be used as fuel for the AD's indirect heater ?

Thank you,

Jim Arcate
Transnational Technology
>>
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 LINVENT at aol.com Sun Jun 4 12:08:24 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tree fertilizing...
Message-ID: <a9.66ef4c7.266bd8e5@aol.com>

Dear Tom Reed et. al.,
In order for plants to extract nutrients, they must have free calcium in
the root tips. This will allow them to put roots out even in the areas where
roots may already be existent or dead roots are present. "Root bound" which
occurs in houseplants in small containers will occur in nature also.
However, this can be overcome with the proper nutrient levels being
continuously supplied to the plants so that a plant can continue growing even
in a small plant. Sort of hydroponic. Potassium is difficult to assimilate as
it has to exchange a hydrogen ion from the plant to the soil to replace the
ion potassium is bound with. Supplying hydrogen ions is what the microbes on
the root hair do, make acid compounds for exchange with the soil nutrients.
Imagine breaking the K2SO4 bond so that the Kcan be assimilated. A company
which I own and operate provides an organic mined mineral with a pH of 4
which supplies the hydrogen ions directly,and the growth properties are
phenomonally changed. Trees will grow twice as fast and have massive dark
colored vegetation. We have also learned that accumulations of excess P in
the top 6" will cause interference with K uptake and calcium. Ca is vital for
gathering K as it keeps the root system growing. Hence, liming is very
important. The phosphorous accumulation arises from the plant matter falling
from the tree, decomposing and leaving P which does not leach in the upper
rhizosphere.
Also, micronutrients are vital. K cannot be assimilated without certain
nutrients. WE have doubled K uptake with addition of small quantities of
micronutrients. Plant health has dramatically increased.
If anyone wishes to learn more about faster higher quality production of
biomass, send me an e-mail or look up agronicsinc.com website. Most ag
production systems are running 40-60% below capacity due to nutritional
limitations.

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
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 snkm at btl.net Mon Jun 5 09:39:07 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tesla -- forwarding
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000605073614.008cdb50@wgs1.btl.net>

Hello Johathan;

Would be very interested in any test results. Can you point us at a WWW
site for this info??

Peter

Return-Path: <IanWade@aol.com>
From: IanWade@aol.com
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:10:14 EDT
Subject: (no subject)
To: snkm@btl.net

Hi peter its Jonathan weve emailed in the past about tesla turbine.
No matter what I try I cant email the gasification list can you post this for
me.
It may be of interest to the list and yourself
Jonathan Wade Network Energy Ltd

Hi list peter tom et al.
Just to let you know the tesla mob have got a commercial(????) system in beta
testing. Output 250 kwe.
As usual cant seem to get them to supply any info on it.
They must be the only mob which dont want to publicise their products. Will
be interesting to see what they have come up with
Jonathan Wade

From snkm at btl.net Mon Jun 5 12:55:30 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: EPI Denver Selling Tesla gas turbines????
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000605105349.0088e280@wgs1.btl.net>

Continuing on this "new" Tesla story --

This just came in. Anyone heard about EPI and a Tesla????

Peter Singfield
COROGEN
Executive Director
Xaibe Village
Corozal District
Belize, Central America
Tel 501-4-35213
E-mail: snkm@btl.net

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

Peter bit of info arrived from tesla list company called EPI
no URL though --- Jonathan
Hi,
The 250 kWe tesla turbine is being produced by EPI out of Denver. I think
Sony Entrican is one of the owners and certainly a guiding light there.
EPI is targeting the oil and gas market with their first turbine gensets
because the turbine can utilize low BTU fuels that would otherwise be waste.
I talked to Sony for a few minutes yesterday about my ideas for a small
scale sawdust powered tesla turbine. He wasn't very encouraging. He said
he's tried a lot of different combustion units over the years and he's not
really impressed with the pulse combustion system Tesla inventing. He also
said the smaller your turbine the bigger your physics problems with speed,
bearings, and stresses. Maybe Frank has overcome all these problems and
will turn the microturbine industry on its head. I hope so.

Joel Florian,
Kenny Lake,Alaska -- looking for an engine that is self-starting and doesn't
need antifreeze and an oil-pan heater.

From IanWade at aol.com Tue Jun 6 10:19:05 2000
From: IanWade at aol.com (IanWade@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tesla Update
Message-ID: <78.633f23d.266e6235@aol.com>

Have spoken to the guy building the tesla turbines in Denver. They have made
two turbines of 250 kwe. They expect to go into production with nothing
smaller than 500kwe.
They have built them to run on gaseous fuels only at present.
They will have an idea of efficiency soon and within two months will no
exactly.
These are not machines that you build in your garage they are skid mounted
and about 8 feet long. They are vast. (I thought tesla engines were meant
to be small)
He has promised to keep me updated I cant seem to find a website but they
have their own email server.
They are expecting the final 500 kwe models to come out at $650 / kwe.
Not much cheaper than a reciprocating genset.
Jonathan
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 kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Tue Jun 6 12:13:39 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tesla Update
In-Reply-To: <78.633f23d.266e6235@aol.com>
Message-ID: <393D230A.67A7D0B@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Ian

I am not familiar with the Telsa Turbine. Would you know a Net Site,
where I could see a picture and description of them?

Thanks

Kevin Chisholm

IanWade@aol.com wrote:
>
> Have spoken to the guy building the tesla turbines in Denver. They have made
> two turbines of 250 kwe. They expect to go into production with nothing
> smaller than 500kwe.
> They have built them to run on gaseous fuels only at present.
> They will have an idea of efficiency soon and within two months will no
> exactly.
> These are not machines that you build in your garage they are skid mounted
> and about 8 feet long. They are vast. (I thought tesla engines were meant
> to be small)
> He has promised to keep me updated I cant seem to find a website but they
> have their own email server.
> They are expecting the final 500 kwe models to come out at $650 / kwe.
> Not much cheaper than a reciprocating genset.
> Jonathan
> 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 snkm at btl.net Tue Jun 6 13:05:00 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tesla Update
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000606105715.00898530@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi;

This is Peter Singfield here in Belize -- Central America.

"Jonathan" is posting these messages to me to post to the this list -- as
apparently he is having problems "joining".

I did an investigation into Tesla Turbines a few months back. Met a number
of Tesla affictionarios that keep me informed.

It is my personal opinion that not much of value has been achieved to date
in this area. But the people on the Tesla lists are very dedicated, to
proving to the world, otherwise.

This latest information is quite amazing -- am hoping someone on this list
in the Denver area can verify:

"The 250 kWe tesla turbine is being produced by EPI out of Denver."

You can find all kinds of info regarding Tesla Turbines at the following Urls:

start here:

http://www.execpc.com/~teba
http://frank.germano.com/page2.htm

Then:

http://www.mynetplace.com/simple/?turbine(Disk Turbine Plans)
http://www.gold-mountain.co.nz/lostech/testurb.html(I.C.Disk Turbine)
http://www.voyager.co.nz/~djyoung(Disk Type Gas Turbine Project)
http://www.execpc.com/~teba(Tesla Engine Society)
http://www.pfranc.com/projects/turbine/top.htm(Home Brew Gas Turbines)
http://sesusa.hypermart.net(Stirling Cycle Engines)
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/5465(Ringbom Engine)
http://www.uidaho.edu/engr/ME/sr_des/hev/stir/(Ringbom Engine)
http://www.qrmc.com/animationtext.htm(Stirling Cycle Aero Eng.)
http://home3.inet.tele.dk/kennethm/pulse.htm(Pulse Jets)
http://www.mtsc.unt.edu/CooLN2Car.html(LN2 Powered Car)
http://www.layo.com(Gizmo for Generating H2 From H2O To Run Car)
http://www.batc.org.uk/(Info. On Mechanical T.V.'s The 1920's)
http://www.patents.ibm.com(U.S. Patent Search Site)

At 01:12 PM 6/6/00 -0300, you wrote:
>Dear Ian
>
>I am not familiar with the Telsa Turbine. Would you know a Net Site,
>where I could see a picture and description of them?
>
>Thanks
>
>Kevin Chisholm
>
>IanWade@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Have spoken to the guy building the tesla turbines in Denver. They have
made
>> two turbines of 250 kwe. They expect to go into production with nothing
>> smaller than 500kwe.
>> They have built them to run on gaseous fuels only at present.
>> They will have an idea of efficiency soon and within two months will no
>> exactly.
>> These are not machines that you build in your garage they are skid mounted
>> and about 8 feet long. They are vast. (I thought tesla engines were meant
>> to be small)
>> He has promised to keep me updated I cant seem to find a website but they
>> have their own email server.
>> They are expecting the final 500 kwe models to come out at $650 / kwe.
>> Not much cheaper than a reciprocating genset.
>> Jonathan
>> 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
>
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 snkm at btl.net Tue Jun 6 13:05:04 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tesla Update
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000606105901.009438c0@wgs1.btl.net>

Oops -- looks like Jonathan has joined the list?? Welcome aboard!

Peter

At 10:18 AM 6/6/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Have spoken to the guy building the tesla turbines in Denver. They have
made
>two turbines of 250 kwe. They expect to go into production with nothing
>smaller than 500kwe.
>They have built them to run on gaseous fuels only at present.
>They will have an idea of efficiency soon and within two months will no
>exactly.
>These are not machines that you build in your garage they are skid mounted
>and about 8 feet long. They are vast. (I thought tesla engines were meant
>to be small)
>He has promised to keep me updated I cant seem to find a website but they
>have their own email server.
>They are expecting the final 500 kwe models to come out at $650 / kwe.
>Not much cheaper than a reciprocating genset.
>Jonathan
>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 IanWade at aol.com Wed Jun 7 04:45:55 2000
From: IanWade at aol.com (IanWade@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tesla Update
Message-ID: <9e.57350b7.266f6598@aol.com>

List your going to hate me two people have asked off list for the contact
name of the person building the tt.
This is just what I did on the tt list. The bloke who replied gave it to me
and said not to post it on any lists so I feel i should not give it out. I
work for a power co (my own and my pa's) I probably asked all the questions
briefly you want to know. (but I forgot to ask if they had a web site) He
did not tell me much apart from its big and runs on gas and is only one of
two prototypes. Nowt on efficiency.

I watch these guys because there are so many of them (over 1000 paid up
members of TEBA) and I know 99% can be idiots but it only needs the one who
is not to suss this stuff if it is possible. Then we are in a differrent
ball game.

I will keep the list posted when I hear any more now thanks to Tom i think i
can email list directly.

Peter has provided loads of links that I hadnt even seen. Thanks for that I
ll have to get reading to see if I missed any thing.

Jonathan

From IanWade at aol.com Wed Jun 7 10:01:51 2000
From: IanWade at aol.com (IanWade@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: How does a TT work
Message-ID: <92.5c2de0c.266fafb1@aol.com>

Hi list
This is a serious list. Sometimes on Tesla list they appear to be discussing
UFO's etc. (Believe me I mean it).
Now Tesla said his turbine worked on adhesion and viscosity not pressure
operating on a boundary layer.

Question for a serious list. Is this correct? How does or do you think a TT
works.

Peter all speculation accepted. Darren as a builder anything you think you
know spill the beans. I just want to know what is true and what is not.

For example does this boundary layer in effect work a bit like the balde of a
conventional turbine or is there something else going on.

Jonathan
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 dschmidt at undeerc.org Wed Jun 7 14:31:14 2000
From: dschmidt at undeerc.org (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: How does a TT work
Message-ID: <200006071831.LAA04284@secure.crest.net>

I really believe it is a viscosity device (fluid dragging on the plates).
There have been some models done on liquid pumps, which use boundary layer
theory to explain performance. They match fairly close to actual
performance. I do not clearly understand the case for compressible fluids.
I have funding to at least complete performance testing of a small unit (50
- 100 hp). Eventually I hope to secure some further funding to gain a
better understanding of theory, but for now we are just trying to prove this
type of turbine can work at resonable efficiencies, and professionally
document the performance characterisitics.

Note: if you add surface features to the disks you get better performance
resulting from increased drag not lift as in the case of a turbine blade.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: IanWade@aol.com [mailto:IanWade@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 9:01 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: How does a TT work

Hi list
This is a serious list. Sometimes on Tesla list they appear to be
discussing
UFO's etc. (Believe me I mean it).
Now Tesla said his turbine worked on adhesion and viscosity not pressure
operating on a boundary layer.

Question for a serious list. Is this correct? How does or do you think a
TT
works.

Peter all speculation accepted. Darren as a builder anything you think you
know spill the beans. I just want to know what is true and what is not.

For example does this boundary layer in effect work a bit like the balde of
a
conventional turbine or is there something else going on.

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Wed Jun 7 14:53:00 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: How does a TT work
In-Reply-To: <200006071831.LAA04284@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <393E99CA.1839C3DC@fox.nstn.ca>

The blades of a gas turbine extract a given percentage of the energy in
the fluid passing them. Is there any reason to believe that the TT
machine will extract a greater percentage of the energy in the gas
stream?

Is the TT constrained by the same thermodynamic efficiency constraints
as the gas turbine?

Discussions on whether it is a viscosity device or a boundary layer
device could be seen as questions of detail, like if IC engine pistons
were square, and someone then got the idea of making them round: There
would be a potential for an incremental improvement, but not a
"breakthrough" improvement.

Could someone please elaborate on the reasons why the TT concept is
inherently better than others?

Thanks very much

Kevin Chisholm

"Schmidt, Darren" wrote:
>
> I really believe it is a viscosity device (fluid dragging on the plates).
> There have been some models done on liquid pumps, which use boundary layer
> theory to explain performance. They match fairly close to actual
> performance. I do not clearly understand the case for compressible fluids.
> I have funding to at least complete performance testing of a small unit (50
> - 100 hp). Eventually I hope to secure some further funding to gain a
> better understanding of theory, but for now we are just trying to prove this
> type of turbine can work at resonable efficiencies, and professionally
> document the performance characterisitics.
>
> Note: if you add surface features to the disks you get better performance
> resulting from increased drag not lift as in the case of a turbine blade.
>
> Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
> Energy & Environmental Research Center
> PO Box 9018
> Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202
> dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu
> Ph (701) 777-5120
> Fax (701) 777-5181
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IanWade@aol.com [mailto:IanWade@aol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 9:01 AM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: How does a TT work
>
> Hi list
> This is a serious list. Sometimes on Tesla list they appear to be
> discussing
> UFO's etc. (Believe me I mean it).
> Now Tesla said his turbine worked on adhesion and viscosity not pressure
> operating on a boundary layer.
>
> Question for a serious list. Is this correct? How does or do you think a
> TT
> works.
>
> Peter all speculation accepted. Darren as a builder anything you think you
> know spill the beans. I just want to know what is true and what is not.
>
> For example does this boundary layer in effect work a bit like the balde of
> a
> conventional turbine or is there something else going on.
>
> Jonathan
> 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
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 arnt at c2i.net Wed Jun 7 15:38:35 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: How does a TT work
In-Reply-To: <200006071831.LAA04284@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <393EA5C3.D47B7CAC@c2i.net>

Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
> The blades of a gas turbine extract a given percentage of the energy in
> the fluid passing them. Is there any reason to believe that the TT
> machine will extract a greater percentage of the energy in the gas
> stream?
>
> Is the TT constrained by the same thermodynamic efficiency constraints
> as the gas turbine?
>
> Discussions on whether it is a viscosity device or a boundary layer
> device could be seen as questions of detail, like if IC engine pistons
> were square, and someone then got the idea of making them round: There
> would be a potential for an incremental improvement, but not a
> "breakthrough" improvement.

..for a taste of round and square, url: http://www.ericksonmotors.com/

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... ;-)

"Irrationality is the square root of all evil"
-- Douglas Hofstadter
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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Jun 7 17:31:18 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tree fertilizing...
Message-ID: <62.4263d55.26701901@cs.com>

Dear Tom Taylor:

You never cease to amaze me.

Your plant chemical knowledge is great, but it also underlines how really
little we know about the complexities of the biological processes.

How goes your gasifier???

Your pal, TOM REED.....

In a message dated 6/4/00 9:09:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, LINVENT@aol.com
writes:

<<
Dear Tom Reed et. al.,
In order for plants to extract nutrients, they must have free calcium in
the root tips. This will allow them to put roots out even in the areas
where
roots may already be existent or dead roots are present. "Root bound" which
occurs in houseplants in small containers will occur in nature also.
However, this can be overcome with the proper nutrient levels being
continuously supplied to the plants so that a plant can continue growing
even
in a small plant. Sort of hydroponic. Potassium is difficult to assimilate
as
it has to exchange a hydrogen ion from the plant to the soil to replace the
ion potassium is bound with. Supplying hydrogen ions is what the microbes on
the root hair do, make acid compounds for exchange with the soil nutrients.
Imagine breaking the K2SO4 bond so that the Kcan be assimilated. A company
which I own and operate provides an organic mined mineral with a pH of 4
which supplies the hydrogen ions directly,and the growth properties are
phenomonally changed. Trees will grow twice as fast and have massive dark
colored vegetation. We have also learned that accumulations of excess P in
the top 6" will cause interference with K uptake and calcium. Ca is vital
for
gathering K as it keeps the root system growing. Hence, liming is very
important. The phosphorous accumulation arises from the plant matter
falling
from the tree, decomposing and leaving P which does not leach in the upper
rhizosphere.
Also, micronutrients are vital. K cannot be assimilated without certain
nutrients. WE have doubled K uptake with addition of small quantities of
micronutrients. Plant health has dramatically increased.
If anyone wishes to learn more about faster higher quality production of
biomass, send me an e-mail or look up agronicsinc.com website. Most ag
production systems are running 40-60% below capacity due to nutritional
limitations.

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
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 mark at ludlow.com Thu Jun 8 02:01:03 2000
From: mark at ludlow.com (mark@ludlow.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tree fertilizing...
In-Reply-To: <62.4263d55.26701901@cs.com>
Message-ID: <LNBBLJBMIEFPHLBOBGICKELDCKAA.mark@ludlow.com>

I really appreciate the inclusion of plant nutrition into this discussion.
When discussing biomass gasification at a systems level the system boundary
must include the vegetative process. The members of this list are certainly
generous with their knowledge and I am led to conclude that any successful,
sustainable system will necessarily incorporate many interdisciplinary
skills. Is there an opportunity for formal synergy among members of this
list? What a talented group!

Thanks, members,
Mark Ludlow

-----Original Message-----
Dear Tom Taylor:

You never cease to amaze me.

Your plant chemical knowledge is great, but it also underlines how really
little we know about the complexities of the biological processes.

How goes your gasifier???

Your pal, TOM REED.....

In a message dated 6/4/00 9:09:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, LINVENT@aol.com
writes:

<<
Dear Tom Reed et. al.,
In order for plants to extract nutrients, they must have free calcium
in
the root tips. This will allow them to put roots out even in the areas
where
roots may already be existent or dead roots are present. "Root bound"
which
occurs in houseplants in small containers will occur in nature also.
However, this can be overcome with the proper nutrient levels being
continuously supplied to the plants so that a plant can continue growing
even
in a small plant. Sort of hydroponic. Potassium is difficult to assimilate
as
it has to exchange a hydrogen ion from the plant to the soil to replace the
ion potassium is bound with. Supplying hydrogen ions is what the microbes
on
the root hair do, make acid compounds for exchange with the soil nutrients.
Imagine breaking the K2SO4 bond so that the Kcan be assimilated. A company
which I own and operate provides an organic mined mineral with a pH of 4
which supplies the hydrogen ions directly,and the growth properties are
phenomonally changed. Trees will grow twice as fast and have massive dark
colored vegetation. We have also learned that accumulations of excess P in
the top 6" will cause interference with K uptake and calcium. Ca is vital
for
gathering K as it keeps the root system growing. Hence, liming is very
important. The phosphorous accumulation arises from the plant matter
falling
from the tree, decomposing and leaving P which does not leach in the upper
rhizosphere.
Also, micronutrients are vital. K cannot be assimilated without
certain
nutrients. WE have doubled K uptake with addition of small quantities of
micronutrients. Plant health has dramatically increased.
If anyone wishes to learn more about faster higher quality production
of
biomass, send me an e-mail or look up agronicsinc.com website. Most ag
production systems are running 40-60% below capacity due to nutritional
limitations.

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
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 IanWade at aol.com Thu Jun 8 06:52:38 2000
From: IanWade at aol.com (IanWade@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TT rough disks and bits
Message-ID: <5f.63fd7a4.2670d4d1@aol.com>

Darren Hi I was looking back through earlier posts on this list and there was
a conversation on the rivits in a TT. Someone said they should be
streamlined. If you do want a rough surface on a TT why not have loads of
rivits and make them unstreamlined as well. effectively a bit of a paddle
wheel.
Jonathan
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 LINVENT at aol.com Thu Jun 8 10:43:31 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tree fertilizing...
Message-ID: <c0.4baa9b4.26710aa9@aol.com>

Mr. Mark Ludlow
Dr. Tom Reed

Dear Sirs,
Thank you for the positive response on the tree and other biomass
fertility comments I made.
Perhaps one of the most significant impact of the nutritional programs
can be shown at the South American Ludwig project which failed because the
trees did not grow. Over $1 billion was invested in this project and was
scrapped out because of the trees not growing as fast as they were alleged to
in other environs. This can be modified for the tree to promote rapid growth
by nutrients and knowing well the rhizosphere in which the root system must
live.
More to home, if the plant nutrition is correct, the plants will produce
more carbohydrates, i.e., sap, which is the heating value component of the
tree and less mineral content which is inert as ash. Besides growing much
faster, the quality of the tree is better, less disease, less management is
required. This represents a significant cost savings. Soil conditions in the
right positive levels will also result in less erosion.
There is plenty of experience in this field to prove these points.
Sincerely,

From arcate at email.msn.com Thu Jun 8 14:26:06 2000
From: arcate at email.msn.com (arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied Wood (TW)
Message-ID: <003c01bfd176$c6ef9780$0100007f@localhost>

Hello Tom Reed and Gasification:

Here is something good re wood distillation:

http://getnet.com/~dickg/nmra/sigs/RR_Industries/Industry-Lineside.html

Wood Distillation - A Chemical Industry
By Stan Knotts

The chemical industry is interesting and has had little coverage as far as I
can recall. Robert Margel's request (see mailbag) has given me the impetus
to get something done on this. One chemical industry that was ubiquitous in
the early history of our country was the wood distillation industry -
usually for production of wood alcohol. Ample supplies of good quality
hardwood was about all that was required for wood distillation. This was
often a by product of the lumber industry. This article draws heavily on a
1923 book by the American Chemical Society with more modern information from
various other sources such as "The Wood Chemical Industry in the Delaware
Valley" by Frank D. Meyers III, 1986.

Very early plants (up to the 1920s) were based on small horizontal
cylindrical retorts or brick by-product kilns which were extremely labor
intensive. The principal product of these kilns was charcoal with low yields
of chemical products. Early iron furnaces and foundries were major customers
for charcoal. When the chemical products became more important, no more kiln
plants were built.

The wood used for distillation was generally cordwood 52" long with a
minimum diameter of 3 to 5 inches. Some sawmill slabs or other wood wastes
were also used. That made a wood distillation plant a natural companion
industry to a sawmill. The wood was dried for 6 to 18 months either in the
woods or in a storage yard at the plant. Artificial drying methods were
later developed using waste heat from the flues of the retort furnaces to
shorten the drying time and better control the moisture content.

The old and inefficient kilns were replaced by large rectangular retorts or
ovens by 1920. These retorts were made of steel and averaged 6' high, 8'
wide, and perhaps 56' long for a standard 10 cord oven. The ovens were
heated at one or both ends. Brick arches were installed under the ovens to
distribute the heat evenly and prevent direct contact of the flames on the
bottom of the oven. Flue gases were guided around the sides of the retort by
suitable baffles, finally passing over the top and then up the stack.

The wood is loaded up on iron cars or "buggies" with slatted ends and sides,
the latter sometimes reaching only about 2/3 of the height of the piled wood
and serving to retain the charcoal after carbonization. The sides are
removable for loading the wood and unloading the charcoal. The cars very
nearly fill the cross section of the retort and are long enough to hold
about 2 1/2 cords, four cars making one charge for a 10 cord retort. The
cars were sometimes moved by hand, but more likely with a power cable or a
small locomotive.

As soon as the wood is inside the retort, the doors are closed and the
heating started. The first distillate is almost entirely water and it is not
until about the 4th hour that the liquor slowly darkens and contains
increasing amounts of acid. The tar first appears at the 8th to 10th hour
and from this time forward, very little more heat is required to finish the
distillation at about the 22nd hour. For about 2 hours the retort is allowed
to cool and then the charge is removed and a new charge of wood run in,
making a complete 24 hour cycle.

The best layout for the wood yard, retort house, coolers, and charcoal sheds
is one in which the progress of the cars is in one direction throughout the
operation. In some cases lack of space makes this layout impossible and the
retorts may be charged and discharged at the same end. It is almost a
necessity, however, that the first coolers be in line with the retorts so
that the hot charcoal may be moved rapidly.

The vapors are taken from the retort through one to three outlets, depending
on the size of the retort. Ordinarily only two outlets are used, even on the
10 cord retorts. The vapor outlets are on the sides of the retorts near the
top and pass through the brickworks to the condensers. The condensers are of
the vertical tubular type.

Refining Processes

The liquid distillate, consisting of tar and a dark brown watery liquid
called pyroligneous acid, is pumped to wooden settling tanks where the tar
settles to the bottom. The tanks are usually arranged in series with
connecting pipes at gradually lower levels from the first, where the where
the mixture of tar and acid enters, to the last where the clear acid is
drawn off for further refining. The tar is drawn as required from the
bottoms of the tanks.

Although most of the valuable products, wood alcohol and acetic acid, is
contained in the pyroligneous acid, yet there are small quantities contained
in the tar which is distilled with steam for their recovery. A wooden still
is used for this operation since copper is so rapidly corroded by the hot
tar.

To recover the acetate, a thick milk of lime is used for the neutralization
using a covered wooden tub and a stirring apparatus. The neutralized settled
solution contains the acetic acid in non volatile form and the alcohol and
other volatile products can be separated from the acid by distillation. The
final drying of the acetate takes place on drying floors above the ovens
where the heat of the flue gases can be used. When the acetate material is
dried, it is bagged for shipment.

The wood alcohol was distilled into a concentrated crude alcohol which was
usually shipped to large refineries where the complicated refining process
could be carried out.

Later Processes

By the 1930's, sawdust and sawdust briquettes had generally replaced cord
wood, but the industry was dying due to the advent of synthetically produced
chemicals. The advantages of the sawdust was that it was cheaper, could be
more efficiently dried, and it could be handled in a continuous process.
These new processes necessitated new machinery and methods of for
decomposing the wood materials, but resulted in a shorter cycle with greater
yields. Some wood distillation plants survived into the 1940's.

Wood Distillation Products

Charcoal was used heavily in early blast furnaces for production of iron. It
was also used in the manufacture of black powder, as an ingredient in stock
and poultry food, in case hardening compounds, and as a deodorizer. The
acetic acid was heavily used in the chemical industry and in the preparation
of white lead pigment. It was also used to prepare cellulose acetate for
films, lacquers, plastics, and artificial silk. It was used in the
preparation of numerous solvents and in process of textile plants,
laundries, tanneries, insecticides, soaps, and many other industries. The
wood alcohol was used in the manufacture of varnishes and lacquers,
formaldehyde and synthetic resins such as Bakelite. The wood tar was used in
preservatives, pitch and creosote.

Modeling

For model railroads representing the eras from the late 1800's though the
1940's a wood distillation plant would provide a small chemical plant with
interesting rail traffic. Incoming would be cordwood and outgoing would be
bagged acetate of lime and tank cars of wood alcohol and tar. The use of a
wood lot and a small industrial rail line for the unique iron cars for
processing the wood through the drying cycle would be different from the
usual run of the mill industry.

From snkm at btl.net Thu Jun 8 23:26:59 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tree Farming
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000608212223.008af4f0@wgs1.btl.net>

Comments?? Peter in Belize

4 - PAULOWNIA the TIMBER OF THE FUTURE

The Paulownia, as known as, Riri in China and Japan, is a fast
growing tree, traditionally used in the Far East.

Nowadays, this tree is produced in high tech laboratories, as
'clones' under different specifications, in order to adjust to
different climates and soils.

Those CLONES, perfectly identical, straight with the same growth
rate, totally IMMUNE to any disease, reach in 4 months, a height of
2.5 metres. They can be cropped at 6 or 7 years, in order to produce
good commercial timber at an interesting commercial price.

Paulownia as a 'CARBON SINK'

It has been calculated that 1 hectare planted with 450 to 500
Paulownia clones, absorbs, as soon as planted, 6 tons of carbon per
year, or approx.. 20 tons of CO2

This tree, because of it's structure (large leaves, fast growing,
wood density) is the best alternative as a 'CARBON SINK'

Technical Data : Paulownia compared to other Timber Wood Strength
Properties

Density (Kq/m3) MOE MOR MCS (M.pa)
PAULAUNIA (KIRI) 310 6,3 42 20
BALSA 170 3,8 19 12
RED CEDAR 360 7,0 54 31
POPLAR 400 7,6 47 28
PINE 450 5,4 67 35

MOE = Module of elasticity
MOR = Module of rupture
MCS = maximum compression

The Paulownia is light, but hard, is pale coloured, and has large
leaves and violet flowers.

It is much appreciated by the public.

For further technical informations, please contact
francois_j_gerard@hotmail.com[1]

From snkm at btl.net Thu Jun 8 23:41:29 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: PAULOWNIA ECONOMIC DATA
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000608213947.009077d0@wgs1.btl.net>

More Comments??

Peter in Belize

5 - Paulownia - Economic Data

Choosing a forestry model of 500 trees per hectare ; and a first
harvest of 6 years, the second harvest at 9 years, and estimating
a timber value (same cubic metres) between US$ 750 (first crop)
and US$ 1 000 (second crop) the value of timber is shown below

Tree age at harvest 6 years 9 years
Trees harvested per
hectare 300 200
Log volumes (m3/ha gros) 50m3 110m3
Sawn timber produced
(m3/ha/net) 22 m3 53m3
Average value of
Sawn Products US$ 750 900
Costs (Sawing, harvest
etc) US$ 300 400
Net/m3 US$ 450 500

Total Sales Returns:

1st crop US $ 450 x 22 = $ 9,900
2nd crop US $ 500 x 53 = $26,500

total = US $36,400

Taking 15 % off, approximately US$ 30,000/ha

OXYGEN RIGHTS:

20 tons of CO2 per Ha x 9 years = 180 tons of CO2 !

INVESTMENTS :

1 ha land + cleaning US$ 1,000
Clones (planted) 500 ha x US$ 20 = US$ 10,000
6 years suspension US$ 3,000
INVESTMENTS US$ 14,000

So, since the price of timber is not likely to decrease (on the
contrary, source : WORLD BANK), the investment itself is attractive.

For further technical informations, please contact
francois_j_gerard@hotmail.com[1]
*** References from this document ***
[orig] http://www.yaguarundi.org/en/kyoto5.htm

From tmiles at teleport.com Fri Jun 9 01:06:57 2000
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: PRME BIOMASS FIRED ENGINE GENERATOR SYSTEM
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20000608220244.00bb77a0@mail.teleport.com>

June 2, 2000
NEWS RELEASE
On Tuesday, May 16th, PRM Energy Systems and its Licensees PRiMEnergy,
LLC,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Guascor, S.A. of Spain, successfully completed the

installation, startup and testing of a new Guascor internal combustion

engine/generator, designed to operate on 100 percent low calorific
synthesis gas produced from olive waste by the PRME Biomass Gasifier. The

Guascor engine operating on olive wastes at the PRiMEnergy Biomass
Gasification Center in Tulsa is similar to six (6) Guascor engines that
are
to be installed at a 3.8MWe olive waste fueled, power generation facility

under construction in Italy. The PRME Biomass Fired Engine Generator
System
(BFEG) is available in sizes from 750kW to 10MW. The system is capable of

operating with most biomass materials as fuel.
For more information, please view the following web sites:
http://www.prmenergy.com

http://www.primenergy.com
http://www.guascor.com

Contact:
PRM Energy Systems, Inc. - Ron Bailey Jr. Tel:501-767-2100;
Fax:501-767-6968; email:rbaileyj@prmenergy.com

PRiMEnergy LLC - Bill Scott - Tel:918-835-1011; Fax:918-835-1058; email
wnscott@primenergy.com

Guascor, S.A. - Maurizio Colombo- Tel:34-943-86-5211; Fax:34-943-86-5210;
email:mcolombo@guascor.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Jun 9 07:54:37 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied Wood (TW)
Message-ID: <df.56e33a8.267234d7@cs.com>

Dear Jim and Gasification:

I'm glad you posted this nice summary of a long gone industry. I remember
visiting Othmer (author of the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
Engineering) at NYU in 1977 and discussing wood distillation with him. That
was where his family had made their fortune in the 1920s to 1940s.

It was av ery interesting technology, but relied on an intricate network of
needs and markets. If we ever need large quantitites of charcoal again,
maybe it could come back, but otherwise we will probablymake chemicals
differently. The "mix" of chemicals from wood distillation is enormous and
we aren't likely to find a use for most of them today.

Thanks again for the posting.... TOM REED

In a message dated 6/8/00 11:28:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
arcate@email.msn.com writes:

<<
Hello Tom Reed and Gasification:

Here is something good re wood distillation:

http://getnet.com/~dickg/nmra/sigs/RR_Industries/Industry-Lineside.html

Wood Distillation - A Chemical Industry
By Stan Knotts
>>
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 IanWade at aol.com Fri Jun 9 07:57:43 2000
From: IanWade at aol.com (IanWade@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: (no subject)
Message-ID: <32.627351f.26723591@aol.com>

Dear List this from Gemano TT website

The prototype turbine is fully functional, as of May, 2000. It is simply
awsome. We've collected quite a bit of data on its operation and performance.
It has run now for nearly 100 hours. This unit is run from propane, and we
are currently working with gasoline, kerosine, and diesel fuels. It is
equipped with a novel combustion process, with a water injection system (the
water is instantly vaporized into steam, thus aiding in the cooling of the
turbine, while adding the additional benefit of supplying power from the
steam, itself)
Jonathan

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Fri Jun 9 09:14:16 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: PAULOWNIA ECONOMIC DATA
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000608213947.009077d0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3940ED72.86891D58@fox.nstn.ca>

Here in Nova Scotia, we sell pulpwood at about $C100 per cord, and
"studwood" which can be sawn to lumber for about $C130 per cord. As the
landowner, I would get about $C15 "stumpage fee" when I sell the wood to
the contractor who cuts and removes it. A cord 128 cubic feet, or about
80 cubic feet solid wood measure. 80 cubic feet is about 2.25 cubic
meters. We thus sell our lumber grade spruce for about $C57, which is
about $US40 per cubic meter, but I, as the tree grower and land owner
get about 15%, or about $6.

I can go to my local lumber store, and buy prime quality finished,
planed, kiln dried maple, oak and other quality woods for about $C4 per
FBM, or about $C48 per cubic foot; this is $US31 per cubic foot, or
$1118 per cubic meter. Poplar and spruce would retail for about the
$US750/M3 that you indicate for Paulownia.

The problem with the Paulownia scenario is that the Land Owner only gets
about $6 per cubic meter, and "everyboby else" gets the remainder of the
$450 or $500.

Am I missing something here?

Kevin Chisholm

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> More Comments??
>
> Peter in Belize
>
> 5 - Paulownia - Economic Data
>
>
>
> Choosing a forestry model of 500 trees per hectare ; and a first
> harvest of 6 years, the second harvest at 9 years, and estimating
> a timber value (same cubic metres) between US$ 750 (first crop)
> and US$ 1 000 (second crop) the value of timber is shown below
>
> Tree age at harvest 6 years 9 years
> Trees harvested per
> hectare 300 200
> Log volumes (m3/ha gros) 50m3 110m3
> Sawn timber produced
> (m3/ha/net) 22 m3 53m3
> Average value of
> Sawn Products US$ 750 900
> Costs (Sawing, harvest
> etc) US$ 300 400
> Net/m3 US$ 450 500
>
> Total Sales Returns:
>
> 1st crop US $ 450 x 22 = $ 9,900
> 2nd crop US $ 500 x 53 = $26,500
>
> total = US $36,400
>
> Taking 15 % off, approximately US$ 30,000/ha
>
> OXYGEN RIGHTS:
>
> 20 tons of CO2 per Ha x 9 years = 180 tons of CO2 !
>
> INVESTMENTS :
>
> 1 ha land + cleaning US$ 1,000
> Clones (planted) 500 ha x US$ 20 = US$ 10,000
> 6 years suspension US$ 3,000
> INVESTMENTS US$ 14,000
>
> So, since the price of timber is not likely to decrease (on the
> contrary, source : WORLD BANK), the investment itself is attractive.
>
> For further technical informations, please contact
> francois_j_gerard@hotmail.com[1]
> *** References from this document ***
> [orig] http://www.yaguarundi.org/en/kyoto5.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
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 kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Fri Jun 9 09:33:47 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <32.627351f.26723591@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3940F206.2D75E51D@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Ian

Very interesting!!

Would you have some numbers on Horsepower output, and the rate of fuel
consumption?

Thanks very much.

Kevin Chisholm

IanWade@aol.com wrote:
>
> Dear List this from Gemano TT website
>
> The prototype turbine is fully functional, as of May, 2000. It is simply
> awsome. We've collected quite a bit of data on its operation and performance.
> It has run now for nearly 100 hours. This unit is run from propane, and we
> are currently working with gasoline, kerosine, and diesel fuels. It is
> equipped with a novel combustion process, with a water injection system (the
> water is instantly vaporized into steam, thus aiding in the cooling of the
> turbine, while adding the additional benefit of supplying power from the
> steam, itself)
> Jonathan
>
>
> 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 tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net Fri Jun 9 11:07:34 2000
From: tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net (tvoivozhd)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: PAULOWNIA ECONOMIC DATA
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000608213947.009077d0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3940F99E.42BB29E1@roanoke.infi.net>

>
> The problem with the Paulownia scenario is that the Land Owner only gets
> about $6 per cubic meter, and "everyboby else" gets the remainder of the
> $450 or $500.
>
> Am I missing something here?
>
> Kevin Chisholm

Tvoivozhd---not missing a thing. The only remedy is to sell direct to the
contractor. Farm commodities which at one
time enjoyed 30% of the retail dollar, have been squeezed by collusion of
processors, retailers and politicians to the point where they now receive
5%.

Individuals producers have no bargaining power with the big cartels, but
they can bypass them. Whereas sawing and
drying wood was once the province of big mills---and still is, the advent of
Woodmizer, Timberking et. al., makes producing and wholesaling to
contractors, retailing to DIY homebuilders and workshops.

Reaching customers via the Internet is quick, cheap and effective. With
their overhead, big companies cannot compete on price. All you have to do
is to insure quality to get repeat business---and do a good job of
well-rewarded merchandising. Setting up a good website is part of the job
that used to be done by the travelling salesman.

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Jun 9 11:17:17 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tree Farming
Message-ID: <ac.6163d69.26726450@aol.com>

Dear fast tree growers:
The paulowonia tree is a huge carbon sink and the calculations are for
100% carbon consumption from the air. How much from the soil? Does
limestone or other carbonates contribute to the carbon supply? My impression
is that limestone will contribute significantly to the carbon supply and will
dramatically increase the growth rate.
The growth rates can probably increased by 30-40% with proper nutrients.
This would increase the economics dramatically.

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Fri Jun 9 12:20:44 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tree Farming
In-Reply-To: <ac.6163d69.26726450@aol.com>
Message-ID: <39411928.9F4BA8AD@fox.nstn.ca>

Fast tree growing is actually a poor carbon sink..... the trees are
harvested quickly, and the start of the cycle to re-release the carbon
to the biosphere is quickened. Slow growing trees take longer before
they reach harvest state, and they thus tie up smaller amounts of carbon
per year, but for a longer time.

In a "good" Nova Scotia forest condition, it takes about 40 years for a
pulpwood cycle, and a good yield is about 40 cords per acre. The
addition rate is thus about 1 cord per acre per year. This is about 2
tons, but total biomass addition would perhaps be about 4 tons per acre
per year. I understand that the yield of C5 grasses is about 20+ tons
per acre per year.... they are much better as a carbon sink, on an
annual removal basis.

The biosphere is basically in balance with itself. Adding "new carbon"
to the biosphere from burning of fossil fuels is the fundamental
problem. Trees or grasses cannot rectify the carbon imbalance caused by
the addition of fossil fuel products to the biosphere. UNLESS they are
harvested, and buried in a way where they cannot decompose.

Kevin Chisholm

LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
>
> Dear fast tree growers:
> The paulowonia tree is a huge carbon sink and the calculations are for
> 100% carbon consumption from the air. How much from the soil?

This is a reasonably close estimate... within about 1-5%
Does
> limestone or other carbonates contribute to the carbon supply? My impression
> is that limestone will contribute significantly to the carbon supply and will
> dramatically increase the growth rate.

Limestone is 44% CO2, and the CaO, as used by the plant is a relatively
small portion of its total mass. Typical ash contents would be in the
order of 3%, of which perhaps 1/3 is CaO and the other 2/3 is primarily
SiO2 and K2O (Very roughly.)

> The growth rates can probably increased by 30-40% with proper nutrients.
> This would increase the economics dramatically.

You are assuming that the grower actually makes money growing Paulownia
Trees.

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm
>
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 snkm at btl.net Fri Jun 9 15:15:33 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2 enrichment of trees
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000609130956.008838f0@wgs1.btl.net>

I truly hope the list is interested in these postings I am putting forth?
Have been involved the past few days researching carbon sequestration, tree
farming, and biomass replacing of fossil fuel energy.

A subject that should be dear to all gasifiers. I'll sum up what I have
learned in a short while. Sure to get people going. Very exciting field.

Oh -- for those that want to look at the big picture:

http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/ch_9.htm

Browse around the http://www.undp.org/ site -- huge and full of pertinent
info.

For now -- here is a subject of interest --

Basically -- as CO2 concentrations go up -- trees grow faster to lock it.

As you will see when I summarize -- this means that power production from
biomass -- specifically tree farming -- will be a more viable alternative
as time marches on.

Peter in Belize

CO2 ENRICHMENT OF TREES

S. B. Idso, Research Physicist; and B. A. Kimball, Supervisory Soil
Scientist

PROBLEM: The continuing rise in the CO2 content of Earth=s atmosphere
is believed by many people to be the most significant ecological
problem ever faced by humanity because of the widespread assumption
that it will lead to catastrophic global warming via intensification
of the planet=s natural greenhouse effect. Largely unknown, however,
are the many beneficial effects of elevated atmospheric CO2
concentrations on Earth=s plant life. Hence, it is imperative that
this other aspect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment be elucidated so that
the public can have access to the full spectrum of information about
the environmental consequences of higher-than-ambient levels of
atmospheric CO2. Only under such conditions of complete and
wide-ranging understanding can the best decisions be made relative to
national and international energy policies.

As forests account for two-thirds of global photosynthesis, and are
thus the primary players in the global biological cycling of carbon,
we have chosen to concentrate on trees within this context.
Specifically, we seek to determine the direct effects of atmospheric
CO2 enrichment on all aspects of their growth and development; and we
hope to be able to determine the ramifications of these direct
effects for global carbon sequestering, which may also be of
considerable significance to the climatic impact of atmospheric CO2
enrichment, as the biological sequestering of carbon is a major
factor in determining the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere and the
ultimate level to which it may rise.

APPROACH: In July 1987, eight 30-cm-tall sour orange tree (Citrus
aurantium L.) seedlings were planted directly into the ground at
Phoenix, Arizona. Four identically-vented, open-top,
clear-plastic-wall chambers were then constructed around the young
trees, which were grouped in pairs. CO2 enrichment--to 300 ppmv
(parts per million by volume) above ambient--was begun in November
1987 to two of these chambers and has continued unabated since that
time. Except for this differential CO2 enrichment of the chamber air,
all of the trees have been treated identically, being irrigated and
fertilized as deemed appropriate for normal growth.

Numerous measurements of a number of plant parameters have been made
on the trees, some weekly, some monthly, and some annually. Results
of our most recent findings are summarized below.

At the conclusions of the second and third full years of our study,
we measured the diameters of the trunks and branches of all of the
trees at their bases and at 20-cm intervals out to their ends. From
these data we calculated the total volume of trunk and branch tissue
comprising each tree and compared the results with each tree=s trunk
cross-sectional area -- an easily measured parameter that we assess
at the mid-point of each month. This exercise revealed the existence
of a simple linear relationship between the cube root of trunk +
branch volume and the square root of trunk cross-sectional area that
applies equally well to all trees of both CO2 treatments; and we have
subsequently employed this relationship to estimate the volume of
woody tissue produced by all trees over the course of each succeeding
year. To obtain an estimate of actual biomass production, however, it
is necessary to know the density of each treatment=s woody tissue;
i.e., its dry mass per fresh volume.

In an effort to obtain this vital information, we have recently begun
measuring the volumes of large numbers of 10-cm segments of branches
that we are forced to remove from portions of the peripheries of the
trees when they impinge upon the walls of the enclosures in order to
keep them from destroying the walls. These branch segments are
subsequently dried in ovens for several weeks to drive off all water
they contain, after which they are carefully weighed. The results are
then used to compute each segment=s final dry mass per original fresh
volume, in the hope that we will ultimately assemble enough such data
to be able confidently to convert our biovolume production data into
biomass production data.

FINDINGS: Preliminary results of our efforts are presented in figures
1 and 2, where it can be seen that for branches with cross-sectional
areas ranging from 0.3 to almost 4 cm2, branch densities within both
CO2 treatments are relatively independent of branch thickness. The
upper boundaries of both of the data sets are also roughly the same;
but the lower boundary of the ambient-treatment data set extends far
below that of the CO2-enriched treatment. As a consequence of this
phenomenon, the mean density of the CO2-enriched wood is 5.8% greater
than that of the ambient wood, and it is also more uniform. We must
still obtain results for significantly larger branches; and this we
periodically do when such a branch poses a threat to the integrity of
the enclosure walls. It is our hope that we will have obtained enough
such data to present our final conclusions on this topic in next year
=s Annual Report.

At the conclusion of last year=s harvest, when we picked over three
times more fruit from CO2- enriched trees, we also determined the
fractional dry weight of fifty randomly-selected oranges from each
tree, and so we can ultimately evaluate the total dry weight of fruit
removed from the trees each year from simple fresh weight
measurements. Our initial results indicate that the mean fractional
dry weight of the CO2-enriched fruit is about 3.2 % greater than that
of the ambient-treatment fruit. However, we will await a second year
=s results before settling on figures to use in further calculations.

As always, we will continue to measure the fresh and dry weights of
68 leaves from each of the trees at two-month intervals. Hence, we
will soon be able to combine the dry weights of all of these
different components of plant dry matter production in a way that
will allow us to compare the total above-ground productivities of the
trees of the two CO2 treatments. Look us up next year for the
thrilling results!

INTERPRETATION: Our findings continue to demonstrate that CO2 is an
effective aerial fertilizer, significantly enhancing the quality of
various tree properties.

FUTURE PLANS: We hope to continue the sour orange tree experiment for
three to four more years, or as long as is needed for them to achieve
the nearly steady yearly growth rates that are characteristic of full
maturity.

COOPERATORS: U.S. Department of Energy, Atmospheric and Climate
Research Division, Office of Health and Environmental Research.

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE][1][IMAGE][2]

*** References from this document ***

[orig] http://www.uswcl.ars.ag.gov/publicat/index/pgw8.htm
[1] http://www.uswcl.ars.ag.gov/publicat/contents.htm
[2] http://www.uswcl.ars.ag.gov/

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Jun 9 15:32:15 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <32.627351f.26723591@aol.com>
Message-ID: <39414755.2BC9C3BE@c2i.net>

..done right, the water droplets will aid fuel vaporization when boiling
-> steam blow fuel droplets apart. Emulsion is a key word here.

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From snkm at btl.net Fri Jun 9 16:11:32 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Energy as an Instrument for Socio-Economic Development
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000609140404.008f3980@wgs1.btl.net>

A "taste" folks. Just an example of what the "plan" is.

The following is a "GETWEB" ASCII dump of a WWW site. The numbers in []'s
are matched to the Urls at the end of this text -- so you can go browser
any specific reference.

My comments on all of this are still formulating. Lots more to read. Will
be a single paragraph. Maybe tomorrow?

I see an extremely glorious future for Gasification here.

The bottom line is:

For every kwh of electrical power produced by biomass -- that is one less
kwh produced by fossil fuels!

Peter/Belize

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

Energy & Atmosphere Programme[1] | Contents[2] | Overview[3]
Part I: Energy and Sustainability[4]
Part II: Removing the Obstacles: The Small-Scale Approach[5]
Part III: Removing the Obstacles: The Large-Scale Approach[6]

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

UNDP logo Energy as an Instrument
for Socio-Economic Development EAP logo

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

Edited by
Jose' Goldemberg and Thomas B. Johansson
Executive Editor, Rosemarie Philips

The views expressed in this volume are those of the authors
and not necessarily those of UNDP.
This publication should be cited as:

J. Goldemberg and T.B. Johansson, (Editors)
Energy As An Instrument for Socio-Economic Development
United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY, 1995

Copyright co 1995, all rights reserved, by the United Nations
Development Programme
1 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY, 10017, USA

Table of Contents
Foreword[7]
By James Gustave Speth, Administrator, United Nations Development
Programme
Overview

Energy as an Instrument for Socio-Economic Development[8]
Jose' Goldemberg, University of Sa~o Paulo, Sa~o Paulo, Brazil and
Thomas B. Johansson, Director, Energy and Atmosphere Programme,
SEED/BPPS, United Nations Development Programme, New York, USA

Part I[9]: Energy and Sustainability

1. Energy Needs for Sustainable Human Development[10]
Carlos E. Sua'rez, Instituto de Economia Energe'tica (associated with
the Fundacio'n Bariloche), San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina
2. Energy as an Obstacle to Improved Living Standards[11]
Srilatha Batliwala, National Institute of Advanced Studies,
Bangalore, India
3. Energy's Role in Deforestation and Land Degradation[12]
Ndey Isatou Njie, National Environment Agency, Banjul, The Gambia
4. Energy Needs for Sustainable Human Development from an
Anthropological Perspective[13]
Laura Nader, Department of Anthropology, University of California,
Berkeley, California, USA

Part II[14]: Removing the Obstacles - The Small-Scale Approach

5. From Energy Efficiency to Social Utility: Lessons from Cookstove
Design, Dissemination and Use[15]
Daniel M. Kammen, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA
6. Photovoltaics, Wind and Other Dispersed Energy Sources[16]
Jose' Ma. Blanco, Biomass Users Network, San Jose', Costa Rica
7. Renewable Energy Benefits Rural Women in China[17]
Deng Keyun, Department of Environmental Protection and Energy,
Beijing, China
8. Community Biogas Plants Supply Rural Energy and Water: The Pura
Village Case Study[18]
Amulya K.N. Reddy, P. Ragabapaiah and H. Somasekhar, International
Energy Initiative, Bangalore, India

Part III[19]: Removing the Obstacles - The Large-Scale Approach

9. Biomass Plantation Energy Systems and Sustainable Development
[20]
Eric D. Larson and Robert H. Williams, Center for Energy and
Environmental Studies, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey,
USA
10. Converting Biomass to Liquid Fuels: Making Ethanol from Sugar
Cane in Brazil[21]
Isaias de Carvalho Macedo, Centro de Tecnologia Copersucar,
Piracicaba, Sa~o Paulo, Brazil

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

Foreword[22]
One of the main goals of the United Nations Development Programme is
to help the entire UN system become a unified and powerful force for
sustainable human development.
Sustainable human development is people-centered development. It
generates economic growth and equitably distributes the fruits of
that growth. It empowers people, expands their choices and
opportunities, and involves them in decisions that shape their lives.
For UNDP, sustainable human development means focusing resources on
four key areas: eradicating poverty, increasing women's role in
development, providing people with income-earning opportunities, and
protecting and regenerating the environment.
Initiatives in the energy sector are an important means to achieve
sustainable human development. After all, as countries develop, their
energy-service needs evolve and expand. And, the production and
consumption of energy has a tremendous impact on economies,
environments and industrial development. Energy should, therefore, be
taken into account in any development strategy.
If current patterns of energy production, distribution and
consumption continue, progress in a number of countries could slow
dramatically, or even come to a halt. We must, therefore, reconsider
the way we use energy. This is not only important for developing
countries, but for industrialized ones as well. The challenges before
us will not be met by making minor adjustments to countries'
conventional energy systems. Instead, a major shift away from
business-as-usual is needed.
A number of ideas for this shift were presented to the international
community at the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development in 1992. An action agenda - known as "Agenda 21" -issued
at the conclusion of the conference, called on nations to find more
efficient systems for producing, distributing and consuming energy,
and for greater reliance on environmentally sound energy systems,
with special emphasis on renewable sources of energy.
Renewable energy is extremely important to development because it can
offer people income-earning opportunities. In Brazil, for example, a
programme to produce ethanol from sugar cane helped create about
700,000 jobs in rural areas. The Brazilian example shows how an
innovative energy strategy can be instrumental in achieving a
country's goals for sustainable human development.
UNDP, especially through its Initiative on Sustainable Energy, is
helping countries implement national energy policies that support
their development strategies. This initiative is demonstrating how
the energy sector can be a tool for development by giving people
income-earning opportunities, building up government institutions'
capacities for protecting the environment and increasing energy
efficiency, and accelerating technological development. UNDP, which
has funded many energy-development projects, continues to formulate
new ways to address this important issue.
The authors of this volume describe the important links between
energy and development, and show how energy can be used in ways that
improve people's lives. Their work, therefore, contributes to the
global debate on energy and offers us insights into the complexity of
the challenges we face. I congratulate their effort and am confident
that it will benefit decision-makers, policy-makers, academics, and
the international development community.
James Gustave Speth
Administrator
New York, July 1995

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

Energy & Atmosphere Programme[23] | Contents[24] | Overview[25]
Part I: Energy and Sustainability[26]
Part II: Removing the Obstacles: The Small-Scale Approach[27]
Part III: Removing the Obstacles: The Large-Scale Approach[28]

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

*** References from this document ***

[orig] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/index.html
[1] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/index.html
[2] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/index.html
[3] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/overview.htm
[4] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/index.html#part1
[5] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/index.html#part2
[6] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/index.html#part3
[7] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/index.html#F
[8] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/overview.htm
[9] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/index.html
[10] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/ch_1.htm
[11] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/ch_2.htm
[12] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/ch_3.htm
[13] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/ch_4.htm
[14] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/index.html
[15] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/ch_5.htm
[16] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/ch_6.htm
[17] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/ch_7.htm
[18] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/ch_8.htm
[19] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/index.html
[20] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/ch_9.htm
[21] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/ch10.htm
[22] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/index.html
[23] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/index.html
[24] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/index.html
[25] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/overview.htm
[26] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/index.html#part1
[27] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/index.html#part2
[28] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/index.html#part3

From snkm at btl.net Fri Jun 9 16:28:40 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L:
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000609142732.00916660@wgs1.btl.net>

I just know that some one on this list will be very interested in the
subject matter at this Url:

http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/ch_5.htm

"Researchers confronted with a continuing dependence on biomass fuels,
traditional woodfuel management schemes, and traditional cooking
stoves have concluded that the introduction of improved cookstoves
could have a dramatic development impact."

Huge article -- how come they have not heard of our moderator -- Tom Reed's
Turbo Stove??

To quote from my data base:

<<
Alex,

I share your enthusiasm for the Turbo stove. When I visited Golden this
Spring Tom cooked part of our dinner on the stove. Very impressive and
needing to be widely used once it sees commercial daylight.

Prepared fuel is as important as ever but the concept works. We need to
explore its boundaries.

Regards,

Tom Miles
****************************

Peter in Belize -- checking it out -- as usual.
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 LINVENT at aol.com Fri Jun 9 18:17:58 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:29 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tree Farming
Message-ID: <99.5eb74db.2672c6f0@aol.com>

Dear Mr. Chisholm,
Perhaps the best way to remove the carbon from the cycle is to harvest
the trees and make houses out of them, lasting 50-200+ years?
Carbon is also trapped and forms calcium carbonate and other carbonates,
has anyone calculated the amount of CO2 sitting in the bottom of the ocean as
iron, manganese, and other carbonates? How much is trapped in seashells and
sea animals? What if all of the carbon in limestone was released or how much
is trapped in limestone. I believe that the ocean is the largest sink for
carbon.
Carbon cannot be used without the other elements for it to be
assimilated. These include iron, manganese, zinc, potassium, phosphate and
so on. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will accelerate depletion of
soil elements. Increasing soil nutrient levels will increase production and
carbon assimilation.
There are many other factors which need to be given full consideration in
order to determine the overall real picture of the carbon cycle.

Sincerely,

Leland T. Taylor

From snkm at btl.net Sat Jun 10 08:36:48 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Methane
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000610063506.008b7c10@wgs1.btl.net>

At 05:09 PM 6/9/00 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Subject: GAS-L: CO2 enrichment of trees
>
>
>Peter, I guess you know that I am less than convinced of the danger of CO2.
>I'm much more impressed with ant and cow farts, methane is about 20 to 40
>times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2 is. Also 80% of the
>earth's surface is water and CO2 is soluble in water. The oceans is where
>most of it is going to go. Speaking of water, it's a good greenhouse gas
>too, and there certainly is lots and lots of that in the air.
>
>As to the guys who gave sour oranges extra CO2 I'm singularly unimpressed.
>Carbon dioxide in the air is 300 ppm and they doubled this on their test
>trees. They got around 5-6% extra growth, not very earth shattering.
>
>

Hi Don;

I have over 500 kb at present of technical material to study -- with the
pile growing.

They usually say methane absorbs 20 time as much heat as CO2.

Some interesting specs on methane.

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

Just an excerpt from:

http://kish.physics.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/carbon/carbon_lecture.html

Methane[24] is another atmospheric constituent whose concentration
has increased in recent years. Methane is also a greenhouse gas that
is about twenty times as effective on a molecule for molecule basis
as is CO2. One methane molecule will absorb 20 times as much infrared
radiation as CO2. Its lifetime is much shorter than carbon dioxide,
however, so this partially compensates for its higher absorption.

Actually, methane is the most rapidly increasing greenhouse gas.
Figure 7[25] shows the present concentration of methane, in parts per
million by volume (ppm), to be about 1.7 ppm. Updated values are
given by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center[26].
Sometimes methane concentration is given in parts per billion by
volume (ppb), and then would have a value of 1700 ppb. The numerical
values show that methane is much less abundant than carbon dioxide
which has a present concentration of about 360 ppm. However, the
curve shows that the concentration is increasing at about 1% per
year. If we look at a longer term, as shown in figure 8[27], we see
that concentrations have increased substantially since the Industrial
Revolution. Estimate of atmospheric methane from a thousand years ago
suggest values around 0.7 ppm (700 ppb) which were constant until
about the late 1700s. Since that time, concentrations have more than
doubled. If we examine the Antarctic ice core data going back 160,000
years, we see that methane levels fluctuated between about 300 parts
per billion and 700 parts per billion until the Industrial Revolution
when it began its climb to near 1700 parts per billion (figure 9[28]
).

What are the sources of methane (figure 10[29])? The 1992 IPCC report
lists the largest natural source of methane to be wetlands, which
produce 115 teragrams (1012 grams) of carbon annually. The
uncertainty in these numbers, however, is very large. Termites are
very significant producers of methane in that they eat wood and
release methane in the digestion process. The ocean produces about 10
teragrams per year of methane, and fresh water and methane hydrate
contribute smaller amounts.

Anthropogenic sources include coal mining, natural gas and petroleum
industry at about 100 teragrams, which is almost as much as natural
wetlands. Rice paddies produce on the order of 60 teragrams by means
of a process where methane produced in the soil is able to travel up
to the hollow stem of the rice plant and be released into the
atmosphere without passing through the water which would tend to
suppress the evolution of methane gas (figure 11[30]).

Enteric fermentation, the digestion process in ruminant animals such
as cattle, sheep and goats, produces very large amounts of methane.
Animal wastes produce about 25 teragrams; domestic sewage, 25
teragrams; landfills about 30 teragrams; and biomass burning, about
40 teragrams. Some landfills are now being tapped for their methane
as a source of power production. This makes good sense on the basis
of global warming in addition to getting a "free" source of
combustion gas. Burning one methane molecule produces one CO2
molecule, but the global warming potential is reduced by a factor of
20 because the carbon dioxide molecule is only about one-twentieth as
effective as the methane molecule in absorbing infrared radiation.

Increases in animal populations are contributing to the increase in
atmospheric methane. Figure 12[31] shows recent increases in several
different classes of livestock. If humans continue to have an
appetite for meat, the upward trend in animal production and
resulting production of methane will likely continue. A particular
situation to watch is the development and possible dietary changes in
China. If we examine the eating habits of Japan, South Korea, and
other Asian nations that have developed very rapidly, one of the
significant changes that occurs during economic development is that
people's eating habits change from eating primarily grains, mainly
rice in these cases, to substantial increases in meat. The big
question on the horizon right now is what's going to happen in China?
China has an enormous population and it is developing extremely
rapidly. If China follows the pattern of other Asian nations, the
demand for meat will increase dramatically. I have estimated[32] that
if every person in China at a MacDonald's Quarter Pounder every 10
days, raising the beef to meet this demand would consume all the corn
grown in Iowa.

Sinks for methane include atmospheric removal of about 470 units,
removal by soil of about 30 teragrams, leaving an atmospheric
increase of about 32 units. By taking subtotals of natural and
anthropogenic sources, it is easy to see that humans contribute at
least as much as natural sources and possible much more. Such numbers
as these are consistent with the observed build-up of methane in the
atmosphere in the last 200 years. (See the sources and sinks table
above[33].)

Peter/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.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 tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net Sat Jun 10 10:46:43 2000
From: tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net (tvoivozhd)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CO2 enrichment of trees
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000609130956.008838f0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3942463E.E526B38F@roanoke.infi.net>

>
> For now -- here is a subject of interest --
>
> Basically -- as CO2 concentrations go up -- trees grow faster to lock it.
>
> As you will see when I summarize -- this means that power production from
> biomass -- specifically tree farming -- will be a more viable alternative
> as time marches on.
>
> Peter in Belize

Tvoivozhd---with one caveat. In both North and South America it is easier and
cheaper to buy politicians than land.
Corporations like to pay quick dividends---this generally precludes planting
trees for harvest fifteen to forty years
down the road, and accounts for their political brib--er-h investment in
campaign contributionss which have been so
rewarding in gaining them subsidized access to national forests in which they
have zero investment and monopolize
the revenue.

The history of small landowners producing commodities is not encouraging. In
the 1920-1940 era, farmers received a little over thirty percent of the retail
price of their commodities. Today it is five percent or less, the balance
having been diverted to dividends of giant processors and retailers.

Do not assume that the apparent encouraging economics of .biomass production
for large-scale power production
have any real relevance to small-farm profitability. If probability is
factored in, the profit in small farm biomass will be in home production of
fuel for cooking, heating or cooling, and operating engines to power vehicles,
other machines, and to produce farm-required electricity.

From snkm at btl.net Sat Jun 10 10:51:09 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Methane II
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000610084507.008e2e30@wgs1.btl.net>

Also this --

From snkm at btl.net Sat Jun 10 16:15:53 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: How does a TT work
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000610113237.00901100@wgs1.btl.net>

At 03:51 PM 6/7/00 -0300, you wrote:
>Could someone please elaborate on the reasons why the TT concept is
>inherently better than others?
>
>Thanks very much

There are no "reasons". It is a totally unproven concept to date.

Why people "like" the concept is due to it's simple construction. The
potential promise of a cheap engine that should be very reliable.

The problem lies in it's efficiency. Which all tests to date have shown to
be terrible!

The promoters of TT's keep saying "wait". They have yet to build the right
"model". To date -- we are all still waiting.

From snkm at btl.net Sat Jun 10 16:15:55 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Soil Sequestering of Carbon by tree farming
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000610141402.00902100@wgs1.btl.net>

At 10:13 AM 6/9/00 -0300, you wrote:
>The problem with the Paulownia scenario is that the Land Owner only gets
>about $6 per cubic meter, and "everyboby else" gets the remainder of the
>$450 or $500.
>
>Am I missing something here?

Hi Kevin Chisholm;

A mature forests is a carbon sink. Is in net balance as far as locking new
carbon and possibly a negative factor in global warming as their steady
decomposition results in methane being produced.

Termites are one of the main sources of methane!! Your old, mature, forest
is termite heaven!

The run off from these mature forests -- with all that decaying amterials
-- collect in swamps that are also at the top of the list for methane
production.

Plus you have a a steady methane production from decomposition and decay.
Much of that being bacteria produced. Maybe not in your forest in Eastern
canada -- but certainly in our tropical rainforests here in Belize.

The solution is to cut these mature and over mature stands of timber down.
Effectivly locking 50% plus of what is cut into building and funiture
material. Relocking that carbon for a further 50 to 200 years.

The rest of the wood, or the "wastes" can either be burned to produce
energy, replacing energy produced by fossil fuels -- a very great saving in
global warming -- or "reformed" into liquid fuels ot be used to replace
fossil fuels for transportaion -- etc.

As the land is cleared in this manner -- it will be replanted using a fast
growing species of tree -- such as Paulonwnia. Not a 40 year cycle -- but a
6 to 9 year one.

That is in 6 to 9 years it is harvested and used for building material and
energy.

If there is a glut of building and furniture material due to this practice --

"In the circumstances, carbon-sequestering wood is
continuously 'stored' as long as it keeps on growing in plantations.
Moreover there is the prospect that emergent technologies could
enable plantation trees to be chipped for pyrolytic power generation;
if the exercise were conducted on a self-sustaining basis, this would
mean that tree material burned would be immediately replaced by still
more trees planted, thus opening the way for 'energy plantations' to
sequester large quantities of carbon permanently (Ogden and Williams,
1989)."

This list is about that area of "energing technologies".

The advantages to tree farming are great!

First -- it greatly reduces the methane problem.

Secondingly -- and most important of all -- locking carbon in the ground is
so much more longer term than "sinking" it in standing timber. And new
growth does that best!

"Some of the carbon removed from the atmosphere by plants becomes
incorporated into structural elements of plants (e.g., roots, stems,
foliage). The rest is consumed by the plant's metabolic processes
(respiration), and the carbon is returned to the atmosphere as carbon
dioxide. Likewise, when all or part of the plant dies and decays,
much of the carbon is released to the atmosphere, and a portion is
retained as soil organic matter."

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

Forestry, climate change and carbon in soils
J. Liski

The soil of forests contains more carbon than the vegetation. For
this reason, even small changes in the soil C storage significantly
affect the C balance of forests.

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

The best way to increase soil carbon is by short cycle tree farming. A
percentage of carbon locking from each cycle stays well sequestered as
soil carbon. While the surface vegetation is harvested and bacically
"rotated" - the soil segment stays "locked".

I believe that this represents at least -- if not better -- 5% of the
carbon absorbed by tree growth each cycle. It is a conversion from
temporary carbon "sinking" to permenant carbon sequestering.

What is in it for the grower??

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

"Sandor, recently named senior adviser for Price Waterhouse Cooper on
greenhouse gas trading, is helping design a carbon trading system to
buy and sell carbon. Farmers who store carbon would sell their carbon
sequestering abilities to industries or companies not in compliance
with carbon dioxide standards."

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

Carbon "credit" sales!!

I am doing an indepth in that area now. But suffice to say at this tine
that they expect an extra credit of from $200 to $500 US per ton per year
for tree farmers.

True -- this works best in the tropics.

But consider -- here in Belize we have over 4000 sq. miles tied up as park
lands. The purpose being to keep then as over mature rain forests. For the
"Bambi" crowd. Finaced by numerous American Power Producing Corporations to
get a tax credit for sinking carbon.

If we could slowly developing these areas into tree farming areas we would
prosper greatly! And do our part for terraforming the earth back to a safe
atmospheric level of Carbon.

So could all other countries in 3rd world tropics.

We are talking "Terraforming" this planet!

They are talking ulitlizing terrific areas of this planet! To be converted
to this style agriculutre in order to stop the global warming cascade. And
it has to be started -- yesterday!

It will be financed by charging a carbon "tax" to all fossil fuel power
plants. For every ton of -- say -- coal they burn they will have to pay for
sequestering a ton of carbon.

To give you just a taste:

"Lal et. al. estimate the long-term nutrient value of an additional
ton of soil organic carbon at $200. A ton of soil organic carbon can
be added in 4-5 years."

"Low-cost systems to measure carbon in the soils are becoming more
feasible. As the market develops, new technologies should emerge to
make this task economically feasible. Lal et. al have provided
estimates of the existing soil organic carbon for the lower 48
states, but improved estimates are needed. The existing base of
carbon needs to be mapped. Only additional tons of carbon that are
added to the baseline should be eligible for the market."

So Kevin -- as well as harvesting 40 cords of pulp wood from your acre of
land -- or one cors per year -- at a value of $100 CA -- or $67 US -- you
can expect another $40 US per acre from selling your carbon credit.

Now -- when I was running a commercial pulp wood cutting operation in the
Eastern Townships of Southern Quebec -- back in 1969 to 1978 -- I was
recieving $40 CA per cord at the mill and paying the land owner $10 CA as
stumpage. 25% of the value.

So -- applying that to the present price of $100 CA per cord -- means $25
CA per acre goes to the grower. That is $16.75 US per acre per year income
to the land owner.

Now -- add that $40 carbon credit per acre per year!!

Now do you see the point!

Peter/Belize

>
>Kevin Chisholm
>
>

From snkm at btl.net Sat Jun 10 17:06:07 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Soil Sequestering of Carbon by tree farming
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000610150421.0090bde0@wgs1.btl.net>

Sorry Folks -- here is the spell checked version --

Hi Kevin Chisholm;

A mature forests is a carbon sink. Is in net balance as far as locking new
carbon and possibly a negative factor in global warming as their steady
decomposition results in methane being produced.

Termites are one of the main sources of methane!! Your old, mature, forest
is termite heaven!

The run off from these mature forests -- with all that decaying materials
-- collect in swamps that are also at the top of the list for methane
production.

Plus you have a steady methane production from decomposition and decay.
Much of that being bacteria produced. Maybe not in your forest in Eastern
canada -- but certainly in our tropical rain forests here in Belize.

The solution is to cut these mature and over mature stands of timber down.
Effectively locking 50% plus of what is cut into building and furniture
material. Re locking that carbon for a further 50 to 200 years.

The rest of the wood, or the "wastes" can either be burned to produce
energy, replacing energy produced by fossil fuels -- a very great saving in
global warming -- or "reformed" into liquid fuels to be used to replace
fossil fuels for transportation -- etc.

As the land is cleared in this manner -- it will be replanted using a fast
growing species of tree -- such as Paulonwnia. Not a 40 year cycle -- but a
6 to 9 year one.

That is in 6 to 9 years it is harvested and used for building material and
energy.

If there is a glut of building and furniture material due to this practice --

This list is about that area of "emerging technologies".

The advantages to tree farming are great!

First -- it greatly reduces the methane problem.

Secondly -- and most important of all -- locking carbon in the ground is so
much more longer term than "sinking" it in standing timber. And new growth
does that best!

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

Forestry, climate change and carbon in soils
J. Liski

The soil of forests contains more carbon than the vegetation. For
this reason, even small changes in the soil C storage significantly
affect the C balance of forests.

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

The best way to increase soil carbon is by short cycle tree farming. A
percentage of carbon locking from each cycle stays well sequestered as
soil carbon. While the surface vegetation is harvested and basically
"rotated" - the soil segment stays "locked".

I believe that this represents at least -- if not better -- 5% of the
carbon absorbed by tree growth each cycle. It is a conversion from
temporary carbon "sinking" to permanent carbon sequestering.

What is in it for the grower??

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

Carbon "credit" sales!!

I am doing an in depth in that area now. But suffice to say at this tine
that they expect an extra credit of from $200 to $500 US per ton per year
for tree farmers.

True -- this works best in the tropics.

But consider -- here in Belize we have over 4000 sq. miles tied up as park
lands. The purpose being to keep then as over mature rain forests. For the
"Bambi" crowd. Financed by numerous American Power Producing Corporations
to get a tax credit for sinking carbon.

If we could slowly developing these areas into tree farming areas we would
prosper greatly! And do our part for terra forming the earth back to a safe
atmospheric level of Carbon.

So could all other countries in 3rd world tropics.

We are talking "terra forming" this planet!

They are talking utilizing terrific areas of this planet! To be converted
to this style agriculture in order to stop the global warming cascade. And
it has to be started -- yesterday!

It will be financed by charging a carbon "tax" to all fossil fuel power
plants. For every ton of -- say -- coal they burn they will have to pay for
sequestering a ton of carbon.

To give you just a taste:

"Lal et. al. estimate the long-term nutrient value of an additional
ton of soil organic carbon at $200. A ton of soil organic carbon can
be added in 4-5 years."

So Kevin -- as well as harvesting 40 cords of pulp wood from your acre of
land -- or one cord per year -- at a value of $100 CA -- or $67 US -- you
can expect another $40 US per acre from selling your carbon credit.

Now -- when I was running a commercial pulp wood cutting operation in the
Eastern Townships of Southern Quebec -- back in 1969 to 1978 -- I was
receiving $40 CA per cord at the mill and paying the land owner $10 CA as
stumpage. 25% of the value.

So -- applying that to the present price of $100 CA per cord -- means $25
CA per acre goes to the grower. That is $16.75 US per acre per year income
to the land owner.

Now -- add that $40 carbon credit per acre per year!!

Now do you see the point!

Peter/Belize

>
>Kevin Chisholm
>
>

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Mon Jun 12 04:31:01 2000
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Plantation forestry
In-Reply-To: <c0.4baa9b4.26710aa9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <NDBBIDEEJLBGAGIDAIODIELJCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

Since everyone is talking plantations and trees the list may be interested
in knowing that a conference was held in Bendigo, Victoria, Australia late
last week to consider the development of a firewood industry based on
plantations to relieve the pressure on the native woodland being harvested
for firewood in the eastern states of Australia.

The figures being given suggest since white settlement a little over 200
years ago 85% of the native forest has been cleared... From the remainder
approximately 6 million tonnes of firewood is extracted each year... more in
fact than the pulp wood industry which has received so much negative
attention.

Now if successful this movement has significant implications for future
bioenergy development in this country since once you begin planning and
planting energy plantations (even if the rationale is firewood) then you
open the door for other energy applications (such as electricity
generation).

One particular eucalypt was singled out for attention (Sugar Gum -
eucalyptus cladocalyx) which by all accounts is another "super tree" being
capable of a whole range of exciting traditional uses whilst having an
energy density second to none (air dry density is 1090 kg/m3). Yields of
100 dry tonnes/ hectare after twelve years in a 600mm rainfall zone are
expected in a coppice managed rotation.

Cheers,
Peter

OOPS
Owner Operated Power Systems
Peter M Davies
"Neikah"
Colinton NSW 2626

02 64 544 009

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On
Behalf Of LINVENT@aol.com
Sent: Friday, 9 June 2000 0:42
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: RE: GAS-L: Tree fertilizing...

Mr. Mark Ludlow
Dr. Tom Reed

Dear Sirs,
Thank you for the positive response on the tree and other biomass
fertility comments I made.
Perhaps one of the most significant impact of the nutritional programs
can be shown at the South American Ludwig project which failed because the
trees did not grow. Over $1 billion was invested in this project and was
scrapped out because of the trees not growing as fast as they were alleged
to
in other environs. This can be modified for the tree to promote rapid
growth
by nutrients and knowing well the rhizosphere in which the root system must
live.
More to home, if the plant nutrition is correct, the plants will produce
more carbohydrates, i.e., sap, which is the heating value component of the
tree and less mineral content which is inert as ash. Besides growing much
faster, the quality of the tree is better, less disease, less management is
required. This represents a significant cost savings. Soil conditions in
the
right positive levels will also result in less erosion.
There is plenty of experience in this field to prove these points.
Sincerely,

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Mon Jun 12 04:31:06 2000
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tree Farming, paulownia etc..
In-Reply-To: <39411928.9F4BA8AD@fox.nstn.ca>
Message-ID: <NDBBIDEEJLBGAGIDAIODGELJCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

Interesting commentary on trees, carbon and ant farts...

All the carbon sequestration schemes so far promoted here (in OZ) allow the
developers to grow their trees and chop them down as well... hardly what
Kyoto intended and certainly not approved at this stage under the rules
being developed.

Now speed of growth is not critical, carbon storage and displacement is. So
if you are growing your trees as a biomass energy crop the CO2 sequestered
is greenhouse neutral (except the fossil fuels used for planting, harvesting
etc) but where they are used as a fuel displacing coal etc then a they
become greenhouse positive, unless of course you chop down an existing
forest to plant your trees... Peter S take note.

In fact some people suggest the total soil carbon (not just the trees on
top) is the critical issue and clear felling releases large quantities,
quite apart from biodiversity decline, soil, water management and other
issues.

Paulownia requires high level silvicultural management and a very narrow
range of site conditions for the growth rates claimed, the majority of
plantations will not achieve anywhere near the figures being thrown up.

If you want to resolve all the issues (or at least go close) learn how to
manage existing forest sustainably, you may be surprised at the increased
growth rates that can be achieved just with simple silvicultural management.

Cheers,
Peter

OOPS
Owner Operated Power Systems
Peter M Davies
"Neikah"
Colinton NSW 2626

02 64 544 009

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On
Behalf Of Kevin Chisholm
Sent: Saturday, 10 June 2000 2:20
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Tree Farming

From element33 at peconic.net Wed Jun 14 23:56:20 2000
From: element33 at peconic.net (Michael Brosse)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: market study
Message-ID: <200006150356.UAA01927@secure.crest.net>

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:16:30 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0238_01BFD64E.311C61C0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0238_01BFD64E.311C61C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sorry for any duplication.

Just saw a notice about a market study about gasification made
by Juniper (UK).

www.juniper.co.uk/gasification

Michael Brosse
President Element 33 inc.
3 Pheasant Lane East Hampton,NY 11937 USA
Tel: +1 (631) 329 0975 fax: +1 (631) 329 0343
email: element33@peconic.net
website under construction

------=_NextPart_000_0238_01BFD64E.311C61C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
Sorry for any duplication.

Just saw a notice about a market study about gasification = made
by Juniper (UK).

<3d.htm>www.juniper.co.uk/gasifica= <3d.htm>tion

Michael Brosse
President Element 33 = inc.
3=20 Pheasant Lane East Hampton,NY 11937 = USA
Tel: +1=20 (631) 329 0975 fax: +1 (631) = 329=20 0343
email: <3d.htm>element33@peconic<3d.htm>.net
websit= e under=20 construction

------=_NextPart_000_0238_01BFD64E.311C61C0--

From pfortuno at skyinet.net Fri Jun 16 00:40:52 2000
From: pfortuno at skyinet.net (Pio Fortuno)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: New Gasification Plant in the Philippines
Message-ID: <200006160440.VAA26941@secure.crest.net>

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

June 16, 2000

Gentlemen:

I represent a group based in Manila, Philippines who is interested in
setting up gasification facilities in the country.

The waste disposal system in the Philippines leaves much to be desired. In
Metro Manila alone, there is a daily accumulation of roughly 6,000 tons of
municipal waste being delivered to various sanitary landfills. These
landfills are mere stop-gap measures and do not employ any comprehensive
plans for the long-term. In the meantime, the communities located in the
vicinity of these landfills are at risk from the toxins and pollutants
affecting them.

As we understand it, gasification will provide a more efficient and
environment-friendly solution to the problem. We are, however, in the dark
as to its economics. It will be greatly appreciated if we can have rule of
thumb figures as to the cost of putting up a plant that can handle 500 to
1,000 tons of garbage a day. How much electricity can be generated from
these plants? What are the other valuable products?

We understand that a number of gasification plants for municipal waste are
now being installed in the United States and Japan.

If we feel that the economics of a gasification plant is viable relative to
our local conditions, then we will organize a local corporation that will
initiate the packaging of the first such plant in the Philippines. We will
definitely need strategic support both in technology and finance.

We would greatly appreciate any assistance you can extend us in this
matter. You may contact us via this email address or at:

PIO C. FORTUNO & ASSOCIATES
Suite 304 Solmac Building,
84 Dapitan corner Banaue Streets,
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Telephone: (632) 7437606
Facsimile: (632) 7437605

Thank you very much and we look forward to hearing from you.

Very truly yours,

Pio C. Fortuno
President

From ges at iies.es Fri Jun 16 02:15:59 2000
From: ges at iies.es (BESEL, S.A.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: New Gasification Plant in the Philippines
In-Reply-To: <200006160440.VAA26941@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <001201bfd75a$afb582c0$d7cd3bd4@arrakis.es>

Dear Sir,

I guess there are some companies in Finland and Sweden which has developed
successful projects in the field of Municipal Solid Waste gasification. I
have got information on almost all the questions you put. Nevertheless, I'm
sure my data are very updated. Perhaps you could get it on the following
sites/addresses:
www.carbona.fi
juha_palonen@fwc.com
anders.hallgren.tps.se (quote my name)
www.tekes.fi
Marjatta.Aarniala@tekes.fi (quote my name)

Best regards
Guillermo J. Escobar
tel. +34914516910
fax +34914429309
Ríos Rosas, 32
E-28003- Madrid
España
----- Original Message -----
From: Pio Fortuno <pfortuno@skyinet.net>
To: <undisclosed-recipients:;>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 6:40 AM
Subject: GAS-L: New Gasification Plant in the Philippines

> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> June 16, 2000
>
>
> Gentlemen:
>
> I represent a group based in Manila, Philippines who is interested in
> setting up gasification facilities in the country.
>
> The waste disposal system in the Philippines leaves much to be desired. In
> Metro Manila alone, there is a daily accumulation of roughly 6,000 tons of
> municipal waste being delivered to various sanitary landfills. These
> landfills are mere stop-gap measures and do not employ any comprehensive
> plans for the long-term. In the meantime, the communities located in the
> vicinity of these landfills are at risk from the toxins and pollutants
> affecting them.
>
> As we understand it, gasification will provide a more efficient and
> environment-friendly solution to the problem. We are, however, in the dark
> as to its economics. It will be greatly appreciated if we can have rule
of
> thumb figures as to the cost of putting up a plant that can handle 500 to
> 1,000 tons of garbage a day. How much electricity can be generated from
> these plants? What are the other valuable products?
>
> We understand that a number of gasification plants for municipal waste are
> now being installed in the United States and Japan.
>
> If we feel that the economics of a gasification plant is viable relative
to
> our local conditions, then we will organize a local corporation that will
> initiate the packaging of the first such plant in the Philippines. We will
> definitely need strategic support both in technology and finance.
>
> We would greatly appreciate any assistance you can extend us in this
> matter. You may contact us via this email address or at:
>
> PIO C. FORTUNO & ASSOCIATES
> Suite 304 Solmac Building,
> 84 Dapitan corner Banaue Streets,
> Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
> Telephone: (632) 7437606
> Facsimile: (632) 7437605
>
> Thank you very much and we look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Very truly yours,
>
>
> Pio C. Fortuno
> President
>
> 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 jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com Sun Jun 18 11:08:11 2000
From: jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com (Jane Hughes Turnbull)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: New Gasification Plant in the Philippines
In-Reply-To: <001201bfd75a$afb582c0$d7cd3bd4@arrakis.es>
Message-ID: <B571779A.652%jaturnbu@ix.netcom.com>

on 6/15/00 11:18 PM, BESEL, S.A. at ges@iies.es wrote:

In the current issue of Power magazine, there is mention of an agreement
between Nishi-Nippon Environmental Energy Company of Fukuka, Japan and
Energy Answers of Albany, New York to bring its processed refuse fuel
technology to Japan. This is the first non-Japanese company to be certified
for deployment in waste to energy management by the Japanese Waste Research
Foundation.

At present about 1500 small waste incinerators cannot meet the new
environmental standards in Japan; however, it appears that this U.S.
technology will do so very effectively.

Jane Turnbull

> Dear Sir,
>
> I guess there are some companies in Finland and Sweden which has developed
> successful projects in the field of Municipal Solid Waste gasification. I
> have got information on almost all the questions you put. Nevertheless, I'm
> sure my data are very updated. Perhaps you could get it on the following
> sites/addresses:
> www.carbona.fi
> juha_palonen@fwc.com
> anders.hallgren.tps.se (quote my name)
> www.tekes.fi
> Marjatta.Aarniala@tekes.fi (quote my name)
>
> Best regards
> Guillermo J. Escobar
> tel. +34914516910
> fax +34914429309
> Ríos Rosas, 32
> E-28003- Madrid
> España
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Pio Fortuno <pfortuno@skyinet.net>
> To: <undisclosed-recipients:;>
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 6:40 AM
> Subject: GAS-L: New Gasification Plant in the Philippines
>
>
>> Mime-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> June 16, 2000
>>
>>
>> Gentlemen:
>>
>> I represent a group based in Manila, Philippines who is interested in
>> setting up gasification facilities in the country.
>>
>> The waste disposal system in the Philippines leaves much to be desired. In
>> Metro Manila alone, there is a daily accumulation of roughly 6,000 tons of
>> municipal waste being delivered to various sanitary landfills. These
>> landfills are mere stop-gap measures and do not employ any comprehensive
>> plans for the long-term. In the meantime, the communities located in the
>> vicinity of these landfills are at risk from the toxins and pollutants
>> affecting them.
>>
>> As we understand it, gasification will provide a more efficient and
>> environment-friendly solution to the problem. We are, however, in the dark
>> as to its economics. It will be greatly appreciated if we can have rule
> of
>> thumb figures as to the cost of putting up a plant that can handle 500 to
>> 1,000 tons of garbage a day. How much electricity can be generated from
>> these plants? What are the other valuable products?
>>
>> We understand that a number of gasification plants for municipal waste are
>> now being installed in the United States and Japan.
>>
>> If we feel that the economics of a gasification plant is viable relative
> to
>> our local conditions, then we will organize a local corporation that will
>> initiate the packaging of the first such plant in the Philippines. We will
>> definitely need strategic support both in technology and finance.
>>
>> We would greatly appreciate any assistance you can extend us in this
>> matter. You may contact us via this email address or at:
>>
>> PIO C. FORTUNO & ASSOCIATES
>> Suite 304 Solmac Building,
>> 84 Dapitan corner Banaue Streets,
>> Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
>> Telephone: (632) 7437606
>> Facsimile: (632) 7437605
>>
>> Thank you very much and we look forward to hearing from you.
>>
>> Very truly yours,
>>
>>
>> Pio C. Fortuno
>> President
>>
>> 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

At present about 1500 small waste incinerators cannot meet the new
enviromental standards in Japan; however, it appears that this U.S.
technology will do so very effectively.

Jane Turnbull

From ashok_t at forindia.com Wed Jun 21 00:32:15 2000
From: ashok_t at forindia.com (Ashok Toshniwal)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: New Gasification Plant in the Philippines
Message-ID: <200006210432.VAA08966@secure.crest.net>

Dear Mr.Fortuno,

Lot of work regarding gasification is being done in India. If interested I can get some details in this regard. Please let me have your e-mail address.
My address is ashok_t@forindia.com

Regards
Ashok Toshniwal, Bangalore, India

On Friday, June 16, 2000 at 04:18:22 AM,
gasification@crest.org wrote:

> Dear Sir,
>
> I guess there are some companies in Finland and Sweden which has developed
> successful projects in the field of Municipal Solid Waste gasification. I
> have got information on almost all the questions you put. Nevertheless, I'm
> sure my data are very updated. Perhaps you could get it on the following
> sites/addresses:
> www.carbona.fi
> juha_palonen@fwc.com
> anders.hallgren.tps.se (quote my name)
> www.tekes.fi
> Marjatta.Aarniala@tekes.fi (quote my name)
>
> Best regards
> Guillermo J. Escobar
> tel. +34914516910
> fax +34914429309
> Ríos Rosas, 32
> E-28003- Madrid
> España
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Pio Fortuno <pfortuno@skyinet.net>
> To: <undisclosed-recipients:;>
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 6:40 AM
> Subject: GAS-L: New Gasification Plant in the Philippines
>
>
> > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > June 16, 2000
> >
> >
> > Gentlemen:
> >
> > I represent a group based in Manila, Philippines who is interested in
> > setting up gasification facilities in the country.
> >
> > The waste disposal system in the Philippines leaves much to be desired. In
> > Metro Manila alone, there is a daily accumulation of roughly 6,000 tons of
> > municipal waste being delivered to various sanitary landfills. These
> > landfills are mere stop-gap measures and do not employ any comprehensive
> > plans for the long-term. In the meantime, the communities located in the
> > vicinity of these landfills are at risk from the toxins and pollutants
> > affecting them.
> >
> > As we understand it, gasification will provide a more efficient and
> > environment-friendly solution to the problem. We are, however, in the dark
> > as to its economics. It will be greatly appreciated if we can have rule
> of
> > thumb figures as to the cost of putting up a plant that can handle 500 to
> > 1,000 tons of garbage a day. How much electricity can be generated from
> > these plants? What are the other valuable products?
> >
> > We understand that a number of gasification plants for municipal waste are
> > now being installed in the United States and Japan.
> >
> > If we feel that the economics of a gasification plant is viable relative
> to
> > our local conditions, then we will organize a local corporation that will
> > initiate the packaging of the first such plant in the Philippines. We will
> > definitely need strategic support both in technology and finance.
> >
> > We would greatly appreciate any assistance you can extend us in this
> > matter. You may contact us via this email address or at:
> >
> > PIO C. FORTUNO & ASSOCIATES
> > Suite 304 Solmac Building,
> > 84 Dapitan corner Banaue Streets,
> > Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
> > Telephone: (632) 7437606
> > Facsimile: (632) 7437605
> >
> > Thank you very much and we look forward to hearing from you.
> >
> > Very truly yours,
> >
> >
> > Pio C. Fortuno
> > President
> >
> > 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
>

ashok_t
e-mail: ashok_t@forindia.com

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

Feed Your Greed !!!
Get your 10MB Free space only at http://www.forindia.com NOW!

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

From snkm at btl.net Sat Jun 24 18:34:03 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: New Gasification Plant in the Philippines
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000624162422.009264a0@wgs1.btl.net>

>At present about 1500 small waste incinerators cannot meet the new
>environmental standards in Japan; however, it appears that this U.S.
>technology will do so very effectively.

Hi -- take at look at this Canadian Technology -- does it even better --

http://www.valueatlantic.com/kearns/

Even PCB's and other toxic wastes. Plus no sorting.

Unfortunately -- it is not gasification.

But then it works -- and is much more economic.

Peter Singfield
COROGEN
Executive Director
Xaibe Village
Corozal District
Belize, Central America
Tel 501-4-35213
E-mail: snkm@btl.net

At 08:05 AM 6/18/00 -0700, you wrote:
>on 6/15/00 11:18 PM, BESEL, S.A. at ges@iies.es wrote:
>
>In the current issue of Power magazine, there is mention of an agreement
>between Nishi-Nippon Environmental Energy Company of Fukuka, Japan and
>Energy Answers of Albany, New York to bring its processed refuse fuel
>technology to Japan. This is the first non-Japanese company to be certified
>for deployment in waste to energy management by the Japanese Waste Research
>Foundation.
>
>At present about 1500 small waste incinerators cannot meet the new
>environmental standards in Japan; however, it appears that this U.S.
>technology will do so very effectively.
>
>Jane Turnbull
>
>> Dear Sir,
>>
>> I guess there are some companies in Finland and Sweden which has developed
>> successful projects in the field of Municipal Solid Waste gasification. I
>> have got information on almost all the questions you put. Nevertheless, I'm
>> sure my data are very updated. Perhaps you could get it on the following
>> sites/addresses:
>> www.carbona.fi
>> juha_palonen@fwc.com
>> anders.hallgren.tps.se (quote my name)
>> www.tekes.fi
>> Marjatta.Aarniala@tekes.fi (quote my name)
>>
>> Best regards
>> Guillermo J. Escobar
>> tel. +34914516910
>> fax +34914429309
>> Ríos Rosas, 32
>> E-28003- Madrid
>> España
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Pio Fortuno <pfortuno@skyinet.net>
>> To: <undisclosed-recipients:;>
>> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 6:40 AM
>> Subject: GAS-L: New Gasification Plant in the Philippines
>>
>>
>>> Mime-Version: 1.0
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>>
>>> June 16, 2000
>>>
>>>
>>> Gentlemen:
>>>
>>> I represent a group based in Manila, Philippines who is interested in
>>> setting up gasification facilities in the country.
>>>
>>> The waste disposal system in the Philippines leaves much to be desired. In
>>> Metro Manila alone, there is a daily accumulation of roughly 6,000 tons of
>>> municipal waste being delivered to various sanitary landfills. These
>>> landfills are mere stop-gap measures and do not employ any comprehensive
>>> plans for the long-term. In the meantime, the communities located in the
>>> vicinity of these landfills are at risk from the toxins and pollutants
>>> affecting them.
>>>
>>> As we understand it, gasification will provide a more efficient and
>>> environment-friendly solution to the problem. We are, however, in the dark
>>> as to its economics. It will be greatly appreciated if we can have rule
>> of
>>> thumb figures as to the cost of putting up a plant that can handle 500 to
>>> 1,000 tons of garbage a day. How much electricity can be generated from
>>> these plants? What are the other valuable products?
>>>
>>> We understand that a number of gasification plants for municipal waste are
>>> now being installed in the United States and Japan.
>>>
>>> If we feel that the economics of a gasification plant is viable relative
>> to
>>> our local conditions, then we will organize a local corporation that will
>>> initiate the packaging of the first such plant in the Philippines. We will
>>> definitely need strategic support both in technology and finance.
>>>
>>> We would greatly appreciate any assistance you can extend us in this
>>> matter. You may contact us via this email address or at:
>>>
>>> PIO C. FORTUNO & ASSOCIATES
>>> Suite 304 Solmac Building,
>>> 84 Dapitan corner Banaue Streets,
>>> Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
>>> Telephone: (632) 7437606
>>> Facsimile: (632) 7437605
>>>
>>> Thank you very much and we look forward to hearing from you.
>>>
>>> Very truly yours,
>>>
>>>
>>> Pio C. Fortuno
>>> President
>>>
>>> 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
>
>
>In the current issue of Power magazine, there is mention of an agreement
>between Nishi-Nippon Environmental Energy Company of Fukuka, Japan and
>Energy Answers of Albany, New York to bring its processed refuse fuel
>technology to Japan. This is the first non-Japanese company to be certified
>for deployment in waste to energy management by the Japanese Waste Research
>Foundation.
>
>At present about 1500 small waste incinerators cannot meet the new
>enviromental standards in Japan; however, it appears that this U.S.
>technology will do so very effectively.
>
>Jane Turnbull
>
>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 snkm at btl.net Sat Jun 24 18:39:42 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: New Gasification Plant in the Philippines
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000624163707.00926660@wgs1.btl.net>

>Dear Mr.Fortuno,

>Lot of work regarding gasification is being done in India. If interested I
can get >some details in this regard. Please let me have your e-mail address.
>My address is ashok_t@forindia.com
>
>Regards
>Ashok Toshniwal, Bangalore, India
>
>
>On Friday, June 16, 2000 at 04:18:22 AM,
>gasification@crest.org wrote:

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

Hi Ashok;

I certainly am interested in any information you can supply about the art"
of Gasification in India.

At you convenience -- of course.

Peter Singfield
COROGEN
Executive Director
Xaibe Village
Corozal District
Belize, Central America
Tel 501-4-35213
E-mail: snkm@btl.net

From T.Jayah at devtech.unimelb.edu.au Sun Jun 25 01:52:18 2000
From: T.Jayah at devtech.unimelb.edu.au (Tuan Haris Jayah)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Efficiencies
Message-ID: <200006250552.WAA20159@secure.crest.net>

In-Reply-To: <0.9d5f9da8.258ba061@cs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear all,

Could someone give me the proper definition of the following efficiencies
related to biomass product gas?

1. Cold gas efiiciency
2. Hot gas efficiency
3. Raw gas efiiciency
4. Exergy efiiciency

These gas efficiencies are often sighted in literature without proper
definition.

Regards
Haris Jayah

------------------------------------------------------------
International Technologies Centre (IDTC)
Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
The University of Melbourne
Parkville, Victoria 3010
AUSTRALIA
------------------------------------------------------------

From amsebbit at techmuk.ac.ug Sun Jun 25 02:09:21 2000
From: amsebbit at techmuk.ac.ug (adam sebbit)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Commercial
Message-ID: <200006250609.XAA20506@secure.crest.net>

Dear Sir,

I am interested in commercial = application of gasifier when used for
electric generation.

What are your experiences on the = cleaning the gas?
I need a list of companies that may = have produced gasifiers up to 100 kVA

With regards

Sebbit

----------------------------------------------------------------= --------
Adam.M.Sebbit
Makerere University
Department of Mechanical Engineering
P.O.Box = 7062
Kampala, UGANDA
Tel: 256 -41-541173 / 545029
Cell 077-485803
Fax: 256-41-542377

From arnt at c2i.net Sun Jun 25 14:30:06 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Efficiencies
In-Reply-To: <200006250552.WAA20159@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <39565119.E32BCB01@c2i.net>

Tuan Haris Jayah wrote:
>
> In-Reply-To: <0.9d5f9da8.258ba061@cs.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear all,
>
> Could someone give me the proper definition of the following efficiencies
> related to biomass product gas?
>
> 1. Cold gas efiiciency
> 2. Hot gas efficiency
> 3. Raw gas efiiciency
> 4. Exergy efiiciency

..no. You will want to know the energy going into the system, and the
energy coming out of it, and in many cases, in and out of the
components.

..consider my setup: a 35 kWe genset at say, 33% electric efficiency is
fed cold gas from a thermochemical gasifier.

..so, what else happens? gas energy incoming
-> 35kWe/.33 = 106kW(cold gas) = genset fuel

..that gas was hot, say 1000 centigrades, or ~700K
-> (1300J/kgK*.9kg/stdm3*34stdm3*700K)/3.6MJ/kWh = 7.7kW(gas cooling)
-> 7.7+106= 113.7 kW(hot gas)

..so we have 113 kW of hot gas coming out of that gasifier.
How much is infired? Say your wood is dried to 20%, and yields
13.5MJ/kg = 3.75kWh/kg.
And that we dump in 35 kg of this wood per hour.
-> 35kg/h*3.75kWh/kg=131.25kW(infired fuel)

..so imho, our overall electric efficiency becomes:
-> 35kWe/131.25kW(infired)= 27%

..and, our gasifier efficiency becomes:
-> 113.7kW(hot gas)/131.25kW(infired)= 87%

..this appearant heat loss is used to fuel energy conversion from solid
wood to the gases CO and H2, remainder is lost heating fuel and air, and
thru heat radiation.

..and, our gasifier+gas-treatment efficiency becomes:
-> 106kW(cold gas)/131.25kW(infired)= 81%

..there is also thermal efficiency: heat in the gensets jacket coolant
and exhaust gas, and fuel gas cooling, comes from the infired fuel:
-> 106kW(hot gas)+7.7kW(gas cooling)-35kWe= 78.7kW(thermal)

..good industrial heat exchangers lose about 30% of the heat.
-> .7*78.7kW(thermal)/131.25kW(infired)= 42% thermal efficiency

..so adding these "saleable" efficiencies gives us:
"co-generation efficiency" -> 27% + 42% = 69% ;-)

..in WWII, Swedish gasifiers by Källe recycled 18% of the exhaust gases
gaining 25% more mileage on the same fuel, of if you like, 25% more work
out of the infired fuel.
Which is black magic. Technology is replacing 25% of that fuel, with
heat energy.
And, our gasifier efficiency remains:
-> 113.7kW(hot gas)/131.25kW(infired)= 87%
And our fuelbased gasifier efficiency becomes:
-> 113.7kW(hot gas)/98.4kW(infired fuel)= 115.6%. ;-)

..so imsho, our fuelbased electric efficiency becomes:
-> 35kWe/98.4kW(infired fuel)= 35.5%, which, uhmm, beats genset
efficiency ;-)

> These gas efficiencies are often sighted in literature without proper
> definition.

..amen!

> Regards
> Haris Jayah

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Jun 26 09:38:50 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Commercial
Message-ID: <4a.748c689.2688b6c6@cs.com>

Dear Adam:

See our websites for power generation, gasification and woodgas stoves:

www.gocpc.com

www.woodgas.com

Yours truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 6/25/00 12:11:21 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
amsebbit@techmuk.ac.ug writes:

<< Dear Sir,

I am interested in commercial application of gasifier when used for electric
generation.

What are your experiences on the cleaning the gas?
I need a list of companies that may have produced gasifiers up to 100 kVA

With regards

Sebbit

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam.M.Sebbit
Makerere University
Department of Mechanical Engineering
P.O.Box 7062
Kampala, UGANDA
Tel: 256 -41-541173 / 545029
Cell 077-485803
Fax: 256-41-542377
>>
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 varolan at metu.edu.tr Mon Jun 26 16:51:17 2000
From: varolan at metu.edu.tr (NIMET VAROLAN)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Methans from Solubilized Lignite
Message-ID: <200006262051.NAA19600@secure.crest.net>

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:46:29 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01BFDFB7.FC51ED20"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BFDFB7.FC51ED20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-9"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear sir,
=20
I'm a graduate student at Middle East Technical University in Turkey.I'm =
studying on the methane production from solubilized lignite.I have some =
problems in my experiments. I hope someone would be able to help direct =
me to some information or people that would be interested in speaking =
with me about gasification.If you can help me I would be very pleased.

I'm looking forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Nimet VAROLAN
Middle East Technical University
Environmental Engineering Department

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BFDFB7.FC51ED20
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-9"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

I'm a graduate student at = Middle East=20 Technical University in
Turkey.I'm studying on the methane production = from=20 solubilized
lignite.I have some problems in my experiments. I = hope=20 someone would
be able to help direct me to some information or people = that would=20 be
interested in speaking with me about gasification.If you can help me = I
would=20 be very pleased.

I'm looking forward to your = response.

Yours sincerely,

Nimet VAROLAN
Middle East Technical = University
Environmental Engineering = Department

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BFDFB7.FC51ED20--

From rdboyt at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 21:13:53 2000
From: rdboyt at yahoo.com (Richard Boyt)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Sustainable Forest Management
Message-ID: <200006270113.SAA28980@secure.crest.net>

To: gasification@crest.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hello Gasification members,

While I have read all submissions to this list
since its beginning, this is my first submission.
Recent entries to the stoves and gasification lists
by Dr. Reed, Birse, Davies, Singfield, Chisholm. and
many others point out the wisdom of substituting
sustainably grown wood energy for that of
non-sustainable fossil fuels.

In addition to their energy potential, trees can
also be cut for lumber, pulped for paper, and be
mechanically and chemically broken down to fill
countless other uses.

Carefully managed forests can be sustainably grown
and harvested and at the same time build and hold
soil,
purify air and water, provide recreation for people,
habitat for wildlife, and even modify local climate by
tempering extremes of wind, temperature and moisture.

For the past 25 years we have been trying to
discover ways to sustainably manage a 720 acre
Missouri ozark forest of uneven-aged mixed oak-hickory
hardwoods. In past years forests in our area were
repeatedly degraded by high-grading harvests, that is,
cut the best and leave the rest. The rest were the
culls that were too poor to have any value and so they
were left to produce seed for the next generations of
trees.

Because of this abusive and non-sustainable
practice the quality of our forests have so declined
that many have now been clearcut and planted in grass.
It takes only a few dozer days to level forests that
took generations to mature. Yet, harvesting our
forests need not result in their decline. In fact, a
carefully marked and executed selective harvest can
actually improve a forest by reducing the proportion
of culls, less desirable species, defective, and
over-mature declining trees. This opens the sky to the
finest and most vigorously promising remaining trees
to grow and to continue to parent future generations.

In harvesting a tree for lumber only about half of
the bulk is used. Unless the tops and limbs are cut
for firewood they are usually left on the forest floor
to
decay and feed termites. In our area firewood doesn't
pay labor for cutting. It brings only about $35 cut,
split, and delivered for a rick or face cord. Chipping
brings even less, Perhaps as fossil fuels become more
expensive in years to come, this now waste wood will
be used to replace a portion of them, but until then,
how many more acres of forest will disappear?

I suggest that today's forests and their many
benefits may be greatly undervalued. The playing field
is far from level. Educating the public of the future
advantages of protecting and expanding forest land
could be a beginning. The principle problem however is
one of economics. Perhaps sustainably managed forests
might justify certain tax advantages. Perhaps lumber
and firewood cut from sustainably managed forests
might bring premium prices. Perhaps very low
forest-impact machines could be designed to
efficiently harvest bulk waste wood to be burned in
industrial furnaces.

Perhaps it is not yet too late to prepare for a
future that threatens to be far less than just a
mirror of the past.

Dick Boyt rdboyt@yahoo.com
20479 Panda
Neosho, MO 64850

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

From enamora at energiaverde.com Fri Jun 30 02:48:36 2000
From: enamora at energiaverde.com (Energia Natural de Mora)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: RV: GAS-L: GASIFICATION PLANT IN OPERATION
Message-ID: <200006300648.XAA10364@secure.crest.net>

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:31:42 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0021_01BFE1F8.45707480"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BFE1F8.45707480
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

----- Mensaje original -----=20
De: Energia Natural de Mora=20
Para: bioenergy@crest.org=20
CC: gasification@crest.org=20
Enviado: jueves 29 de junio de 2000 18:15
Asunto: GAS-L: GASIFICATION PLANT IN OPERATION

INFORMATION:

In the 1st World Conference and Exhibition on Biomass for Energy and =
Industry celebrated in Sevilla (Spain), 5 - 9 June 2000, Company Energia =
Natural de Mora,S.L performed its presentation of a gasification plant =
that has developed and patented the system of gasification ENAMORA. The =
plant wich started its industrial operation in Octuber 1997.=20

For more information : http://www.energiaverde.com

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BFE1F8.45707480
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

----- Mensaje original -----=20
De: <3d.htm>Energia=20 Natural de <3d.htm>Mora
Para: <3d.htm>bioenergy@crest.<3d.htm>org
CC: <3d.htm>gasification@crest.<3d.htm>org
Enviado: jueves 29 de junio de 2000 18:15
Asunto: GAS-L: GASIFICATION PLANT IN OPERATION

INFORMATION:

In the 1st World Conference and Exhibition on = Biomass for=20 Energy and
Industry celebrated in Sevilla (Spain), 5 - 9 June 2000, = Company=20
Energia Natural de Mora,S.L performed its presentation of a=20 gasification
plant that has developed and patented the system of=20 gasification
ENAMORA. The plant wich started its industrial = operation in=20 Octuber 1997.

For more information : <3d.htm>http://www.energiaverde.<3d.htm>com

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BFE1F8.45707480--

--=====================_125078==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

Approved: stubb1e
From: "Energia Natural de Mora" <enamora@energiaverde.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Subject: RV: GAS-L: GASIFICATION PLANT IN OPERATION

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BFE1F8.45707480
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

INFORMATION:

For more information : http://www.energiaverde.com

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BFE1F8.45707480
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

INFORMATION:

For more information : <3d.htm>http://www.energiaverde.com

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BFE1F8.45707480--

--=====================_125078==_.ALT--

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

June 2000 Gasification Archive